# Facebook - Horse shot by livery owner



## rockysmum (16 October 2014)

Just wondered what on earth this is about

Its coming up on a lot of Facebook groups

A large livery yard owner has apparently shot a horse and dumped it in her garden over a small debt

Not going to mention names, but what the hell

Is it true, there are very distressing pics of the dead horse in her garden.


----------



## Illusion100 (16 October 2014)

"Tasha Jo &#666;&#970;&#606;&#8206;York Equestrian


Shocking news for the gg centre at raskelf .. Owner shot a girls horse and dumped it in her garden cause she owed £30 livery !!!!!!!"

Above copied and pasted from a Public post available via FB. No idea whether it is true or not.


----------



## Kaylum (16 October 2014)

It's true she has posted pictures of her horse it was shot and dumped in her garden. She owed £30.


----------



## Elsbells (16 October 2014)

Livery owner must be mentally ill!?


----------



## EstherYoung (16 October 2014)

It looks to be kosher, right down to the sum of money. I'm pretty speechless......


----------



## Chavhorse (16 October 2014)

If it is true that the police are involved then all the naming and shaming and suggestion of vigilante groups will only serve to totally screw up any successful prosecution and make a legal victim out of a possible perpetrator.


----------



## webble (16 October 2014)

Somtimes there are no words


----------



## Lovetoride (16 October 2014)

Firstly, My thoughts are with the poor owner. I hope that yard owner is prosecuted and gets a custodial sentence.


----------



## ribbons (16 October 2014)

Do you mean she literally shot it herself, or arranged for it to be shot and failed to get the body removed. Isn't both illegal?

I understood only a registered person could shoot a horse (whoever owns it) with a specific gun (vet, knacker man, huntsman) 
Even then the person organising the shooting is not allowed to leave the body lying around.


----------



## rockysmum (16 October 2014)

Lovetoride said:



			Firstly, My thoughts are with the poor owner. I hope that yard owner is prosecuted and gets a custodial sentence.
		
Click to expand...

Apparently not, this morning it is being discussed that livery owners have to agree to this before they move onto the yard.  If you owe any money they shoot the horse and deliver it to you.  Apparently it is not the first time it has happened.

First time I have ever seen anything like that actually happen.

Poor poor owner and her kids, just shows you need to check out the place and contract very carefully before using these places


----------



## charlie76 (16 October 2014)

The livery yard owner shot it, took it in a front loader tractor bucket and dumped it over the horses owners hedge in her garden. Unbelievable!


----------



## charlie76 (16 October 2014)

https://m.facebook.com/profile.php?id=154083634707146


----------



## Mariposa (16 October 2014)

Just seen this on Facebook, with a distressing photo too. Can't believe this is true? How can someone shoot a horse over a £30 debt?


----------



## SadKen (16 October 2014)

rockysmum said:



			Apparently not, this morning it is being discussed that livery owners have to agree to this before they move onto the yard.  If you owe any money they shoot the horse and deliver it to you.  Apparently it is not the first time it has has happened.
		
Click to expand...

If that is the case and no prosecution can take place, I think naming, shaming and putting out of business is justified in this case (but not vigilantism, to be clear... No place for that, as people who mean well shouldn't be the ones prosecuted over this). If there had been Facebook publicity last time this had happened, maybe this horse wouldn't have ended up dead.

What a barbaric policy. Poor owner and poor horse.


----------



## Merrymoles (16 October 2014)

Words fail me.


----------



## rockysmum (16 October 2014)

I really wish I had not looked at the threads, I feel sick after seeing the pics.

What is really good to see is the other thread started by people with a spare fields and stables offering help to those who want to get off the yard quickly.  Good how the horsey community help each other


----------



## Custard Cream (16 October 2014)

It's also been mentioned that the horse was on loan. Lets hope the owner knew before this all went viral.


----------



## southerncomfort (16 October 2014)

Not sure if this bit is true, but it was mentioned somewhere that this was an 'RSPCA' yard...?


----------



## Amymay (16 October 2014)

Just awful.


----------



## Custard Cream (16 October 2014)

The RSPCA rent space from the owners that is next to the livery yard.


----------



## southerncomfort (16 October 2014)

Custard Cream said:



			The RSPCA rent space from the owners that is next to the livery yard.
		
Click to expand...

Thanks, couldn't quite understand what they mean't by 'RSPCA' yard.


----------



## Equi (16 October 2014)

Thi sis truely shocking. How long did they owe this measly £30?!?! If that was my horse i would not be a free person for long as i would be in jail for something very bad.


----------



## Goldenstar (16 October 2014)

Custard Cream said:



			It's also been mentioned that the horse was on loan. Lets hope the owner knew before this all went viral.
		
Click to expand...

That's just a really awful thought.


----------



## ljohnsonsj (16 October 2014)

It is the owners of a popular 'fun day out' yard in Thirsk in York, he shot the horse, abused it and dumped it in the owners front garden


----------



## Ladyinred (16 October 2014)

I think we all need to be very careful that we don't prejudice any legal case by a trial by FB or by HHO. All we have so far is a screenshot of someone's phone, hardly a proven fact.


----------



## ljohnsonsj (16 October 2014)

I Have links to lots of pics of the horse in the ladies front garden after it was dumped. Truly awful.


----------



## Merrymoles (16 October 2014)

Ladyinred said:



			I think we all need to be very careful that we don't prejudice any legal case by a trial by FB or by HHO. All we have so far is a screenshot of someone's phone, hardly a proven fact.
		
Click to expand...

Very true. I haven't commented on the Fb page with that in mind. If, and there is always an if, there is truth in this, I would far rather see a successful prosecution which would lead to coverage in traditional media than libellous comments on social media which may hinder justice.

ETA - I am not saying there is any reason I don't believe the story but I do think there should be caution in what is said on forums.


----------



## ljohnsonsj (16 October 2014)

I think that the naming and shaming all over fb and other networks will only end up being a good thing. Nothing will bring that poor ladies horse back, nor will it get rid of the awful image she will have in her head for a long time. By making this place known for what it has done nobody will use it and liveries will all move on. I hope the police/RSPCA really do  shut this place down, but do agree the shaming should be done by higher authorities not just the public


----------



## Wagtail (16 October 2014)

OMG this has made me feel so upset. Is the man a psychopath?


----------



## fburton (16 October 2014)

ljohnsonsj said:



			It is the owners of a popular 'fun day out' yard in Thirsk in York, he shot the horse, abused it and dumped it in the owners front garden
		
Click to expand...

How do you abuse a horse _after_ shooting it? :confused3:


----------



## Carrots&Mints (16 October 2014)

How disgusting!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## ljohnsonsj (16 October 2014)

fburton said:



			How do you abuse a horse _after_ shooting it? :confused3:
		
Click to expand...


Oops, comments wrong way round- Although i read on FB that horse had foot prints ect all over it, so i assume it was stood all over and kicked about to get it in the bucket too


----------



## rockysmum (16 October 2014)

Good news

http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/11538293.Horse_killed_and_dumped_in_garden___2_men_arrested/?ref=rss


----------



## Goldenstar (16 October 2014)

It looks like it was on loan, that's even more appalling .
If this is true ,
I hope they throw every thing they can think of at him .
I hope the owner sues him for her ' loss ' the financial and emotional.
Just terrible on every level.
I hope every single livery leaves today and no body ever goes to anything at this place again while it is in this persons hands .
The RSPCA need to move their horses elsewhere and terminate their contract as soon as they can.


----------



## ester (16 October 2014)

Why on earth would anyone move to a livery with that sort of clause???!!!!


----------



## Mananzwa (16 October 2014)

It cannot possibly be legal to shoot a horse over a debt. You cannot seize goods without a court order. Removing it from the yard and taking it to her house alive I'll accept - but for £30.00??????


----------



## ljohnsonsj (16 October 2014)

The man is obviously crazy- If he can do this to an innocent animal over £30 i dread to think what else he is capable of :/


----------



## stencilface (16 October 2014)

Wow, this is just despicable.

Can safely say I will never go there again.


----------



## twiggy2 (16 October 2014)

WOW!!


----------



## Carrots&Mints (16 October 2014)

All the farriers have posted that they wont be going there again, I hope everyone moves their horses of there pronto! I know I would and I hope livery yards in the area help accomadate people and horses. The poor girl whos horse it was is getting abit of abuse! I dont condone this abuse one bit, horrible people! I hope the man gets shot himself.


----------



## Carrots&Mints (16 October 2014)

http://horsegossip.proboards.com/thread/191245/gg-centre-raskelf?page=1#scrollTo=1322324


----------



## ester (16 October 2014)

I have now read all the comments, it makes no difference what the girl has/hasn't done. (not sure if becki is the loaner/owner??) That is not the way to go about resolving a dispute!


----------



## 3OldPonies (16 October 2014)

The people that did this are the most despicable sort of scum on the planet.  They ought to be shot themselves.

If I were closer I would be offering a home to anyone needing to leave the place because they need to get out immediately.  

My utmost sympathies to the horse, the person who had loaned the horse and the horse's owner.  At a time the loaner and owner need to be able to grieve they are going to be beset by questions from all over, not just the people (Police and RSPCA) who have to ask questions in order to bring the scumbags to court.


----------



## stencilface (16 October 2014)

We are not that close but could probably offer some temp grass livery short term - but I'm sure there's loads of people closer


----------



## Dubsie (16 October 2014)

I note the arrest is due to criminal damage.  I have a feeling there might be a back story we don't know about.


----------



## rockysmum (16 October 2014)

Dubsie said:



			I note the arrest is due to criminal damage.  I have a feeling there might be a back story we don't know about.
		
Click to expand...

I would think that until it is investigated the only thing they have is dumping the poor creature over the hedge.  Perhaps they damaged the hedge, the other alternative would be fly tipping.  How the horse died will need further investigation I would think


----------



## Pearlsasinger (16 October 2014)

The criminal damage will refer to the horse.  In the eyes of the law it is a 'good', like a car would be.  Unfortunately, I doubt if a custodial sentence can follow a conviction for criminal damage.

The only course of action available to the owner will be to pursue a civil case.

I hope that every-one on the yard manages  to find somewhere safe, very quickly and the RSPCA can find something to charge him with but I doubt the latter, really.


----------



## Merrymoles (16 October 2014)

Who owned the horse? I don't want any names but wondered if it was owned by anyone involved/on the yard and that has been a factor.


----------



## kathantoinette (16 October 2014)

How awful. Crazy people.  So sad for the owners/loaners involved.


----------



## rockysmum (16 October 2014)

Pearlsasinger said:



			The criminal damage will refer to the horse.  In the eyes of the law it is a 'good', like a car would be.  Unfortunately, I doubt if a custodial sentence can follow a conviction for criminal damage.

The only course of action available to the owner will be to pursue a civil case.

I hope that every-one on the yard manages  to find somewhere safe, very quickly and the RSPCA can find something to charge him with but I doubt the latter, really.
		
Click to expand...


Actually it does carry a prison sentence, 10 years 

Criminal Damage - Simple

Date Produced: 1 July 2011
Title: Criminal Damage
Offence: Criminal Damage - simple
Legislation: S1(1) CRIMINAL DAMAGE ACT 1971
Mode of Trial: Either Way. Treated as summary only if less than £5000
Statutory Limitations & Maximum Penalty: Maximum when tried on indictment: 10 years. Maximum when tried summarily: Level 5 fine and/or 6 months. Triable only summarily less than £5,000:
Maximum penalty: Level 4 fine and/or 3 months

Aggravating & Mitigating Factors
Intentional / reckless.
Motivation - revenge or political
Hate Crime
Pre-planned.
Extent of damage.
Damage to a school or other public amenity.
Damage to emergency equipment.
Significant public or private fear caused.


----------



## DW Team (16 October 2014)

Breaking news http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/11538293.Horse_killed_and_dumped_in_garden___2_men_arrested/


----------



## NellRosk (16 October 2014)

Carrots&Mints said:



			All the farriers have posted that they wont be going there again, I hope everyone moves their horses of there pronto! I know I would and I hope livery yards in the area help accomadate people and horses. The poor girl whos horse it was is getting abit of abuse! I dont condone this abuse one bit, horrible people! I hope the man gets shot himself.
		
Click to expand...

I was on the York horsey fb page and there were loads of offers from people offering emergency livery which is lovely.


----------



## Custard Cream (16 October 2014)

Press release: TWO men have been arrested after a horse was killed and dumped in a garden overnight.

North Yorkshire Police and the RSPCA were called to the property in Raskelf, near Easingwold, at about 9.30 last night, after the owner reported the horse she hired had been shot and killed.

The Press understands the horse had been killed and driven to the property in the bucket of a JCB before being dumped in the garden, and local reports suggest it was over a small unpaid debt.

Donna Spencer, from Acomb, was at the scene last night, and said: "The lady only had the horse on loan, she didn't own it.

"He phoned her and threatened her, and said if she didn't pay the money, the horse would be tied up in her garden. I'm just sickened, I can't believe someone has stooped so low to shoot someone's horse over £30. This needs to get out there."

Police have today confirmed a 36-year-old man from Raskelf and a 53-year-old man from York were arrested on suspicion of criminal damage at about 12.30am today, and currently remain in police custody.


----------



## FionaM12 (16 October 2014)

Carrots&Mints said:



			All the farriers have posted that they wont be going there again, I hope everyone moves their horses of there pronto! I know I would and I hope livery yards in the area help accomadate people and horses. The poor girl whos horse it was is getting abit of abuse! I dont condone this abuse one bit, horrible people! I hope the man gets shot himself.
		
Click to expand...

Why would anyone abuse her? :confused3:


----------



## FionaM12 (16 October 2014)

If it's true he's done this before, why on earth was anyone there at all?


----------



## FestiveFuzz (16 October 2014)

FionaM12 said:



			Why would anyone abuse her? :confused3:
		
Click to expand...

According to facebook comments she has a bit of a reputation in the local area for fraud/owing money. Even still that doesn't excuse the fact an innocent horse has lost its life


----------



## ester (16 October 2014)

FionaM12 said:



			Why would anyone abuse her? :confused3:
		
Click to expand...

They have suggested non payment for things etc before so a few 'well she had it coming to her' comments. Obviously don't know the details surrounding that.


----------



## Custard Cream (16 October 2014)

Allegedly he shot and killed 3 gypsy horses whose owner owed him money about 3-4 years ago. Police involved but nothing done.


----------



## NellRosk (16 October 2014)

FionaM12 said:



			If it's true he's done this before, why on earth was anyone there at all?
		
Click to expand...

This is the question I've been asking myself! Unless it wasn't known to many people/ was thought to just be a far-fetched rumour? You know what the horsey world is like for unproven rumours!

eta just seen Custard Cream's post, 4 years ago isn't that long ago so should have still been fresh in people's minds!!


----------



## ester (16 October 2014)

the previous seems mostly to involve possible abandoned gypsy horses so a bit different, and some story about some dogs.


----------



## Goldenstar (16 October 2014)

Well I am all for livery owners standing up to serial non payers but not like this .


----------



## bakewell (16 October 2014)

Go on Daily Mail, put that on your front page instead of the humane dispatch of a broken legged racehorse.


----------



## FionaM12 (16 October 2014)

bakewell said:



			Go on Daily Mail, put that on your front page instead of the humane dispatch of a broken legged racehorse.
		
Click to expand...

Don't hold your breath waiting for the DM to do anything honourable, let alone publish anything true.


----------



## fburton (16 October 2014)

I hope they throw the book at him! :mad3:


----------



## Equi (16 October 2014)

fburton said:



			How do you abuse a horse _after_ shooting it? :confused3:
		
Click to expand...


From what i gather, the mare was hard to handle and difficult to catch resulting in them finally catching her and dragging her with the jcb to the gate where she was shot. They used a bull gun too, and missed, so she was probably shot several times to actually kill her.


----------



## Amymay (16 October 2014)

equi said:



			From what i gather, the mare was hard to handle and difficult to catch resulting in them finally catching her and dragging her with the jcb to the gate where she was shot. They used a bull gun too, and missed, so she was probably shot several times to actually kill her.
		
Click to expand...

Jesus wept!!!


----------



## dibbin (16 October 2014)

This is horrific. Glad to see there have been arrests but that's no guarantee of successful prosecution. My heart goes out to the owner and loaner ... whatever the back story may or may not be, they and the horse did not deserve this.


----------



## FionaM12 (16 October 2014)

Shouldn't this be a cruelty case as well as a criminal one if those accounts are true? Sounds like she was killed with extreme cruelty. This place should be shut down, and the perpetrators imprisoned.


----------



## stilltrying (16 October 2014)

bakewell said:



			Go on Daily Mail, put that on your front page instead of the humane dispatch of a broken legged racehorse.
		
Click to expand...

I think that was the Mirror....

But anyway, sounds a rather extreme method of debt collecting?!  I've been on a yard before where i had to sign to say that if i didn't pay / owed monies, my horse would be sent to auction and sold.  I signed and agreed to that without issue.


----------



## Equi (16 October 2014)

stilltrying said:



			I think that was the Mirror....

But anyway, sounds a rather extreme method of debt collecting?!  I've been on a yard before where i had to sign to say that if i didn't pay / owed monies, my horse would be sent to auction and sold.  I signed and agreed to that without issue.
		
Click to expand...


Thats pretty standard!  But as far as i can tell it was verbally agreed that he would shoot them, never on paper. 

Its such a shame, cause it looks like an amazing facility - he doesn't deserve such a nice yard.


----------



## 3OldPonies (16 October 2014)

I literally cannot believe what I am reading about what was done to this poor horse.  I would like to revise my earlier comment about what should be done to those b*****ds.  Shooting is too good for them.  

Regardless of any argy bargy over the monies owed, these people are just sick and need to be put away for good.  

But in back of my mind I am wondering why anyone in their right mind would keep their horses with them anyway - non-payment = death of the horse - what on earth are people thinking by signing up to something like that.  Can understand non-payment = auction, that would cover at least some of the costs and would expect something like that in a contract, but to kill a horse for non-payment beggars belief.


----------



## ladyt25 (16 October 2014)

I am shocked and sickened by this and was hoping it was untrue/being mis-reported.  Have used the facilities at this yard many times over the years so am pretty disgusted to find out I have handed money over to someone who feels this is acceptable behaviour.  I hope he does get locked up and for a considerable time as someone of that mentality is dangerous in my opinion. Poor bloody horse. It's the innocent who pay the ultimate price at the end of the day isn't it


----------



## green007 (16 October 2014)

My horse Kit was not hard to catch or handle she was a loving mare who did not deserve to end up like this. I would of collected myself rather then it resulting like this.I would hope people would now stop posting pictures and speculating about my horse. I'm devastated that they decided to carry out there actions without my consent.


----------



## julie111 (16 October 2014)

green007 said:



			My horse Kit was not hard to catch or handle she was a loving mare who did not deserve to end up like this. I would of collected myself rather then it resulting like this.I would hope people would now stop posting pictures and speculating about my horse. I'm devastated that they decided to carry out there actions without my consent.
		
Click to expand...

Bless you, I am so sorry to read what has happened to your poor poor mare! 
I hope the people involved get their comeuppance! (((( hugs)))) to you and RIP beautiful girl!


----------



## ladyt25 (16 October 2014)

green007 said:



			My horse Kit was not hard to catch or handle she was a loving mare who did not deserve to end up like this. I would of collected myself rather then it resulting like this.I would hope people would now stop posting pictures and speculating about my horse. I'm devastated that they decided to carry out there actions without my consent.
		
Click to expand...

I can't even begin to imagine what you are going through. No punishment the culprits will get will be adequate but I do hope at least their punishment is severe.


----------



## Abby-Lou (16 October 2014)

green007 said:



			My horse Kit was not hard to catch or handle she was a loving mare who did not deserve to end up like this. I would of collected myself rather then it resulting like this.I would hope people would now stop posting pictures and speculating about my horse. I'm devastated that they decided to carry out there actions without my consent.
		
Click to expand...

When I read this morning this awful story I was hoping it all wasn't true, I'm very sorry for all this upset for you and your family and I hope the people involved will be dealt with in the appropriate manner


----------



## Landcruiser (16 October 2014)

How on earth does someone with this mentality end up running/owning a big livery yard? He clearly has no love for horses, and no respect for their owners either. What he's done is shocking and unforgivable, as well as being a criminal act. Imagine if the loaner's small children had seen the horse being dumped! What a sorry excuse for a human being that guy sounds. Very nasty man.


----------



## Savkins (16 October 2014)

http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/11538293.Horse_killed_and_dumped_in_garden___2_men_arrested/

Apparently the owner thought he was doing the right thing by killing the animal. Anyone who puts a clause in place that means a horse will be killed over such a small sum of money doesn't deserve to be near any animal IMO.


----------



## Tiddlypom (16 October 2014)

I hope that the CPS will man up and conduct any prosecution for this terrible act. It shouldn't be left to the RSPCA at the charity's expense.


----------



## rockysmum (16 October 2014)

Landcruiser said:



			How on earth does someone with this mentality end up running/owning a big livery yard? He clearly has no love for horses, and no respect for their owners either. What he's done is shocking and unforgivable, as well as being a criminal act. Imagine if the loaner's small children had seen the horse being dumped! What a sorry excuse for a human being that guy sounds. Very nasty man.
		
Click to expand...

Story is he got a lot of funding to diversify, whoever gives out this funding doesn't care whether they are horse lovers or not, its just business.  Apparently he wants to turn it into an industrial complex anyway.


----------



## EmmasMummy (16 October 2014)

Wow, that is low! 

Glad they police are dealing with as surely its the same as the rules with say...cars... Polcie cannot I believe crush a car on HPI can they?  So this is the same...although far more vile and horrific.  

Poor pony.


----------



## tinap (16 October 2014)

From what I can remember it's an old dairy farm that went under in the foot & mouth outbreak & they were given funding to change the use. we've been many times, most recently in August. The owners are elderly (runs it with their son) & tbh the whole place is looking very run down & tired.


----------



## Tristan269 (16 October 2014)

I just do not believe all this has happened. After owning horses for well over 50 years I have never heard of anything like this happening before. The place needs closing down and the persons involved dealt with by the authorities.  If I were the remaining people on there I would get my horse off asap. All my sympathy goes to the owner of the horse, It must be so awfull for you and to think I happened over a measley £30 the mind boggles.


----------



## Liz H (16 October 2014)

Words fail me..and people wonder why I think we should bring back flogging....


----------



## cronkmooar (16 October 2014)

Quite frankly, I am stunned.

When I seen this first thing this morning before there were any replies to the thread, I thought it was bound to be a facebook hoax.  To come back now and read the thread is truly shocking.

To the person that had the horse on loan, it does not matter if you owed money or not - this is very very wrong and I can only imagine how distressing it was to find your horse in such a fashion.

To the owner of the horse - I simply have no words that could help

Repulsive behaviour


----------



## bakewell (16 October 2014)

I am pretty sure whoever is involved here and has a firearms (and associated humane dispatch) certificate is about to have it (rightly) revoked. Doesn't help the immediate atrocity but I am sure the local police (issuing authority) will come down like a tonne of bricks on this front at least.


----------



## blackandwhite (16 October 2014)

It's just beyond belief. I too saw it on my fb this morning and thought it'd be some grossly exaggerated thing. To find out that it's true is horrendous. Even at the extreme of argument, that livery owners owed money should have the right to take action, it's totally unjustifiable. What a truly appalling thing to do.


----------



## Chirmapops (16 October 2014)

SadKen said:



			If that is the case and no prosecution can take place, I think naming, shaming and putting out of business is justified in this case (but not vigilantism, to be clear... No place for that, as people who mean well shouldn't be the ones prosecuted over this). If there had been Facebook publicity last time this had happened, maybe this horse wouldn't have ended up dead.

What a barbaric policy. Poor owner and poor horse.
		
Click to expand...

Absolutely not - the story has been reported on here http://m.yorkpress.co.uk/news/11538...n_with_JCB___2_men_arrested___UPDATED/?ref=mr where it says that two men have been arrested. Any sort of naming and shaming could lead to an accusation of contempt of court, and the collaps of the trial. Be very careful what you post on social media, and here (I'm a former journalist, so I know about the law surrounding these issues, in case you wondered)


----------



## fatpiggy (16 October 2014)

Surely the YO knew that the horse was only on loan to the livery client?  If they didn't then that is really bad management.  They should  have approached its actual owner to pay the debt and left them to sort it out with the person loaning the horse.


----------



## PaulnasherryRocky (16 October 2014)

http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/115...ith_JCB___2_men_arrested___UPDATED/?ref=fbshr


----------



## MotherOfChickens (16 October 2014)

the bloke has to be insane doesnt he? noone could think this was justifiable?  and surely whoever actually did the dead, they must have been acting unlawfully with no permission or proof of ownership from the YO? beggars belief.


----------



## Zoobie (16 October 2014)

Allegedly the centre is where the rspca use to put secret seized horses and the males involved are rspca inspectors


----------



## Chavhorse (16 October 2014)

Zoobie said:



			Allegedly the centre is where the rspca use to put secret seized horses and the males involved are rspca inspectors
		
Click to expand...

Um no they are not RSPCA inspectors.

 The  RSPCA rents land adjacent to the farm.


----------



## Kaida (16 October 2014)

Such a tragedy for the poor horse, loaner and owner. Two people have been arrested and we need to hope that the police can charge them with something which will stick! The person who made the statement about being unable to load the horse safely so decided to humanely dispatch is not one of the two who were arrested. Additionally, surely when you make this decision you would again call the owner or loaner regardless? They say they did not have contact yet then there are reports they called the loaner and stated they would tie up the horse in her garden - so must have been able to contact her somehow! Also for those talking about it being in the contract, I was up in the early hours and read most of the threads before they got pulled, and from what I read it was a verbal thing "if you don't pay I'll shoot your horse" - threat type thing not an actual written contract. £30 is 3 weeks livery there so less than one calendar month - so realistically wasn't even in debt collection time?  Really really really hope some kind of justice can be bought. The poor, poor owner. I saw the pictures last night and was up in the early hours because having seen them I couldn't stop picturing them as one of my lot - disgusting.


----------



## Grumpy Herbert (16 October 2014)

Zoobie said:



			Allegedly the centre is where the rspca use to put secret seized horses and the males involved are rspca inspectors
		
Click to expand...

Glad you put 'allegedly' before this statement.......!

This is a sickening and wicked act by someone who is clearly a violent, unreasonable and unhinged individual.  I hope and pray that any other liveries on the yard have either left, or are making plans to do so as soon as possible.  This type of sicko does not care for one minute what people think of him, or how his actions affect others - the only way to truly hurt him is in his pocket (and I don't mean a good hard kick to the bullocks, which I would be more than happy to oblige with).  Perhaps a non violent, but extremely noisy protest outside his premises would also be in order?  If I lived anywhere near, I would gladly go down there with a placard and the noisiest horn/alarm/siren I could find.


----------



## Kaida (16 October 2014)

People have alleged that if he loses all liveries he will not be upset by this, as they believe his end game plan is to turn the place into an industrial unit.

That said, the business of the RSPCA *apparently* renting for £230 per week per horse (which seems astronomical) would mean he wouldn't need any liveries to keep a profit. It's my personal opinion that the RSPCA need to move or at least be seen to be proactive in this case as they are on site and it would be a perfect example to restore a little bit of faith - or, if nothing is done, destroy that last little bit of faith people have been holding back..! It would be a sad move politically if they are not seen to leave or make a stand.


----------



## Sebastian (16 October 2014)

Very sickening stuff, but the reporting makes no sense, especially as the Yorkshire Post and the York press have slightly different accounts.




			Police and the RSPCA were called to a house in Raskelf near Easingwold after a woman reported that her horse had been shot and killed.

Reports locally suggested the animal had been killed earlier in revenge for a small unpaid debt of £30, driven to the property in the hopper of a JCB, then dumped in the garden.

Two men have been arrested.

The horse, named Kit, was a seven-year-old thoroughbred former racehorse, leased by mother-of-two Beckie Warner.


Ms Warner said: &#8220;I cannot get my head round what has happened, that someone could do something so evil. It&#8217;s unreal - it&#8217;s like something you would read about.&#8221;

Police confirmed a 36-year-old man from Raskelf and a 53-year-old man from York were arrested on suspicion of criminal damage. Both remain in police custody.



A spokesman for North Yorkshire Police said: &#8220;Officers were called to an address in Raskelf at 9.40pm on Wednesday 15 October 2014, after a report of a horse having been shot and left in the property&#8217;s garden.



&#8220;Two men aged 36 and 53 were arrested on suspicion of criminal damage shortly before 12.30am on Thursday 16 October 2014. They both remain in police custody.&#8221;



Speaking to the Yorkshire Post, a spokesman for the GG Centre in Raskelf said the horse had been &#8220;abandoned&#8221; a mile away from the centre and was &#8220;extremely dangerous&#8221;,

He said the horse had &#8220;injured my son yesterday&#8221;.

&#8220;That&#8217;s the guts of it - a danger to the public.&#8221;

Asked about claims of unpaid livery fees, he said: &#8220;*It&#8217;s not on livery here. It has been horseracing. It&#8217;s not unpaid, it has been abandoned and ignored.&#8221;*

He said the horse had not been cared for and no-one had put a rug on it.

It was owned by someone &#8220;who didn&#8217;t fulfil her contract.&#8221;

The spokesman then handed the phone to a woman who said: &#8220;We don&#8217;t shoot horses here.&#8221;

The line was then disconnected.



But on a website forum, a user called Green007 wrote: &#8220;My horse Kit was not hard to catch or handle - she was a loving mare who did not deserve to end up like this. I would have collected myself rather then it resulting like this. I would hope people would now stop posting pictures and speculating about my horse. I&#8217;m devastated that they decided to carry out their actions without my consent.&#8221;



An RSPCA spokeswoman said: &#8220;An RSPCA inspector attended the scene in Raskelf last night and into the early hours of this morning to assist police with their ongoing investigation into the death of a horse.



&#8220;We will continue to offer our assistance where required but the matter is being led by North Yorkshire Police and anyone with information should contact them directly.&#8221;

Today, social media users were aghast at the crime, which has echoes of a scene from the movie The Godfather.

On the Facebook group page of York Equestrian, a user posted a picture of Kit, with the message: &#8220;Rest in peace beautiful horse, you didn&#8217;t deserve to be murdered and abused in such a cruel, callous way.&#8221;

Commenting on Facebook, Sacha Bailey Myers said: &#8220;This breaks my heart. I am so deeply sorry for Becky&#8217;s loss and I sincerely hope justice is given.&#8221;
		
Click to expand...





			TWO men have been arrested after a horse was killed and dumped in a garden overnight.

North Yorkshire Police and the RSPCA were called to the property in The Green, Raskelf, near Easingwold, at about 9.30pm last night, after a woman reported the horse she leased had been shot and killed.

The Press understands the horse had been killed and driven to the property in the bucket of a JCB before being dumped in the garden, and local reports suggest it was over a small unpaid debt.

Karen Colman, an RSPCA inspector, said the arrests had been made at the GG Centre in Raskelf. She said the horse had been killed with a .38 pistol and said there was nothing physically wrong with the animal before it was killed.
Beckie Warner, the woman who leased the horse, said: "I am absolutely devastated. I still cannot think straight. It's like being in a trance. I cannot get my head round what has happened, that someone could do something so evil. It's unreal - it's like something you would read about."

She said the horse, Kit, was a seven-year-old thoroughbred and former racehorse.

She said she had heard a JCB in the street last night and, having just put her seven-year-old and four-year-old daughters to bed, went to put the rubbish out when she saw a shape in the garden.

She said: "I walked over and used the torch on my phone and saw it."

*Edward Harvey Johnson, owner of the GG Centre, said the horse had been left with them in a DIY livery field owned by the centre, at a cost of £10 a week.*

Police have today confirmed a 36-year-old man from Raskelf and a 53-year-old man from York were arrested on suspicion of criminal damage at about 12.30am today, and currently remain in police custody.

Raskelf residents told of their shock today. Dennis Jarvis, who lives on The Green, said he saw police arriving around 11.15pm yesterday.

He said: "There must have been about 12 police vehicles coming and going, vans, cars and officers in plain clothes. I looked down from my window and could see a big shape under some sheets, and I thought it might be a human body."

He said the resident whose garden the horse had been put in had only lived there for a few weeks.

He said the centre had tried frequently to contact Ms Warner and had told her they would tether the horse in her garden if she did not contact them.

He said attempts to get the animal safely into a horse box were unsuccessful so the horse had been put down humanely by a licensed specialist in the field and then transported to Ms Warner's garden.

Mr Johnson said: "We removed the destroyed horse for them to dispose of in the correct or legal manner, as is the responsibility of the owner. We are satisfied it was handled in the best possible way and we fulfilled our obligations for the safety and well-being of the general public.

"In this business you have to make these kind of decisions and they are not always pleasant or easy, but they have to be made. The buck has to stop somewhere."

Donna Spencer, from Acomb, was at the scene last night, and said: "The lady only had the horse on loan, she didn't own it.

"He phoned her and threatened her, and said if she didn't pay the money, the horse would be tied up in her garden. I'm just sickened, I can't believe someone has stooped so low to shoot someone's horse over £30. This needs to get out there."
		
Click to expand...


It does not tie up, but absolutely horrific regardless.


----------



## Grumpy Herbert (16 October 2014)

"Not on livery here......."? "Owned by someone who didn't fulfil her contract......"?  Contradicts himself a bit there.  

Irrespective of how the horse allegedly behaved, or whether or not it was hard to catch, this man had no right to act in the way he did - bad enough that he shot it, but to dump it in someone's garden???  That's just sick.  He clearly thinks he's some kind of hard man/gangster type, when in reality he's just a sick, inhuman and violent waste of fresh air.


----------



## caramac (16 October 2014)

It is a ludicrous thing to state that you shot the horse because it was wild, abandoned and a danger to the public.  Any normal person would phone the RSPCA, WHW, Redwings, the Police, not take matters into their own hands !  And it makes it an even more outrageous and stupid thing to say if he holds horses for the RSPCA as alleged.  If that is the case then the first thing you would do is get on to your contact in that organisation !  Unbelievable, I just hope the law comes down on him like a ton of bricks.  My condolences to all involved with the poor horse concerned


----------



## luckyoldme (16 October 2014)

already lots of speculation on here.
thoughts go out to the owner ..very sorry saga.


----------



## Sebastian (16 October 2014)

luckyoldme said:



			already lots of speculation on here.
thoughts go out to the owner ..very sorry saga.
		
Click to expand...

Are we not allowed to discuss what is in the press? I thought the point of a forum was to discuss things?


----------



## SadKen (16 October 2014)

Chirmapops said:



			Absolutely not - the story has been reported on here http://m.yorkpress.co.uk/news/11538...n_with_JCB___2_men_arrested___UPDATED/?ref=mr where it says that two men have been arrested. Any sort of naming and shaming could lead to an accusation of contempt of court, and the collaps of the trial. Be very careful what you post on social media, and here (I'm a former journalist, so I know about the law surrounding these issues, in case you wondered)
		
Click to expand...

Well, now that we know arrests have been made, I concur with you of course... My post was before we knew this and in response to an earlier post where someone had said that prosecution could not be made because of the contract. I don't think that someone should be able to act in an immoral way even if it's not illegal, but it is being handled by the police so presumably there are grounds to consider it illegal. I never post anything on social media just to be safe anyway!


----------



## MiJodsR2BlinkinTite (16 October 2014)

Ohhhh....... I've just picked this up on FB. 

Truly horrendous.

Even more so considering the horse was on loan; feel SO sorry for the poor owner in all of this who'd have been given the most horrendous shock about their horse.

It could have so easily happened to me: I put my boy on livery three years ago and the stoopid numpty girl that had him didn't pay a penny for his keep (unbeknown to me) for five weeks and then turned around and said oh dear I can't afford the livery.   The YO in this case then expected ME as the owner to stump up the livery bill!!

So why in this situation didn't the YO stop and think and if the livery bill hadn't been paid - and £30 is frankly a piddling amount - WHY FFS didn't the yard contact the owner if they were worried about the money???

OMG, awful, just awful.


----------



## fatpiggy (16 October 2014)

Kaida said:



			People have alleged that if he loses all liveries he will not be upset by this, as they believe his end game plan is to turn the place into an industrial unit.

That said, the business of the RSPCA *apparently* renting for £230 per week per horse (which seems astronomical) would mean he wouldn't need any liveries to keep a profit. It's my personal opinion that the RSPCA need to move or at least be seen to be proactive in this case as they are on site and it would be a perfect example to restore a little bit of faith - or, if nothing is done, destroy that last little bit of faith people have been holding back..! It would be a sad move politically if they are not seen to leave or make a stand.
		
Click to expand...


I remember reading about a particular yard being found to be very lacking in the care of the horses there - turned out to be used by the RSPCA to house horses they had rescued from dodgy owners - poor animals, out of the frying pan into the fire.


----------



## luckyoldme (16 October 2014)

Sebastian said:



			Are we not allowed to discuss what is in the press? I thought the point of a forum was to discuss things?
		
Click to expand...

I was reffering to the line "allegedly the people who shot the horse were rspca officers"


----------



## Illusion100 (16 October 2014)

Poor, poor horse and owner. This is horrific. Who in their right mind settles a £30 debt by taking a horses life. 

And to think this yard was were I planned to move my horse to after he was backed. I shudder at the thought.

We had a new livery arrive today from this place, not surprised the owners moved ASAP. Just horrendous.


----------



## LuandLu24 (16 October 2014)

Where about did this happen? Can someone send me the link please! Rip to the horse and my thoughts are with the owner


----------



## Princess Rosie (16 October 2014)

OMG! I hope these people rot in hell for what they have done! £30 that's only 3 weeks rent and apparently the horse hasn't been there long! Vile individuals and my heart goes out to the owner and the loaner. RIP, you did not deserve the fate that awaited you.


----------



## Moya_999 (16 October 2014)

Poor poor poor horse, owner and sharer and all those involved.  
  Words fail be, barbaric, horrid uncalled for act by a  by a person needing phsycreatic help.


There was a better way of dealing with non payment, padlock on door, court and more.  This was shocking and down right cruel,  I hope they rot in hell.

 I find that strange where a person calls a horse a danger to the public when he is brandishing a gun and shoots in cold blood a defenseless  animal.


----------



## Illusion100 (16 October 2014)

LuandLu24 said:



			Where about did this happen? Can someone send me the link please! Rip to the horse and my thoughts are with the owner 

Click to expand...

http://theggcentre.com/


----------



## LuandLu24 (16 October 2014)

Illusion100 said:



http://theggcentre.com/

Click to expand...

Is this the yard?!!


----------



## Illusion100 (16 October 2014)

LuandLu24 said:



			Is this the yard?!!
		
Click to expand...

Yes.


----------



## LuandLu24 (16 October 2014)

Is there a petition I can sign and share? This is outrageous


----------



## Tiddlypom (16 October 2014)

Illusion100 said:



http://theggcentre.com/

Click to expand...

Not the run down grotty yard I was imagining at all. From the pics, it looks to have pretty decent facilities.


----------



## brucea (16 October 2014)

It will be interesting to see what will come out from all the lies and the inevitable rewriting of the events that will happen.

Shocking really, how callous and awful.


----------



## cronkmooar (16 October 2014)

The terms and conditions part of the site appears to not be working!!!

It is advertised at £10 per week for grass livery but surprisingly the grass livery leaflet is not working either


----------



## Illusion100 (16 October 2014)

Tiddlypom said:



			Not the run down grotty yard I was imagining at all. From the pics, it looks to have pretty decent facilities.
		
Click to expand...

Facilities are excellent and I planned to move my youngster here after backing, not anymore.

Many of the liverys at my yard used to hire the use of facilities (£10 per horse) and have a great day out, not anymore.


----------



## rowan666 (16 October 2014)

Has anyone heard from anyone who actually liveries there?


----------



## HBB (16 October 2014)

green007 said:



			My horse Kit was not hard to catch or handle she was a loving mare who did not deserve to end up like this. I would of collected myself rather then it resulting like this.I would hope people would now stop posting pictures and speculating about my horse. I'm devastated that they decided to carry out there actions without my consent.
		
Click to expand...

I am so sorry for your loss.


----------



## Sebastian (16 October 2014)

luckyoldme said:



			I was reffering to the line "allegedly the people who shot the horse were rspca officers"
		
Click to expand...

Oh, I see


----------



## pony_palace (16 October 2014)

I had a conversation with the centre's owner once and he said that he was very cautious about taking on grass liveries as horse often get dumped and they are left to deal with them. I'm not saying what he did was right but I do believe that the amount owed was more than £30. In the report it says locals 'suggested' it was that amount. Also, the loaner is irresponsible for not paying the amount for the horse. Obviously I don't know the full details so I'm not going to make assumptions and I will continue to use their services, despite this happening. I'm sorry for the owner as it is an awful thing to happen whatever the circumstances, nobody wants to lose their horse


----------



## HBB (16 October 2014)

The owner of the horse has already commented on this thread. She is heart broken and has asked for the speculation to stop :frown3:


----------



## pony_palace (16 October 2014)

HBB said:



			The owner of the horse has already commented on this thread. She is heart broken and has asked for the speculation to stop :frown3:
		
Click to expand...

I apologise, I must have missed her comment


----------



## rowan666 (16 October 2014)

pony_palace said:



			I had a conversation with the centre's owner once and he said that he was very cautious about taking on grass liveries as horse often get dumped and they are left to deal with them. I'm not saying what he did was right but I do believe that the amount owed was more than £30. In the report it says locals 'suggested' it was that amount. Also, the owner is irresponsible for not paying the amount for the horse. Obviously I don't know the full details so I'm not going to make assumptions and I will continue to use their services, despite this happening. I'm sorry for the loaner as it is an awful thing to happen whatever the circumstances, nobody wants to lose their horse 

Click to expand...

How is it the owners fault if she had no idea what was going on! Most loan contracts state that its responsibility of loaner to pay for the keep but im sure in this case owner would have not quibbled over £30 to save her horse being slaughtered! Ive never known any owner to ring loaner and YO every wk jst to check livery has been paid


----------



## cronkmooar (16 October 2014)

pony_palace said:



			I had a conversation with the centre's owner once and he said that he was very cautious about taking on grass liveries as horse often get dumped and they are left to deal with them. I'm not saying what he did was right but I do believe that the amount owed was more than £30. In the report it says locals 'suggested' it was that amount. Also, the owner is irresponsible for not paying the amount for the horse. Obviously I don't know the full details so I'm not going to make assumptions and I will continue to use their services, despite this happening. I'm sorry for the loaner as it is an awful thing to happen whatever the circumstances, nobody wants to lose their horse 

Click to expand...

That was a quick edit ................. had me thrown there for a second, your original post was:

"I had a conversation with the centre's owner once and he said that he was very cautious about taking on grass liveries as horse often get dumped and they are left to deal with them. I'm not saying what he did was right but I do believe that the amount owed was more than £30. In the report it says locals 'suggested' it was that amount. Also, the owner is irresponsible for not paying the amount for the horse. Obviously I don't know the full details so I'm not going to make assumptions and I will continue to use their services, despite this happening." 

I think the amount owed is pretty irrelevant and it would appear the horse was on loan so therefore not the owners debt.

In any event without doubt a horse was shot, driven through a village in the bucket of a JCB and dumped in someone's garden. 

What possible justification is there for that?????

Best not p**s the man off when you are using those facilities now


----------



## Spring Feather (16 October 2014)

It certainly isn't the dump I was expecting to be perfectly honest.  It looks like a very nice place indeed.  Still seems a very strange (and sad) turn of events but it does make you wonder.


----------



## pony_palace (16 October 2014)

sorry, I meant loaner not owner!


----------



## pony_palace (16 October 2014)

If you read it, I said i wasn't saying what he did was right!


----------



## bakewell (16 October 2014)

pony_palace said:



			If you read it, I said i wasn't saying what he did was right!
		
Click to expand...

Then vote with your feet and your wallet as you are in position to do so rather than with internet chat.


----------



## cronkmooar (16 October 2014)

pony_palace said:



			If you read it, I said i wasn't saying what he did was right!
		
Click to expand...

I never said you did.

You did however state that you were not making assumptions and would continue to use their services despite this happening, so I pointed out the undisputable facts to you.

How would you feel if this was your horse?


----------



## Hedgewitch13 (16 October 2014)

No but you are standing by them by continuing to use their 'services'. Disgraceful


----------



## cronkmooar (16 October 2014)

pony_palace said:



			If you read it, I said i wasn't saying what he did was right!
		
Click to expand...

Just watch this one - new member - argumentative and inflammatory posts 

Just saying ........


----------



## Illusion100 (16 October 2014)

LuandLu24 said:



			Is there a petition I can sign and share? This is outrageous 

Click to expand...


http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/boycott-the-gg-center.html


----------



## pony_palace (16 October 2014)

cronkmooar said:



			I never said you did.

You did however state that you were not making assumptions and would continue to use their services despite this happening, so I pointed out the undisputable facts to you.

How would you feel if this was your horse?
		
Click to expand...

Saying I would continue to use their services is not justifying it. I can't explain how awful I would feel if it my horse. I made a mistake by saying owner instead of loaner, I apologise.b


----------



## PollyP99 (16 October 2014)

Hedgewitch13 said:



			No but you are standing by them by continuing to use their 'services'. Disgraceful 

Click to expand...


This^^^

How could anyone impartial take this view, maybe not impartial at all!


----------



## bakewell (16 October 2014)

pony_palace said:



			Saying I would continue to use their services is not justifying it.
		
Click to expand...

Yeah, actually, it is.


----------



## pony_palace (16 October 2014)

cronkmooar said:



			Just watch this one - new member - argumentative and inflammatory posts 

Just saying ........
		
Click to expand...

Just saying but I haven't commented on a lot of threads I felt like commenting on, but on this one I just felt that I wanted to show the two sides to the incident. You chose to react to it.


----------



## Grumpy Herbert (16 October 2014)

The man has admitted that he had the horse shot and dumped in the garden.

My view is that I would under NO circumstances wish to do business with such a person, EVER.  The more the details of this horrific incident are publicised, the less likely it is that any reasonable person will want to do business with him, and hopefully his business will go down the pan, taking him with it.

In my opinion any person who continues to use the yard's facilities or put business his way, in knowledge of the fact he has done such a wicked act,  is effectively condoning this completely outrageous behaviour.


----------



## PollyP99 (16 October 2014)

pony_palace said:



			Just saying but I haven't commented on a lot of threads I felt like commenting on, but on this one I just felt that I wanted to show the two sides to the incident. You chose to react to it.
		
Click to expand...


Two sides of the incident, seriously , an unpaid bill results in a murdered and dumped horse, easy to see that both sides need representing


----------



## Arzada (16 October 2014)

pony_palace said:



			Just saying but I haven't commented on a lot of threads I felt like commenting on, but on this one I just felt that I wanted to show the two sides to the incident. You chose to react to it.
		
Click to expand...

There are three sides to this and the entirely blameless, innocent Kit paid the price.


----------



## ladyt25 (16 October 2014)

I have used the facilities here several times over the years and it's always been pleasant.  Pony clubs often hire the facilities for training and camps I believe as well.  I certainly would not consider giving any money to anywhere where they consider this behaviour acceptable over non-payment of a debt!  Selling a horsr to cover unpaid livery debts is one thing but this?  Just appalling. 
Dread to think what will happen to the poor RSPCA'S equines now as not good to be associated with this.


----------



## georgiegirl (16 October 2014)

Not been there in years but I wouldn't be fooled by the shiny lovely looking internet pictures. 

There are a couple of reasons I don't use the facilities here as it is unfit for what I want to do. Now sadly there is another reason I won't be going. 

There are many aspects of the story we surely don't know about but all I do know is a poor defenceless animal has lost it's life and then been dumped. Shocked and disgusted. 

I now worry what will happen to all the poor RSPCA horses there....


----------



## cronkmooar (16 October 2014)

pony_palace said:



			Just saying but I haven't commented on a lot of threads I felt like commenting on, but on this one I just felt that I wanted to show the two sides to the incident. You chose to react to it.
		
Click to expand...

There has been no reaction by me, as is clear from the above posts.

Your stance, however, is most unsavoury.


----------



## cptrayes (16 October 2014)

I utterly condemn the dumping of the horse in the garden. But before condemning shooting the horse I would want to know how old it was, whether it was in good health, and when the loaner last went to see it. 

I could not condemn any livery owner for having a sick and/or old horse that had been abandoned at his premises put down.

It is very unfortunate that she did not own the horse, but again I would want to know whether the livery owner knew that before making a judgement on his actions.


----------



## Liz H (16 October 2014)

pony_palace said:



			I had a conversation with the centre's owner once and he said that he was very cautious about taking on grass liveries as horse often get dumped and they are left to deal with them. I'm not saying what he did was right but I do believe that the amount owed was more than £30. In the report it says locals 'suggested' it was that amount. Also, the loaner is irresponsible for not paying the amount for the horse. Obviously I don't know the full details so I'm not going to make assumptions and I will continue to use their services, despite this happening. I'm sorry for the owner as it is an awful thing to happen whatever the circumstances, nobody wants to lose their horse 

Click to expand...

I don't give a damn if the place is gold plated and covered in F.......fairy dust, I cannot understand why anyone who cares about animals could carry on lining the pockets of someone who could be so F......Callous, can you not imagine the terror and horror that poor horse went through at the hands of those ********. I don't give a damn if they owed£3000 YOU DONT SHOOT THE HORSE! I would politely ask you to rethink your view of their facilities.....


----------



## pony_palace (16 October 2014)

cptrayes said:



			I utterly condemn the dumping of the horse in the garden. But before condemning shooting the horse I would want to know how old it was, whether it was in good health, and when the loaner last went to see it. 

I could not condemn any livery owner for having a sick and/or old horse that had been abandoned at his premises put down.

It is very unfortunate that she did not own the horse, but again I would want to know whether the livery owner knew that before making a judgement on his actions.
		
Click to expand...

agreed!


----------



## Judgemental (16 October 2014)

Just what is going on in Yorkshire!

This is simply appalling

Does anybody who posts on this Forum know the outfit or indeed keep their horse at the yard?
The following from The Daily Mail

"Equestrian centre shoot dead perfectly healthy seven-year-old ex-racehorse and dump the body on owner's front garden over unpaid bill of £30

    Kit was being kept in a DIY livery field owned by GG Centre in Raskelf, Yorks
    Rider Beckie Warner, who leased the horse, had not paid £10 weekly charge
    She told the centre she planned on paying the fee at the end of the month
    Owner told Ms Warner, 26, that Kit would be tied to a tree if she didn't pay 
    An hour later, Kit was left in her garden, dying of a single gunshot wound
    Owner of GG Centre claims they could not get horse safely into a box
    So it was 'put down humanely' by a licensed specialist in the field, he said
    RSPCA said horse was physically healthy and was killed illegally with pistol
    Police arrested two men - aged 36 and 53 - on suspicion of criminal damage 
    Ms Warner: 'I'm distressed how somebody could put a bullet in its head for just £30"'


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...er-s-garden-unpaid-bill-30.html#ixzz3GKgqDkfy
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


----------



## cronkmooar (16 October 2014)

cptrayes said:



			I utterly condemn the dumping of the horse in the garden. But before condemning shooting the horse I would want to know how old it was, whether it was in good health, and when the loaner last went to see it. 

I could not condemn any livery owner for having a sick and/or old horse that had been abandoned at his premises put down.

It is very unfortunate that she did not own the horse, but again I would want to know whether the livery owner knew that before making a judgement on his actions.
		
Click to expand...

The girl that loaned the horse has answered your questions further back in the thread.  I believe the horse was 7 yrs old and not sick or old.

Please have some respect for her feelings and do not give the poster above any ammunition


----------



## cptrayes (16 October 2014)

Liz H said:



			I don't give a damn if the place is gold plated and covered in F.......fairy dust, I cannot understand why anyone who cares about animals could carry on lining the pockets of someone who could be so F......Callous, can you not imagine the terror and horror that poor horse went through at the hands of those ********. I don't give a damn if they owed£3000 YOU DONT SHOOT THE HORSE! I would politely ask you to rethink your view of their facilities.....
		
Click to expand...

There is no suggestion that the horse suffered in being put down at all. I have had four horses shot. It was quiet, quick, painless and very stress free each time.


----------



## cronkmooar (16 October 2014)

cptrayes said:



			There is no suggestion that the horse suffered in being put down at all. .
		
Click to expand...

Actually, there is


----------



## Grumpy Herbert (16 October 2014)

cptrayes said:



			I utterly condemn the dumping of the horse in the garden. But before condemning shooting the horse I would want to know how old it was, whether it was in good health, and when the loaner last went to see it. 

I could not condemn any livery owner for having a sick and/or old horse that had been abandoned at his premises put down.

It is very unfortunate that she did not own the horse, but again I would want to know whether the livery owner knew that before making a judgement on his actions.
		
Click to expand...

Here's the latest from the newspaper:  http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/11538293.Horse_killed_and_dumped_in_garden___2_men_arrested/?ref=rss

I don't think it could be said that the livery owner acted in a reasonable or proportionate manner in response to a £30 debt.


----------



## ladyt25 (16 October 2014)

cptrayes said:



			I utterly condemn the dumping of the horse in the garden. But before condemning shooting the horse I would want to know how old it was, whether it was in good health, and when the loaner last went to see it. 

I could not condemn any livery owner for having a sick and/or old horse that had been abandoned at his premises put down.

It is very unfortunate that she did not own the horse, but again I would want to know whether the livery owner knew that before making a judgement on his actions.
		
Click to expand...

From the reports the horse was 7 years old with no health issues.  
To me though this is irrelevant,  you do not take the life of a horse or any animal in this way without contacting the owner.  The ONLY time this could be acceptable is in an emergency situation where,  for whatever reason the owner was not contactable. 
Just disgusting behaviour from these people.  There is no excuse or justification for it.


----------



## cptrayes (16 October 2014)

cronkmooar said:



			The girl that loaned the horse has answered your questions further back in the thread.  I believe the horse was 7 yrs old and not sick or old.

Please have some respect for her feelings and do not give the poster above any ammunition
		
Click to expand...

OK, I hadn't read the rest of the thread, most of it was so hysterical


----------



## caramac (16 October 2014)

cptrayes said:



			I utterly condemn the dumping of the horse in the garden. But before condemning shooting the horse I would want to know how old it was, whether it was in good health, and when the loaner last went to see it. 

I could not condemn any livery owner for having a sick and/or old horse that had been abandoned at his premises put down.

It is very unfortunate that she did not own the horse, but again I would want to know whether the livery owner knew that before making a judgement on his actions.
		
Click to expand...


I know this thread is very lengthy, but it appears the horse was only 7 and in good health and was destroyed in retaliation for a £30 debt.  In any event were you also aware that the body was put on a JCB and dumped in the loaner's garden !  Surely you must agree that this is particularly despicable and deranged behaviour !


----------



## rockysmum (16 October 2014)

It actually gets worse, according to the livery it was still moving when it was dumped in the garden.  More details on this

http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/11538293.Horse_killed_and_dumped_in_garden___2_men_arrested/?ref=rss  and a picture of the person concerned

And whats with the comment about doing it because it didn't have a rug.  FFS they dont have to be rugged yet


----------



## foxy1 (16 October 2014)

It was three weeks grass livery at 10 pounds a week. I should imagine the horse was distressed by the attempts to load it.


----------



## cptrayes (16 October 2014)

cronkmooar said:



			Actually, there is
		
Click to expand...

No there isn't. The RSPCA have said that the horse was humanely destroyed with one shot to the head.


----------



## cptrayes (16 October 2014)

rockysmum said:



			It actually gets worse, according to the livery it was still moving when it was dumped in the garden.  More details on this

http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/11538293.Horse_killed_and_dumped_in_garden___2_men_arrested/?ref=rss  and a picture of the person concerned
		
Click to expand...



Most recently shot horses move. They are dead, but the nerves make the body twitch. The RSPCA have declared that the shooting was humane.


----------



## Tiddlypom (16 October 2014)

Lengthy thread on this in Tack Room.


----------



## Grumpy Herbert (16 October 2014)

There's a lengthy thread on this in the Tack Room - unbelievably horrific.


----------



## cptrayes (16 October 2014)

caramac said:



			I know this thread is very lengthy, but it appears the horse was only 7 and in good health and was destroyed in retaliation for a £30 debt.  In any event were you also aware that the body was put on a JCB and dumped in the loaner's garden !  Surely you must agree that this is particularly despicable and deranged behaviour !
		
Click to expand...

Does 'utterly condemn' not make your question unnecessary?


----------



## rockysmum (16 October 2014)

cptrayes said:



			Most recently shot horses move. They are dead, but the nerves make the body twitch. The RSPCA have declared that the shooting was humane.
		
Click to expand...

So they must be confirming that they were on site and supervised it.  If they were they can make this comment, if they weren't it is only a guess on their part.  And if they were, I think a lot more questions need to be asked of them.


----------



## cronkmooar (16 October 2014)

cptrayes said:



			No there isn't. The RSPCA have said that the horse was humanely destroyed with one shot to the head.
		
Click to expand...

I'm not going to add to the loners distress, because I would be devastated if this was mine.

Have a look at all of the news reports, containing quotes of what happened prior the horse being shot.  In addition, there are photos and comments all over facebook which tell a bigger story.

I would not however argue with you that the actual shot was not inhumane as that is what the RSPCA state


----------



## cptrayes (16 October 2014)

rockysmum said:



			So they must be confirming that they were on site and supervised it.  If they were they can make this comment, if they weren't it is only a guess on their part.  And if they were, I think a lot more questions need to be asked of them.
		
Click to expand...

Not at all. It is perfectly possible to see from the placement of the shot whether the killing was or was not humane. In any case, it was done by a licensed slaughterman. I'm sorry, but I can't think that this story is as simple as it sounds if he had to pay a slaughter man, cost £150 in my part of the country, and chose to do that rather than recover the debt by selling the horse at auction.

I agree that the speculation should stop.


----------



## Sebastian (16 October 2014)

cronkmooar said:



			Actually, there is
		
Click to expand...


From the latest article




			The RSPCA today said they believed Kit, above, had been humanely killed, but Beckie said she was distraught and her children had to walk past Kit as they went to school yesterday.

RSPCA inspector Karen Colman attended on Wednesday night and yesterday said Kit may have been killed with a single shot from a pistol.

She said the horse had been shot in the head, in what looked a humane killing, and said there was no other damage to the horse
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Sebastian (16 October 2014)

dbl


----------



## pixie (16 October 2014)

If you look at it another way...

 How else does a YO recoup unpaid bills?  Perhaps by sending said horse to an auction?  Where its future would be entirely unknown.  

It may be only 3 weeks livery owed to him, however if he has heard of her alleged reputation of not paying bills, then perhaps he wants to take action before being owed even more?

How do we even know for sure that he was given the contact details for the horse's owner?  if the loaner only gave her own contact details and then was not answering then phone to him, what does he do?


----------



## cronkmooar (16 October 2014)

Sebastian said:



			From the latest article
		
Click to expand...

I'm not going to comment further on the destruction of the horse after this as it really is unfair to all connected parties - but whilst the shot may have be humane, as stated by an RSPCA officer (not a vet) there is more in that same article from the perpetrators mouth which is hardly pleasant or acting in a humane maner


----------



## Bestdogdash (16 October 2014)

cptrayes said:



			OK, I hadn't read the rest of the thread, most of it was so hysterical 

Click to expand...

You (I note from your standard replies) would be one of the first to comdemn very directly any poster who had made a tactless or hurtful statement,  without having read the full thread. Had you done so (I think by page two or three) you would have found the article in the York Press, giving full details of the sorry affair - horse 7, healthy and yard owed £30, perpetrator arrested, and then perhaps then you may have been able to contribute usefully.


----------



## foxy1 (16 October 2014)

Serve an abandonment notice and take her to small claims court. 
Shooting the horse and dumping the body in her garden is indefensible.


----------



## Princess Rosie (16 October 2014)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-dump-body-owner-s-garden-unpaid-bill-30.html

I am astounded


----------



## caramac (16 October 2014)

Really !  So its okay for him to shoot, put the body in a JCB and dump it in her garden ?


----------



## cronkmooar (16 October 2014)

foxy1 said:



			Serve an abandonment notice and take her to small claims court. 
Shooting the horse and dumping the body in her garden is indefensible.
		
Click to expand...

Agreed, I'm actually quite surprised how many posters think there is a defence, but then the thread was stirred with a big spoon!


----------



## Sebastian (16 October 2014)

Bestdogdash said:



			You (I note from your standard replies) would be one of the first to comdemn very directly any poster who had made a tactless or hurtful statement,  without having read the full thread. Had you done so (I think by page two or three) you would have found the article in the York Press, giving full details of the sorry affair - horse 7, healthy and yard owed £30, perpetrator arrested, and then perhaps then you may have been able to contribute usefully.
		
Click to expand...

Except that the reality is not quite so black and white, since the latest article now says:




			Locals suggested the dispute was over a £30 debt.
		
Click to expand...

We clearly don't have the full story here.


----------



## cronkmooar (16 October 2014)

The Daily Mail article above adds more to the story


----------



## ladyt25 (16 October 2014)

Full story or not,  you don't kill someone else's animal due to a debt.  There are ways and means. Debt collectors can collect for you and,  having a horsee for several weeks on unpaid grass livery would not have caused issue for the yard owner.  They have plenty of space!  why not go down the proper routes?


----------



## rockysmum (16 October 2014)

Sebastian said:



			Except that the reality is not quite so black and white, since the latest article now says:



We clearly don't have the full story here.
		
Click to expand...


What is the difference, they both say the debt was £30.  But to be honest it wouldn't matter if it had been more, it was still the wrong way to do it.

And to those who think it was humane.  Tell me how this mad horse which was rearing and striking out and injuring people (according to the yard owner) suddenly stood still and let them shoot it.  Doesn't add up, although it might do if the reports of many other injuries as well as the bullet are true


----------



## Grumpy Herbert (16 October 2014)

Irrespective of whether or not the horse was humanely destroyed, by a licenced slaughterman or RSPCA or whoever, the livery yard owner has NOT behaved in a reasonable or humane manner.  It will have caused huge distress to everybody who witnessed a dead horse being driven through their village and dumped in a garden.

There are always two sides to every story, I agree, but seriously does anything warrant this sort of behaviour?  I don't think people who have posted here are hysterical cptrayes, just outraged.


----------



## Wundahorse (16 October 2014)

Elsbells said:



			Livery owner must be mentally ill!?
		
Click to expand...

Not mentally ill. Just evil and nasty. Words defy me.


----------



## Sebastian (16 October 2014)

ladyt25 said:



			Full story or not,  you don't kill someone else's animal due to a debt.  There are ways and means. Debt collectors can collect for you and,  having a horsee for several weeks on unpaid grass livery would not have caused issue for the yard owner.  They have plenty of space!  why not go down the proper routes?
		
Click to expand...

Oh, I totally agree.


----------



## cptrayes (16 October 2014)

rockysmum said:



			What is the difference, they both say the debt was £30.  But to be honest it wouldn't matter if it had been more, it was still the wrong way to do it.

And to those who think it was humane.  Tell me how this mad horse which was rearing and striking out and injuring people (according to the yard owner) suddenly stood still and let them shoot it.  Doesn't add up, although it might do if the reports of many other injuries as well as the bullet are true
		
Click to expand...

The RSPCA report is that there were no other injuries.

Plenty of horses that are absolutely crazy when you try to lead them are as calm as a millpond away from the lorry


I'm not saying any of this was good or right. I just don't think we have the whole story about the loaner, other than that she moved the horse there on the understanding that it was payment in advance and then point blank refused to pay a penny.


----------



## brucea (16 October 2014)

Well I hope that everyone in the area remembers this, and current liveries reconsider their position with respect to the yard and drive it under financially by having no liveries at all.  

Under no circumstances is this a humane or appropriate way to behave and I hope the RSPCA live up to their well earned reputation for securing convictions.


----------



## Sebastian (16 October 2014)

rockysmum said:



			What is the difference, they both say the debt was £30.  But to be honest it wouldn't matter if it had been more, it was still the wrong way to do it.
		
Click to expand...

 I agree. What has happened is indefensible, but I would still like to know the truth.




			And to those who think it was humane.  Tell me how this mad horse which was rearing and striking out and injuring people (according to the yard owner) suddenly stood still and let them shoot it.  Doesn't add up, although it might do if the reports of many other injuries as well as the bullet are true
		
Click to expand...

According the latest article those reports are not true. 




			The RSPCA today said they believed Kit, above, had been humanely killed, but Beckie said she was distraught and her children had to walk past Kit as they went to school yesterday.

RSPCA inspector Karen Colman attended on Wednesday night and yesterday said Kit may have been killed with a single shot from a pistol.

She said the horse had been shot in the head, in what looked a humane killing, and said there was no other damage to the horse
		
Click to expand...


----------



## rockysmum (16 October 2014)

cptrayes said:



			The RSPCA report is that there were no other injuries.
		
Click to expand...

But other suggest there were other injuries and boot prints

And two conflicting statements from inspectors, the first ones this morning were very different to the ones issued (probably by the PR department) now


----------



## MerrySherryRider (16 October 2014)

Princess Rosie said:



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-dump-body-owner-s-garden-unpaid-bill-30.html

I am astounded
		
Click to expand...

Me too. Vile man should be prosecuted. 

Can't imagine who would leave a horse on that yard now.


----------



## PollyP99 (16 October 2014)

cptrayes said:



			The RSPCA report is that there were no other injuries.
		
Click to expand...

The mail report only shows the RSPCA stating 'May have been' and 'RSPCA believes' does not read like they've actually done any kind of report.  Unless you've seen something else


----------



## cptrayes (16 October 2014)

brucea said:



			Well I hope that everyone in the area remembers this, and current liveries reconsider their position with respect to the yard and drive it under financially by having no liveries at all.  

Under no circumstances is this a humane or appropriate way to behave and I hope the RSPCA live up to their well earned reputation for securing convictions.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry Bruce, there is no offence the RSPCA can prosecute. The horse was humanely killed and that is legal. He may be done for criminal damage for shooting the horse, but with a value of well under 5k, the penalty for that won't be very high. I also suspect a conviction for CD might be difficult to obtain in the circumstances.


----------



## cptrayes (16 October 2014)

A report can be verbal, Polly, as the one to the local paper was.


----------



## AppaloosaLover (16 October 2014)

The RSPCA will probably not do anything. They keep over 100 horses there and the other man arrested is the man who takes in and rehomes those horses for the RSPCA so he is really an RSPCA worker. He has a license to slaughter becasuse he often does with the RSPCA cases and he is also in posession of the weapons to do so. Whether it was him or the owner who actually fired the shot is in dispute. And I know this information as I know the yard well and used their facilities regularly, won't be going anywhere near them from now on!


----------



## cronkmooar (16 October 2014)

All those that think this is acceptable, have a look at it this way ...

Here you are tonight having a bit of a discussion on the computer, nothing much going on, horse all tucked up  for the night.

Then, just as you are about to type your next post, you hear a JCB outside, so you go outside to investigate and there is your horse shot and just dumped in your garden.

If that doesn't bother you and you think it is acceptable behaviour, then really why would you have a horse?


----------



## cptrayes (16 October 2014)

I do agree, by the way, that shooting this horse of it was healthy was an outrageous thing to do. Sorry I haven't made that clear before.


----------



## cptrayes (16 October 2014)

AppaloosaLover said:



			The RSPCA will probably not do anything. They keep over 100 horses there and the other man arrested is the man who takes in and rehomes those horses for the RSPCA so he is really an RSPCA worker. He has a license to slaughter becasuse he often does with the RSPCA cases and he is also in posession of the weapons to do so. Whether it was him or the owner who actually fired the shot is in dispute. And I know this information as I know the yard well and used their facilities regularly, won't be going anywhere near them from now on!
		
Click to expand...

The RSPCA    *can't*  do anything to punish him. He has not committed any animal welfare crime. It is not illegal to shoot a horse.


----------



## Princess Rosie (16 October 2014)

cronkmooar said:



			All those that think this is acceptable, have a look at it this way ...

Here you are tonight having a bit of a discussion on the computer, nothing much going on, horse all tucked up  for the night.

Then, just as you are about to type your next post, you hear a JCB outside, so you go outside to investigate and there is your horse shot and just dumped in your garden.

If that doesn't bother you and you think it is acceptable behaviour, then really why would you have a horse?
		
Click to expand...

Well said. This is totally unacceptable in any circumstance.


----------



## digitalangel (16 October 2014)

AppaloosaLover said:



			The RSPCA will probably not do anything. They keep over 100 horses there and the other man arrested is the man who takes in and rehomes those horses for the RSPCA so he is really an RSPCA worker. He has a license to slaughter becasuse he often does with the RSPCA cases and he is also in posession of the weapons to do so. Whether it was him or the owner who actually fired the shot is in dispute. And I know this information as I know the yard well and used their facilities regularly, won't be going anywhere near them from now on!
		
Click to expand...

Wow i never normally comment on livery drama but this has actually really upset me. clearly the livery yard involved felt they were ' above the law ' due to their links with the RSPCA - and were probably betting that due to a conflict of interest that they would get away with it.

REGARDLESS of what money is owed, shooting a healthy horse is NEVER " the best possibly way" to deal with things. 

Never been so angry before - want to wring this mans neck!


----------



## Princess Rosie (16 October 2014)

cptrayes said:



			The RSPCA    *can't*  do anything to punish him. He has not committed any animal welfare crime. It is not illegal to shoot a horse.
		
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that there is an issue with the deceased horse then being dumped in a garden. It is surely illegal to shoot a horse without owners permission when the horse is in good health and is not causing any welfare concerns etc etc??? :/


----------



## PollyP99 (16 October 2014)

cronkmooar said:



			All those that think this is acceptable, have a look at it this way ...

Here you are tonight having a bit of a discussion on the computer, nothing much going on, horse all tucked up  for the night.

Then, just as you are about to type your next post, you hear a JCB outside, so you go outside to investigate and there is your horse shot and just dumped in your garden.

If that doesn't bother you and you think it is acceptable behaviour, then really why would you have a horse?
		
Click to expand...


Totally agree and posts saying 'we don't know the facts' well we know some sick bar steward killed an innocent and scared horse for no good reason then sickeningly dumped it in a suburban garden.  I for one know enough not to try to justify the action, fgs.


----------



## ladyt25 (16 October 2014)

AppaloosaLover said:



			The RSPCA will probably not do anything. They keep over 100 horses there and the other man arrested is the man who takes in and rehomes those horses for the RSPCA so he is really an RSPCA worker. He has a license to slaughter becasuse he often does with the RSPCA cases and he is also in posession of the weapons to do so. Whether it was him or the owner who actually fired the shot is in dispute. And I know this information as I know the yard well and used their facilities regularly, won't be going anywhere near them from now on!
		
Click to expand...

I really hope the 'other guy arrested' isn't who you are suggesting or I at least hope it's someone else (and I am thinking or another person) as I'd hate to think that person would have destroyed a healthy horse under these circumstances?!


----------



## Sandstone1 (16 October 2014)

How awful,  think dumping the horse must be illegal. There are rules on the disposal of dead animals surely. Also to destroy someone else's horse can't be right.


----------



## rockysmum (16 October 2014)

ladyt25 said:



			I really hope the 'other guy arrested' isn't who you are suggesting or I at least hope it's someone else (and I am thinking or another person) as I'd hate to think that person would have destroyed a healthy horse under these circumstances?!
		
Click to expand...

Well the press haven't picked up on one of the men working for the RSPCA, if it is true I am sure a real **** storm will follow


----------



## Equi (16 October 2014)

cptrayes said:



			The RSPCA    *can't*  do anything to punish him. He has not committed any animal welfare crime. It is not illegal to shoot a horse.
		
Click to expand...

It is not illegal if done correctly, but this was done as i hear by the wrong gun making it illegal. There is a specific gun that must be used.


----------



## skint1 (16 October 2014)

This story saddens me, what is wrong with the world today? It's worth remembering for every horrid person like this one there many others who get left holding the horse and owed a lot of money by flighty liveries and who do their utmost to do right by the horse. This guy is thankfully a nasty anomaly


----------



## ladyt25 (16 October 2014)

rockysmum said:



			Well the press haven't picked up on one of the men working for the RSPCA, if it is true I am sure a real **** storm will follow
		
Click to expand...

God, I really hope not as I have only ever heard good things about him and he says how he hates having to euthanase horses when the RSPCA tell him he has to :-(


----------



## Goldenstar (16 October 2014)

cptrayes said:



			The RSPCA report is that there were no other injuries.

Plenty of horses that are absolutely crazy when you try to lead them are as calm as a millpond away from the lorry


I'm not saying any of this was good or right. I just don't think we have the whole story about the loaner, other than that she moved the horse there on the understanding that it was payment in advance and then point blank refused to pay a penny.
		
Click to expand...

What about the owner of the horse ?they are sure as hell have a case against the livery owner.
It is I am sure criminal damage which is a criminal offence not civil so the police will prosecute it and livery owners do not have the right to put horses to sleep willy nilly because they feel like it .

Poor mare not that it makes any difference but she was so very pretty .


----------



## Spring Feather (16 October 2014)

I suspect no crime has been committed tbh and the guys will be released.  No matter how frustrating some livery clients can be with their lack of payment, that YOs reaction is not the answer and cannot be justified.  Some liveries will likely move their horses but other people will continue to use the facility.  That's the way the world is.


----------



## Amymay (16 October 2014)

cptrayes said:



			There is no suggestion that the horse suffered in being put down at all. I have had four horses shot. It was quiet, quick, painless and very stress free each time.
		
Click to expand...

Actually there's more than a suggestion....


----------



## ladyt25 (16 October 2014)

I am pretty sure they will be charged.  This has been on the news here all day with more and more coming out. It is shocking as so many of us have used these facilities and they are very well known but you obviously never know what's going on behind the scenes.  I just feel for all who have suffered for the sake of a few ££s


----------



## digitalangel (16 October 2014)

so whos is this person who shoots on behalf of the rspca then?


----------



## Sugar_and_Spice (16 October 2014)

cronkmooar said:



			All those that think this is acceptable, have a look at it this way ...

Here you are tonight having a bit of a discussion on the computer, nothing much going on, horse all tucked up  for the night.

Then, just as you are about to type your next post, you hear a JCB outside, so you go outside to investigate and there is your horse shot and just dumped in your garden.

If that doesn't bother you and you think it is acceptable behaviour, then really why would you have a horse?
		
Click to expand...


I don't think it's acceptable to kill the horse. From what I've read in the links it sounds as if the horse was either killed in a fit of temper when it wouldn't load, or it was killed as the YO was determined to remove the horse from his premises ASAP and didn't want to lead it to the loaners home. 

Killing the horse was wrong IMO, especially if the YO knew the horse was on loan. But I have read nothing to suggest whether he knew or not. If he didn't know the horse was on loan I can understand why he took action to remove the horse. 

Going through the courts for abandonment would cost him and takes time, when he has little chance of seeing any money for the debt if he can't sell the horse. Loads of people are struggling to sell horses at the moment and its often for cheap prices. Then being a business he would have the hassle of the Sale of Goods Act if someone wanted to return the horse for refund after purchase. I *don't* agree with what he did, but if the YO didn't know the loaner was not the owner, I can see why he thought shooting the horse was the best option for him.

Nobody would be dumping my horse in my garden, dead or alive, because I *always* pay my livery fee. I have no sympathy for the horses loaner *if* this situation came about due to her not paying livery. Actions have consequences, harsh and unfair consequences in this case. It's the horses owner who has my sympathy. RIP poor horse.


----------



## ladyt25 (16 October 2014)

It wouldn't be right to name anyone on here in case they were wrongly connected with this


----------



## PollyP99 (16 October 2014)

Spring Feather said:



			I suspect no crime has been committed tbh and the guys will be released.  No matter how frustrating some livery clients can be with their lack of payment, that YOs reaction is not the answer and cannot be justified.  Some liveries will likely move their horses but other people will continue to use the facility.  That's the way the world is.
		
Click to expand...


Report says the guys responsible were held overnight, not something the police do normally if no crime committed.


----------



## Goldenstar (16 October 2014)

I don't know anything about this except what's in the media but if a YOer called a Licensed slaughter man and said I have a horse who needs putting down and put it in the right way the slaughter man might well just take what he was told at face value and do the job.
A YOer being present at a PTS rather than the owner is not that unheard of .
Very Mean thing to to the slaughter man if that's what happened .


----------



## MerrySherryRider (16 October 2014)

Yep, absolutely appalling. Poor horse. 
I think local livery owners are offering to help accommodate  owners to get their horses out.


----------



## ladyt25 (16 October 2014)

Sugar_and_Spice said:



			I don't think it's acceptable to kill the horse. From what I've read in the links it sounds as if the horse was either killed in a fit of temper when it wouldn't load, or it was killed as the YO was determined to remove the horse from his premises ASAP and didn't want to lead it to the loaners home. 

Killing the horse was wrong IMO, especially if the YO knew the horse was on loan. But I have read nothing to suggest whether he knew or not. If he didn't know the horse was on loan I can understand why he took action to remove the horse. 

Going through the courts for abandonment would cost him and takes time, when he has little chance of seeing any money for the debt if he can't sell the horse. Loads of people are struggling to sell horses at the moment and its often for cheap prices. Then being a business he would have the hassle of the Sale of Goods Act if someone wanted to return the horse for refund after purchase. I *don't* agree with what he did, but if the YO didn't know the loaner was not the owner, I can see why he thought shooting the horse was the best option for him.

Nobody would be dumping my horse in my garden, dead or alive, because I *always* pay my livery fee. I have no sympathy for the horses loaner *if* this situation came about due to her not paying livery. Actions have consequences, harsh and unfair consequences in this case. It's the horses owner who has my sympathy. RIP poor horse.
		
Click to expand...

Appreciate what you're saying but £30 is barely a debt and, if you are close enough to drive a JCB to a house,  you are close enough to drive to this house and confront the owner or indeed walk the horsr there and 'dumpb it by the means of tying to the gate if needs be. You do not decide at 9pm at night to shoot someone's horse! 
As said,  grass livery caused him no expense. Put the horse up for sale if needs be but shooting it? There is no justification I'm afraid.


----------



## majors (16 October 2014)

What is most shocking to me is the fact he picked up the poor dead horse in a jcb and dumped it in the lady's garden.   Whatever the in and outs of the contract, money etc, it would take a certain sort of individual to do that, not one I would want near horses of influencing young riders


----------



## PollyP99 (16 October 2014)

majors said:



			What is most shocking to me is the fact he picked up the poor dead horse in a jcb and dumped it in the lady's garden.   Whatever the in and outs of the contract, money etc, it would take a certain sort of individual to do that, not one I would want near horses of influencing young riders
		
Click to expand...


Totally, sick and evil


----------



## Sukistokes2 (16 October 2014)

Sadly I believe that nothing will come of any prosecution, that is is sick country we live in. A nation of animals lovers........yeh really!..... Not.

There is no justification for this, no other side to the story. Anyone who stays at this yard or uses its facilities is a party to this horrific act. If I had been on that yard and this happened I would have moved the same day! How could I put my horse at risk leaving him there.  There is no amount of money that justifies killing this animal, it is beyond belief. 
Dumping the body in the garden really underlines what a foul human being this man is  and the others too. I hope they live to really regrets their actions.


Oh yeah...I also always paid my livery on time......except for the one week I completely and utterly forgot! Luckily they didn't shoot my horse, Moses. They just made me a cup of tea and reminded me!


----------



## ladyt25 (16 October 2014)

Oh I think charges will be brought as this had caused uproar here so those responsible need to be held to account


----------



## marotelle (16 October 2014)

Hi;
I am very surprised by this thread; the man who owns the riding center is obviously totally out of control.In Belgium horse passports are taken seriously.
Last week I had to take my 16 yr mare, who was down with colic, to a well known horse clinic in Ghent.The care given was amazing; but before justfying ANY treatment I had to produce her passport ,up to date vaccina


----------



## Sebastian (16 October 2014)

Sukistokes2 said:



			There is no justification for this, no other side to the story.
		
Click to expand...

I agree that there is no justification for this, but I would like to know the full story of what actually happened here. 




			Totally agree and posts saying 'we don't know the facts' well we know some sick bar steward killed an innocent and scared horse for no good reason then sickeningly dumped it in a suburban garden. I for one know enough not to try to justify the action, fgs.
		
Click to expand...

I don't know why people assume that wanting to know the full story equates with trying to justify what has happened. 

I am confused.


----------



## Smurf's Gran (16 October 2014)

Spring Feather said:



			I suspect no crime has been committed tbh and the guys will be released.  No matter how frustrating some livery clients can be with their lack of payment, that YOs reaction is not the answer and cannot be justified.  Some liveries will likely move their horses but other people will continue to use the facility.  That's the way the world is.
		
Click to expand...

A crime has been committed though - its criminal damage, its not legal to shoot someone's horse because they haven't paid their livery bill.  You must follow a legal process.  What a nutter, who would want to keep their horse at that yard.  I have used the facilities before - never again


----------



## Smurf's Gran (16 October 2014)

Sebastian said:



			I agree that there is no justification for this, but I would like to know the full story of what actually happened here. 



I don't know why people assume that wanting to know the full story equates with trying to justify what has happened. 

I am confused.
		
Click to expand...

Completely agree with you, enough is known about this to understand that it is indefensible.  Can't believe some of the posts on here such as pony palace and Cptrates, read the papers its all over them.


----------



## PonyIAmNotFood (16 October 2014)

http://m.yorkpress.co.uk/news/11538293.Horse_killed_and_dumped_in_garden___2_men_arrested/

Hopefully that's the right link, one man released on bail, one released without charge.


----------



## Mrs B (16 October 2014)

Sebastian said:



			I agree that there is no justification for this, but I would like to know the full story of what actually happened here. 



I don't know why people assume that wanting to know the full story equates with trying to justify what has happened. 

I am confused.
		
Click to expand...

As you say, there is no justification for this. Therefore, (to me) wanting to know the 'full story' is a bit like rubber-necking past an accident on the motorway.


----------



## PollyP99 (16 October 2014)

PonyIAmNotFood said:



http://m.yorkpress.co.uk/news/11538293.Horse_killed_and_dumped_in_garden___2_men_arrested/

Hopefully that's the right link, one man released on bail, one released without charge.
		
Click to expand...

  "It was handled in the best possible way" says centre owner  really, really??  What a sick individual to think this was the best possible way!!


----------



## marotelle (16 October 2014)

I had written a reply but it seems to have gone! Briefly I drove my sick mare to a well known Belgium clinik; she was very well looked after,but within minutes I had to produce her passport,up to date vaccinations and finally but not least ,proof of ownership.
Surely , in Britain you can't simply decide to have a perfectly healthy horse put down with no proof of ownership?
What's the point of having a passport?
This seems very odd.....


----------



## Sebastian (16 October 2014)

Mrs B said:



			As you say, there is no justification for this. Therefore, (to me) wanting to know the 'full story' is a bit like rubber-necking past an accident on the motorway.
		
Click to expand...

We're just going to have to agree to disagree on the last bit. The want for knowledge of the facts is not a bad thing.


----------



## cptrayes (16 October 2014)

Princess Rosie said:



			I'm pretty sure that there is an issue with the deceased horse then being dumped in a garden. It is surely illegal to shoot a horse without owners permission when the horse is in good health and is not causing any welfare concerns etc etc??? :/
		
Click to expand...

Yes PR,  but that's nothing to do with the RSPCA. It's not an animal welfare issue.


----------



## cptrayes (16 October 2014)

marotelle said:



			I had written a reply but it seems to have gone! Briefly I drove my sick mare to a well known Belgium clinik; she was very well looked after,but within minutes I had to produce her passport,up to date vaccinations and finally but not least ,proof of ownership.
Surely , in Britain you can't simply decide to have a perfectly healthy horse put down with no proof of ownership?
What's the point of having a passport?
This seems very odd.....
		
Click to expand...

Yes, you can. I've never been asked for a passport yet, by a vet or a slaughter man.


----------



## Goldenstar (16 October 2014)

marotelle said:



			I had written a reply but it seems to have gone! Briefly I drove my sick mare to a well known Belgium clinik; she was very well looked after,but within minutes I had to produce her passport,up to date vaccinations and finally but not least ,proof of ownership.
Surely , in Britain you can't simply decide to have a perfectly healthy horse put down with no proof of ownership?
What's the point of having a passport?
This seems very odd.....
		
Click to expand...

Horses can be put down in the uk with no paperwork or owners consent to relieve suffering, horses are often PTS at home and as the bodies don't go into the food chain no paperwork is needed .
We do not know what the slaughterman was told .


----------



## cptrayes (16 October 2014)

PollyP99 said:



			Report says the guys responsible were held overnight, not something the police do normally if no crime committed.
		
Click to expand...

Actually, with a gun involved especially, it wouldn't be uncommon for them to be held while checks were made and then released without charge.


----------



## PollyP99 (16 October 2014)

cptrayes said:



			Actually, with a gun involved especially, it wouldn't be uncommon for them to be held while checks were made and then released without charge.
		
Click to expand...

One released one is out on bail.....


----------



## NeilM (16 October 2014)

According to the newspaper report, Mr Johnson said the horse was rearing and kicking out, yet they managed to place a .38 calibre pistol against its head and pull the trigger.

The whole thing is utterly appalling and beyond belief.


----------



## cptrayes (16 October 2014)

amymay said:



			Actually there's more than a suggestion....
		
Click to expand...

No there isn't. The RSPCA  verbal report after seeing the horse is that the only injury is a humane entry wound from a single bullet.

It is disgusting enough what he has done. It does not need embellishing with inaccurate claims that the horse was abused first, which only upset people unnecessarily.


----------



## cptrayes (16 October 2014)

PollyP99 said:



			One released one is out on bail.....
		
Click to expand...

For criminal damage value under 5K, I expect?  A fine, probably, and compensation to the owner, if found guilty beyond reasonable doubt.


----------



## brucea (16 October 2014)

cptrayes said:



			Sorry Bruce, there is no offence the RSPCA can prosecute. The horse was humanely killed and that is legal. He may be done for criminal damage for shooting the horse, but with a value of well under 5k, the penalty for that won't be very high. I also suspect a conviction for CD might be difficult to obtain in the circumstances.
		
Click to expand...

You're probably right CP. So the only way that people have to make their feelings felt is to move and leave the yard empty, shunning it

Good Lord, if that happened up here the yard would be empty in 24 hours and it would be treated as an absolute no go area.


----------



## cptrayes (16 October 2014)

NeilM said:



			According to the newspaper report, Mr Johnson said the horse was rearing and kicking out, yet they managed to place a .38 calibre pistol against its head and pull the trigger.

The whole thing is utterly appalling and beyond belief.
		
Click to expand...

Neil if you'd seen a few bad loaders you'd know that they can be perfectly sweet and calm as soon as you take them away from the lorry ramp.

It is appalling, but not unbelievable.


----------



## YorksG (16 October 2014)

Whatever the final legal outcome of this, it appears that a YO has made the decision to shoot a customers  horse for a debt of 30 quid. I hope he does intend to turn the place into industrial units! I also hope that he does not get planning permission to so do and is then left with a pretty useless plot of land.


----------



## cptrayes (16 October 2014)

brucea said:



			You're probably right CP. So the only way that people have to make their feelings felt is to move and leave the yard empty, shunning it

Good Lord, if that happened up here the yard would be empty in 24 hours and it would be treated as an absolute no go area.
		
Click to expand...

We can hope he is bankrupted by having an empty yard. It does seem likely that he deserves that.


----------



## Illusion100 (16 October 2014)

https://www.change.org/p/david-came...or-the-brutal-murder-of-some-one-else-s-horse


----------



## Wagtail (16 October 2014)

Illusion100 said:



https://www.change.org/p/david-came...or-the-brutal-murder-of-some-one-else-s-horse

Click to expand...

'the police know we're he is' - would be good if this typo could be corrected. Also would get more signatures without using the word 'murdered' as is not technically correct unless we murder all the cows and sheep we eat. Agree with the petition BTW but would want those points correcting.


----------



## Red-1 (16 October 2014)

cptrayes said:



			Neil if you'd seen a few bad loaders you'd know that they can be perfectly sweet and calm as soon as you take them away from the lorry ramp.

It is appalling, but not unbelievable.
		
Click to expand...

That part IS believable, but if the horse was "sweet and calm" as you suggest when taken away from the lorry ramp, then surely it could have been turned back out in it's field, or led to the garden, not shot in the head???????

TBH CPT I do not understand your point of view.


----------



## NeilM (16 October 2014)

cptrayes said:



			Neil if you'd seen a few bad loaders you'd know that they can be perfectly sweet and calm as soon as you take them away from the lorry ramp.

It is appalling, but not unbelievable.
		
Click to expand...

The shooting is not unbelievable (although it is sickening), but picking the body up in a JCB bucket and dumping it in the front garden, that is another matter entirely.


----------



## Goldenstar (16 October 2014)

Wagtail said:



			'the police know we're he is' - would be good if this typo could be corrected. Also would get more signatures without using the word 'murdered' as is not technically correct unless we murder all the cows and sheep we eat. Agree with the petition BTW but would want those points correcting.
		
Click to expand...

You agree with a petition suggesting that PM should decide who gets jailed and fined wow that's out there.


----------



## Illusion100 (16 October 2014)

Wagtail said:



			'the police know we're he is' - would be good if this typo could be corrected. Also would get more signatures without using the word 'murdered' as is not technically correct unless we murder all the cows and sheep we eat. Agree with the petition BTW but would want those points correcting.
		
Click to expand...

I've just come across it on fb.


----------



## Grumpy Herbert (16 October 2014)

NeilM said:



			The shooting is not unbelievable (although it is sickening), but picking the body up in a JCB bucket and dumping it in the front garden, that is another matter entirely.
		
Click to expand...

Yup, that's a sign of a particularly sick minded individual.  Hope the publicity surrounding this incident puts an end to his business, livelihood and any dealings with horses, or any other animals for that matter.


----------



## Smurf's Gran (16 October 2014)

cptrayes said:



			Neil if you'd seen a few bad loaders you'd know that they can be perfectly sweet and calm as soon as you take them away from the lorry ramp.

It is appalling, but not unbelievable.
		
Click to expand...

The owners house where the body of the horse was dumped is a five minute walk from the GG  - I know I have used these facilities, the XC jumps and gallops actually back onto the gardens  - there was no reason to try and load the horse, they could have just led it round, or got the police to help, or the RSPCA (who apparently rent part of the yard).  Also the owner ( not loaner) of the horse has been on this forum explaining that her horse was easy to deal with and did not behave in the manner described manner.  Referencing bad loading  is not appropriate, its an excuse likely considered in retrospect, by an idiot who could not control his temper.     There are rumours ( which I cannot validate of course) that the owner has done similar before with gypsy ponies that came onto his land and then weren't collected.


----------



## Smurf's Gran (16 October 2014)

Goldenstar said:



			You agree with a petition suggesting that PM should decide who gets jailed and fined wow that's out there.
		
Click to expand...

Lets hope the BNP never get a PM then


----------



## Kaida (16 October 2014)

This is the crux - the whole reason they have said they shot is because it was dangerous. If this behaviour was limited to when attempting to load then a distance they can drive through with a JCB at 9pm is a distance they can lead the horse. If the behaviour was not limited to the time when attempting to load then it seems very unlikely they could get a nice point blank clean shot. 

If this was all they did then why was there bailer twine about the horses legs and why did initial reports (by the vet who initially inspected) mention lacerations all over the body?

Something doesn't line up. Whatever the amount in question was, this is not the moral or humane way to deal with this. Also, the RSPCA being on the same site means to me they should be seen to make a clear account of this instead of doing the usual smoke and mirrors. I would like to see a World Horse Welfare or BHS report on this - a source who is not linked personally to the site.


----------



## rockysmum (16 October 2014)

Kaida said:



			This is the crux - the whole reason they have said they shot is because it was dangerous. If this behaviour was limited to when attempting to load then a distance they can drive through with a JCB at 9pm is a distance they can lead the horse. If the behaviour was not limited to the time when attempting to load then it seems very unlikely they could get a nice point blank clean shot. 

If this was all they did then why was there bailer twine about the horses legs and why did initial reports (by the vet who initially inspected) mention lacerations all over the body?

Something doesn't line up. Whatever the amount in question was, this is not the moral or humane way to deal with this. Also, the RSPCA being on the same site means to me they should be seen to make a clear account of this instead of doing the usual smoke and mirrors. I would like to see a World Horse Welfare or BHS report on this - a source who is not linked personally to the site.
		
Click to expand...

I agree, I reported it to both of them this morning.  Neither have replied


----------



## katherinef (16 October 2014)

This is appalling

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/horror-family-treasured-horse-tied-4447222

The gallery pictures are very upsetting but I want to know why she had baler twine round her neck?


----------



## Sebastian (16 October 2014)

Kaida said:



			This is the crux - the whole reason they have said they shot is because it was dangerous. If this behaviour was limited to when attempting to load then a distance they can drive through with a JCB at 9pm is a distance they can lead the horse. If the behaviour was not limited to the time when attempting to load then it seems very unlikely they could get a nice point blank clean shot. 

If this was all they did then why was there bailer twine about the horses legs and why did initial reports (by the vet who initially inspected) mention lacerations all over the body?

Something doesn't line up. Whatever the amount in question was, this is not the moral or humane way to deal with this. Also, the RSPCA being on the same site means to me they should be seen to make a clear account of this instead of doing the usual smoke and mirrors. I would like to see a World Horse Welfare or BHS report on this - a source who is not linked personally to the site.
		
Click to expand...

Indeed and this is why I keep saying that I would like to hear the full story behind all of this, because it stinks.


----------



## Spring Feather (16 October 2014)

Kaida said:



			If this was all they did then why was there bailer twine about the horses legs and why did initial reports (by the vet who initially inspected) mention lacerations all over the body?
		
Click to expand...

We remove any dead horses from our fields with our tractor bucket.  No need to tie the legs together as we're just driving them to either the hole in the ground, or put into the knackers truck when he arrives for collection.  When getting a dead horse in a bucket, I'm afraid it's not a clean job and sometimes fur does get taken off or wounds are made.  Half a tonne of dead horse doesn't just slip in neatly.  I suspect the baler twine was used to keep the legs and neck contained whilst the JCB was being driven to the loaners house and the lacerations are very typical of dead horses being bucketed to wherever they are going.  If it doesn't add up for you then I imagine you have never had to physically dispose of a dead horse.


----------



## Sugar_and_Spice (16 October 2014)

ladyt25 said:



			Appreciate what you're saying but £30 is barely a debt and, if you are close enough to drive a JCB to a house,  you are close enough to drive to this house and confront the owner or indeed walk the horsr there and 'dumpb it by the means of tying to the gate if needs be. You do not decide at 9pm at night to shoot someone's horse! 
As said,  grass livery caused him no expense. Put the horse up for sale if needs be but shooting it? There is no justification I'm afraid.
		
Click to expand...


I'm not saying its justified, what he did. Only saying I can see why he did it. 30 pounds is a debt, the amount is irrelevant - a debt is a debt. And if he thought the debt was going to increase because she has a reputation for not paying, I can see why he would want to put a stop to that. Grass livery does cost him. It's a livery space that could be taken by a paying customer just as easily as a non paying customer.

I agree with you he should have handled it differently. To take the horse lead it to the house and tie it to the gate would have got it off his land. Maybe he couldn't be bothered to do that :confused3:  

I wonder if he will be prosecuted? Is it legal for a YO to shoot any horse that isn't suffering or even one who is suffering? If it was the YO who did it, that is. I would think that shooting a horse he doesn't own would only make the situation worse, if its a crime.


----------



## Wagtail (16 October 2014)

Goldenstar said:



			You agree with a petition suggesting that PM should decide who gets jailed and fined wow that's out there.
		
Click to expand...

No, I agree the person who did this should be jailed should it be proved the allegations are correct. I thought the petition was just being sent to the PM. I stopped reading at the typo and didn't sign.


----------



## Moya_999 (16 October 2014)

green007 said:



			My horse Kit was not hard to catch or handle she was a loving mare who did not deserve to end up like this. I would of collected myself rather then it resulting like this.I would hope people would now stop posting pictures and speculating about my horse. I'm devastated that they decided to carry out there actions without my consent.
		
Click to expand...

so sorry for your loss green


----------



## cptrayes (16 October 2014)

Red-1 said:



			That part IS believable, but if the horse was "sweet and calm" as you suggest when taken away from the lorry ramp, then surely it could have been turned back out in it's field, or led to the garden, not shot in the head???????

TBH CPT I do not understand your point of view.
		
Click to expand...

My point of view is quite clear. It was completely  unacceptable to shoot the horse but there was no cruelty that can be verified, it was according to the RSPCA a single humane shot and there were no other injuries to the horse.


----------



## Custard Cream (16 October 2014)

The outcome of this will be very interesting. 

If there is no criminal damage and no conviction sought then this will be very worrying for livery users countrywide. 

I mean, where would this stop? What about if you owe money to vets....are they then going to start be able to come and shoot your horse for non-payment?


----------



## cptrayes (16 October 2014)

Wagtail said:



			No, I agree the person who did this should be jailed should it be proved the allegations are correct. I thought the petition was just being sent to the PM. I stopped reading at the typo and didn't sign.
		
Click to expand...

That's not possible Wagtail, he has not committed a jailable offence.


----------



## Alec Swan (16 October 2014)

Whether the Yard owner has committed a crime will be for the CPS to decide.  Just what the rspca are going to do I'm not sure!

My own view,  and from what I've read,  is that this may well turn out to be a Civil matter.  As for the woman who was supposedly the 'Loanee' of the horse,  if it wasn't her property,  then I'm not sure that even she can bring a case.  Perhaps the 'Owner' will be the one to bring Civil proceedings.

The Yard Owner appears to claim that the horse was shot by a competent person.  That in itself is not illegal,  providing that if the person who shot the horse,  was unlicensed,  and took neither payment nor reward,  then they haven't committed an offence.  As the horse appears to have been shot with a handgun,  then they would be licensed slaughterers,  I'd have thought,  because handguns are no longer allowed to be held by any other than those who are licensed,  and can show a need.

That's all by the by,  it was a strange course of action to take,  I'd have thought.

Alec.

ets, .. 'That's not possible Wagtail, he has not committed a mailable offence'.  Nor a jailable one either cpt!  I'm not altogether sure that the man concerned has actually committed a criminal offence.


----------



## Honey08 (16 October 2014)

Horrific, whatever the reasons or details, which may or may not come out.

I hope that he is prosecuted.  If nothing else, there are legalities regarding how you have to dispose of a dead horse, and parading them through a housing estate in a JCB and dumping them on a lawn are not included.  

In the meantime, I hope that the Yorkshire horsey community stands up and stands together in never using The GG Centre ever again for anything.


----------



## Spring Feather (16 October 2014)

Custard Cream said:



			The outcome of this will be very interesting. 

If there is no criminal damage and no conviction sought then this will be very worrying for livery users countrywide. 

I mean, where would this stop? What about if you owe money to vets....are they then going to start be able to come and shoot your horse for non-payment?
		
Click to expand...

You aren't seriously worried about this are you?  If so, don't board your horse at a yard owned by a lunatic, and don't use a vet who is mentally unstable.  And for extra measure, make sure you pay your bills on time.


----------



## YorksG (16 October 2014)

Custard Cream said:



			The outcome of this will be very interesting. 

If there is no criminal damage and no conviction sought then this will be very worrying for livery users countrywide. 

I mean, where would this stop? What about if you owe money to vets....are they then going to start be able to come and shoot your horse for non-payment?
		
Click to expand...

Absolutely, or even if someone just wants to shoot a random horse! If this sees no prosecution, then anyone can humanely kill anyones animal, if you take the logic further.


----------



## rockysmum (16 October 2014)

cptrayes said:



			That's not possible Wagtail, he has not committed a jailable offence.
		
Click to expand...

I wonder if he might have done, if you pay someone else to commit the act, does that not make you also guilty.

I am thinking of those who pay hitmen, dont they get prosecuted for conspiracy to commit murder.


----------



## cptrayes (16 October 2014)

NeilM said:



			The shooting is not unbelievable (although it is sickening), but picking the body up in a JCB bucket and dumping it in the front garden, that is another matter entirely.
		
Click to expand...


There is actually an argument, which he may well use in court, that he is required to return the 'property' to the owner. Though since he shouldn't have shot the horse in the first place, it is obviously an outrageous thing to have done.


----------



## Moya_999 (16 October 2014)

Usually  post from CPT just like the newspaper 



cptrayes said:



			There is no suggestion that the horse suffered in being put down at all. I have had four horses shot. It was quiet, quick, painless and very stress free each time.
		
Click to expand...

Well are you not the lucky one having four horse shot without any problems.  "round of applause I think (not)".  Please explain why your situations means this horse did not suffer as previous post have  backed up she might/did??




cptrayes said:



			No there isn't. The RSPCA have said that the horse was humanely destroyed with one shot to the head.
		
Click to expand...

Well then we must all believe what the RSPCA say after all they are known for acting and reporting the truth are they not??



cptrayes said:



			It is not illegal to shoot a horse.
		
Click to expand...

 GGMS for  Christ sake  he is shooting  someones horse  WITHOUT the owners knowledge.



cptrayes said:



			But before condemning shooting the horse I would want to know how old it was, whether it was in good health, and when the loaner last went to see it. 

.
		
Click to expand...

 You must be reading a totally different article than the rest of us. 
There were other options in getting their petty little £ 30 back - sheesh with a so called big yard like this is worried about £30 bloody pounds I would start questioning their  financial status  if I was a livery, and this shows me they are not worried about an animal more about their pockets.

The age of the horse and health has already been disclosed by the owner before your uncalled for post.  Typical unpleasantness from you  sad to say.


 So many members here have said horses were dumped in their fields or owners behind in rent. We have one behind their rent at my yard but the owner wont go about shooting it.  

point being:

The age etc is irrelevant when it was not his horse to shoot.
 
he did not have owners permission.

the horse has already been said by the owner was in good health and good natured.


 *Green* I hope you get the answers and justice for your lovely mare, most of us send vibes and RIP for beautiful Kit who was the tragic victim of  a few very twisted humans


----------



## cptrayes (16 October 2014)

rockysmum said:



			I wonder if he might have done, if you pay someone else to commit the act, does that not make you also guilty.

I am thinking of those who pay hitmen, dont they get prosecuted for conspiracy to commit murder.
		
Click to expand...


Sorry, there is nothing whatever illegal about anyone, you or me included, shooting a horse as long as it is done humanely.

His crime is only criminal damage of a low value.


----------



## rockysmum (16 October 2014)

And just because I was reading about it anyway

SECTION 59 OF THE POLICE REFORM ACT - ANTI SOCIAL DRIVING OFFENCES
New laws in respect of certain anti social driving offences can now be dealt with by Section 59 of the Police Reform Act.

Basically what that means is if you are seen:

Driving in a careless or inconsiderate manner
Driving on common land, a footpath or bridle way or any land which is not part of a road
Driving in a manner which is causing/has been causing, or is likely to cause alarm, distress or annoyance to members of the public


Surely driving around with a dead horse and dropping it in a garden would come under number 3.   I am sure there are plenty of things they could use if they really wanted to prosecute.


----------



## rockysmum (16 October 2014)

cptrayes said:



			Sorry, there is nothing whatever illegal about anyone, you or me included, shooting a horse as long as it is done humanely.

His crime is only criminal damage of a low value.
		
Click to expand...

But someone paid the slaughter person to commit criminal damage


----------



## Jaycee (16 October 2014)

cptrayes said:



			Seriously????   I can't think that Kit's owners would agree with you on that comment!
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Alec Swan (16 October 2014)

cptrayes said:



			Sorry, there is nothing whatever illegal about anyone, you or me included, shooting a horse as long as it is done humanely.

His crime is only criminal damage of a low value.
		
Click to expand...

If that.  I'm sorry but cpt is right in that however shameful the man's behaviour,  Courts and the Legal processes only view shameful behaviour as an increased view or the bearing upon the gravity of the crime,  and again,  that's assuming that a crime has been committed.

The man concerned can just be grateful that the horse wasn't my property.

Alec.


----------



## amandaco2 (16 October 2014)

Truely awful. Poor horse and owner


----------



## cptrayes (16 October 2014)

rockysmum said:



			But someone paid the slaughter person to commit criminal damage
		
Click to expand...

Yes but that's not a crime RM. His crime If there is one is causing criminal damage of someone else property. But the value of the horse is low, and the penalty will, if he is even found guiltywhich is not yet certain,  be universally condemned as outrageously inadequate.


----------



## bakewell (16 October 2014)

rockysmum said:



			But someone paid the slaughter person to commit criminal damage
		
Click to expand...

Thing is, a firearms certificate is difficult to get hold of compared to a shotgun one, and they both need regular reissuing. By the same police force investigating this... it being a local matter. So that a horse was shot, in conjunction with threatening calls etc and possible criminal damage. I think that's going to cause some problems when it comes to reissuing that certificate.

Plus no-one in the locale will be happy there was a dead horse in a garden. It's not the sort of behaviour you want around your home is it?


----------



## cptrayes (16 October 2014)

Jaycee said:



			Seriously????   I can't think that Kit's owners would agree with you on that comment!
		
Click to expand...

It isn't my view.

It's the current law.

Unfortunately, the law currently takes no account whatsoever of the emotional value of animals to their owners.  I think it's wrong, but it's how it is 

The only way the poor owner is going to get any peace of mind is if his actions result in his business going bust.  I hope she is coping and has support around her.


----------



## Alec Swan (16 October 2014)

rockysmum said:



			And just because I was reading about it anyway

SECTION 59 OF THE POLICE REFORM ACT - ANTI SOCIAL DRIVING OFFENCES
New laws in respect of certain anti social driving offences can now be dealt with by Section 59 of the Police Reform Act.

Basically what that means is if you are seen:

Driving in a careless or inconsiderate manner
Driving on common land, a footpath or bridle way or any land which is not part of a road
Driving in a manner which is causing/has been causing, or is likely to cause alarm, distress or annoyance to members of the public


Surely driving around with a dead horse and dropping it in a garden would come under number 3.   I am sure there are plenty of things they could use if they really wanted to prosecute.
		
Click to expand...

Driving a Teleporter,  on a Public Highway and with a dead horse in the bucket,  would not constitute a criminal act.

Alec.


----------



## Sebastian (16 October 2014)

Moya_999 said:



			So many members here have said horses were dumped in their fields or owners behind in rent.
		
Click to expand...

Can you expand on what you mean here?


----------



## be positive (16 October 2014)

Sugar_and_Spice said:



			I'm not saying its justified, what he did. Only saying I can see why he did it. 30 pounds is a debt, the amount is irrelevant - a debt is a debt. And if he thought the debt was going to increase because she has a reputation for not paying, I can see why he would want to put a stop to that. Grass livery does cost him. It's a livery space that could be taken by a paying customer just as easily as a non paying customer.

I agree with you he should have handled it differently. To take the horse lead it to the house and tie it to the gate would have got it off his land. Maybe he couldn't be bothered to do that :confused3:  

I wonder if he will be prosecuted? Is it legal for a YO to shoot any horse that isn't suffering or even one who is suffering? If it was the YO who did it, that is. I would think that shooting a horse he doesn't own would only make the situation worse, if its a crime.
		
Click to expand...

A debt of £30 is out of all proportion to the punishment for that small debt, if a business cannot run with a few  debts of this type without resorting to violence then that business should be closed, there is no justification whatever for killing the horse even if the owner/ loaner in this case is  known to be a bad payer.
The moving or loading attempt seems to have been in the evening suggesting to me they were trying to take the mare elsewhere for some reason probably not to the loaners home as it seems to be near enough to walk, maybe when she wouldn't load they lost patience and decided to finish the job.
If they get away with this it means that anyone who runs up a small debt needs to be very very careful about where they keep there horses.
 I had a livery several years ago, I was warned by several people after she had arrived that she was dishonest, had bounced cheques in numerous places and to watch out, she didn't turn up to see to her horse, on DIY, it had no food hay or bedding so I took over its care, I tried phoning, left messages, sent a recorded delivery letter and started the ball rolling to take over ownership if she didn't come back. She eventually turned up with a "good excuse" and tried to remove the horse having conveniently forgotten her chequebook, I let her go and kept her rugs and other equipment until she came back with cash, she never came back, I was out of pocket but glad to see her gone, it would never have occurred to me that I could have shot the horse, I was more likely to shoot the owner!! 

If they yard runs such a tight ship what I cannot understand is why they did not get a months livery upfront, she seems to have only been there for 3 weeks, most yards run a monthly account, either upfront or in arrears it is not clear which this was but then most of the story is unclear other than a horse was killed in very unusual circumstances.


----------



## cptrayes (16 October 2014)

be positive said:



			A debt of £30 is out of all proportion to the punishment for that small debt, if a business cannot run with a few  debts of this type without resorting to violence then that business should be closed, there is no justification whatever for killing the horse even if the owner/ loaner in this case is  known to be a bad payer.
The moving or loading attempt seems to have been in the evening suggesting to me they were trying to take the mare elsewhere for some reason probably not to the loaners home as it seems to be near enough to walk, maybe when she wouldn't load they lost patience and decided to finish the job.
If they get away with this it means that anyone who runs up a small debt needs to be very very careful about where they keep there horses.
 I had a livery several years ago, I was warned by several people after she had arrived that she was dishonest, had bounced cheques in numerous places and to watch out, she didn't turn up to see to her horse, on DIY, it had no food hay or bedding so I took over its care, I tried phoning, left messages, sent a recorded delivery letter and started the ball rolling to take over ownership if she didn't come back. She eventually turned up with a "good excuse" and tried to remove the horse having conveniently forgotten her chequebook, I let her go and kept her rugs and other equipment until she came back with cash, she never came back, I was out of pocket but glad to see her gone, it would never have occurred to me that I could have shot the horse, I was more likely to shoot the owner!! 

If they yard runs such a tight ship what I cannot understand is why they did not get a months livery upfront, she seems to have only been there for 3 weeks, most yards run a monthly account, either upfront or in arrears it is not clear which this was but then most of the story is unclear other than a horse was killed in very unusual circumstances.
		
Click to expand...


BP according to the papers the livery fees were due up front, they were requested several times and she is quoted as saying that she had no intention of paying except in arrears.

I agree that is no reason to shoot the horse.


----------



## Kaida (16 October 2014)

Are there no legalities around shooting the horse without the consent of the owner or would they say that he had taken "reasonable measures" to gain consent and had no confirmation for or against? 

I agree - I'm sure a good lawyer/prosecutor could get them on many, many things if sufficiently motivated...


----------



## jools68 (16 October 2014)

Seeing as one of the perpetrators  has already very sadly been released without charge I can only hope that he spends the remainder of his miserable little life 'looking over his shoulder'... The RSPCA need to do the right thing for once , instead of sitting on the fence as they so often do ..... although knowing that outfit I suspect this won't happen.


----------



## jojo5 (16 October 2014)

rockysmum said:



			Apparently not, this morning it is being discussed that livery owners have to agree to this before they move onto the yard.  If you owe any money they shoot the horse and deliver it to you.  Apparently it is not the first time it has happened.

First time I have ever seen anything like that actually happen.

Poor poor owner and her kids, just shows you need to check out the place and contract very carefully before using these places
		
Click to expand...

Of course this is a terrible thing, but are you really saying that owners actually agree to this when they go to the livery yard? Surely that cannot be true? Who would go there in that case?


----------



## Moya_999 (16 October 2014)

Sebastian said:



			Can you expand on what you mean here?
		
Click to expand...

Over the past few years we have seen members on H&H write about liveries behind or wont pay their rent and asking fellow members what to do.  Also some horses have been dumped on land belonging to members here.  I thought I made myself clear, obviously not.....................


----------



## rockysmum (16 October 2014)

jojo5 said:



			Of course this is a terrible thing, but are you really saying that owners actually agree to this when they go to the livery yard? Surely that cannot be true? Who would go there in that case?
		
Click to expand...

The original Facebook thread last night, when it was all happening, had several other liveries from there on it.  They said they were told (not sure if verbal or written) that this would happen if they didn't pay.

They also said that he has done this before.  3 gypsy cobs a few years ago were shot and the bodies returned to their owners.  I believe they were owned by travellers so the police were not involved.  No idea if it was true, but it has been mentioned a lot.  Also there have been problems with some dogs, but not sure what.   I just find it hard to believe that the RSPCA dont take these sort of things into account when paying a business for animal services.


----------



## Goldenstar (16 October 2014)

cptrayes said:



			Yes but that's not a crime RM. His crime If there is one is causing criminal damage of someone else property. But the value of the horse is low, and the penalty will, if he is even found guiltywhich is not yet certain,  be universally condemned as outrageously inadequate.
		
Click to expand...

There are serval crimes that may have been committed here .
One is intimation, it is not legal to intimate people who owe you money .
It is not legal to damage someone else property because a third party owes you money .
I hope the horses owner is a person of enough financial resource to pursue  the YOer  
How ever I fear the loaner must bear some of the burden of blame she had paid her bill none of this would have happened .


----------



## Renvers (16 October 2014)

cptrayes said:



			There is actually an argument, which he may well use in court, that he is required to return the 'property' to the owner. Though since he shouldn't have shot the horse in the first place, it is obviously an outrageous thing to have done.
		
Click to expand...

A questionable defence as he has already effectively destroyed someone's property in what could be considered a disproportionate manner, the value of the debt being a fraction of the value of the property. Also DEFRA have rules about the disposal of fallen stock and ditching it in someone's garden is not in them, surely that needs to be addressed?

This is an awful and unacceptable action and my thoughts are with the owner and connections who have to deal with such a violent and unpleasant action. How could they trust a livery owner again?


----------



## RaposadeGengibre (16 October 2014)

Moya_999 said:



			Over the past few years we have seen members on H&H write about liveries behind or wont pay their rent and asking fellow members what to do.  Also some horses have been dumped on land belonging to members here.  I thought I made myself clear, obviously not.....................
		
Click to expand...

Oh yeah... Now everyone knows the solution to this...


----------



## Spring Feather (16 October 2014)

Out of interest, and going off on a different tangent here; does the DM and Mirror pay for stories?


----------



## EmmasMummy (16 October 2014)

cptrayes said:



			The RSPCA    *can't*  do anything to punish him. He has not committed any animal welfare crime. It is not illegal to shoot a horse.
		
Click to expand...

So I could effectively hire a slaughterman, take him to afield, say the animal is mine and ask him to shoot it...and it is legal?

It says this here:http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/11538293.Horse_killed_and_dumped_in_garden___2_men_arrested/?ref=rss

_Insp Colman said a police investigation had been launched and the RSPCA would assist, but it is not illegal to humanely kill a horse *if the owner's permission has been sought*._


----------



## rockysmum (16 October 2014)

EmmasMummy said:



			So I could effectively hire a slaughterman, take him to afield, say the animal is mine and ask him to shoot it...and it is legal?

It says this here:http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/11538293.Horse_killed_and_dumped_in_garden___2_men_arrested/?ref=rss

_Insp Colman said a police investigation had been launched and the RSPCA would assist, but it is not illegal to humanely kill a horse *if the owner's permission has been sought*._

Click to expand...

Good point, the owner of the horse could have agreed to all this, including the return of the body to the loaner.  Sounds very unlikely and then why would the police arrest anyone?   

I do feel more sorry for the owner than the loaner to be honest.  I cant imagine how they are feeling with pics of their dead horse all over national newspapers


----------



## Moomin1 (16 October 2014)

EmmasMummy said:



			So I could effectively hire a slaughterman, take him to afield, say the animal is mine and ask him to shoot it...and it is legal?

It says this here:http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/11538293.Horse_killed_and_dumped_in_garden___2_men_arrested/?ref=rss

_Insp Colman said a police investigation had been launched and the RSPCA would assist, but it is not illegal to humanely kill a horse *if the owner's permission has been sought*._

Click to expand...

Cpt is correct - if the horse has been shot outright and no suffering has occurred, then there is no animal welfare offence.  A criminal damage offence may be an entirely different matter however.


----------



## rubyrussell (16 October 2014)

Havent read all posts but feel so sorry for horse, but does highlight that if having problems paying talk to yard owner and need ways that yard owner can move horses on of non payers, they are not charities.


----------



## Renvers (16 October 2014)

rockysmum said:



			Good point, the owner of the horse could have agreed to all this, including the return of the body to the loaner.  Sounds very unlikely and then why would the police arrest anyone?   

I do feel more sorry for the owner than the loaner to be honest.  I cant imagine how they are feeling with pics of their dead horse all over national newspapers
		
Click to expand...

Quite aside from how tragic this is for the owner and loaner, I am reminded of all the stories on HHO of loans gone wrong and problem YO's/Liveries. It's like the ultimate nightmare thread become real


----------



## flaxen (16 October 2014)

Having seen the most recent pictures of the horses body and legs and seeing the head picture this morning has the horse been positively identified as the supposed horse in question. A dead bay mare with no obvious distinguishable markings will look like any other bay mare with no obvious distinguishable markings. The reason I'm saying this is having worked in equine vets for a long time and seen more horses shot and somulosed than I can remember the pictures I saw were of a horse that had been dead for a good period of time. The picture of the head showed a swollen tongue and that doesn't happen instantly and the body shot showed an already bloated animal. That doesn't happen in a few hrs unless the animal has been sick or toxic. Just a thought as its puzzling me.


----------



## Goldenstar (16 October 2014)

Spring Feather said:



			Out of interest, and going off on a different tangent here; does the DM and Mirror pay for stories?
		
Click to expand...

I believe so.
But this story is on all the mainstream media I have just seen a report on the TV news .


----------



## Dave's Mam (16 October 2014)

What a mess.  This person appears deranged.  My major issues are the fact that it wasn't the debtor's property, and that they dumped her in a garden for all to see, children & adults alike.  I have been near to tears at the thought of what I would do if I found a carcass in my garden, & I do not have children.
Hugs to loaner & owner, we ARE on your side.


----------



## Savkins (16 October 2014)

flaxen said:



			Having seen the most recent pictures of the horses body and legs and seeing the head picture this morning has the horse been positively identified as the supposed horse in question. A dead bay mare with no obvious distinguishable markings will look like any other bay mare with no obvious distinguishable markings. The reason I'm saying this is having worked in equine vets for a long time and seen more horses shot and somulosed than I can remember the pictures I saw were of a horse that had been dead for a good period of time. The picture of the head showed a swollen tongue and that doesn't happen instantly and the body shot showed an already bloated animal. That doesn't happen in a few hrs unless the animal has been sick or toxic. Just a thought as its puzzling me.
		
Click to expand...

This is a good point but I would hope the loaner would know the horse well enough to identify it. I have three that look incredibly similiar, to people who don't know them they could be the same animal but I can instantly tell which is which. I wonder if the horse was killed earlier than stated and when the debt wasn't going to be paid then the horse was left. Or the horse is still alive somewhere and this is an horrific stunt to prove a point.

Whichever way this is an incredibly sad story.


----------



## honetpot (16 October 2014)

I have had ponies dumped on my land by a livery that wouldn't pay, and the land owner has a duty of care. To get the owner to move these ponies I had to serve her and eviction notice, or if she had stopped coming to see them an Abandonment notice, which I think last 14 days before you can do what you want with the animals. I was left with a bill for several hundred pounds apart from the aggravation. The landowner has taken the law into his own hands and it will be interesting to see what happens, if not a lot our local golf course could be very happy as there are several black and white ponies dumped on there. 
  I am sad that the horse is dead, lets just hope it was quick and no one should have to get up in the morning and see a dead animal in their garden, he must be some mean....... If I was the women I would get myself down to injury lawyers for you and sue him for distress and certainly she has suffered threatening behaviour. I read somewhere that she had signed a livery contract that allowed for its disposal but as she was not the owner she could not sign the owners rights away. 

Again it makes the passport system look stupid, I have had several horses PTS and never asked for the passport, which in an ideal world should cost nothing to update, a bit like your cars log book, so no passport no PTS unless in an emergency.
  As someone else has pointed out he has contravened DEFRA regulations for the disposable  of animal waste/by products and as farmer he would be well aware of the regulations. The fallen stock man has to have sealed truck for transport so I doubt the local EHO would be happy with him trundling along the road with a dead horse on a low loader, the hunt truck leaked they got charged for cleaning the road by the council.


----------



## flaxen (16 October 2014)

Goldenstar said:



			I believe so.
But this story is on all the mainstream media I have just seen a report on the TV news .
		
Click to expand...




Savkins said:



			This is a good point but I would hope the loaner would know the horse well enough to identify it. I have three that look incredibly similiar, to people who don't know them they could be the same animal but I can instantly tell which is which.

If you were in a state of shock which I would expect anyone in this situation to be would you be able to look closely enough to positively identify your horse. I suspect that seeing what's in front of you would be incredibly hard and you ( not you actually if that makes sense ) probably wouldn't be able to look for more than a few seconds. 

As this horse was a ex racehorse she will be microchipped and have dna stored with wetherbys which will all prove her identity.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Equi (17 October 2014)

I hope the owner is getting a horse savvy lawyer. A normal one will only try to recoup the costs for the animal if that. 

They should try hanna she's very good and fights for the rights of the horse. I'll ask if she's contacted the owners..
http://www.horsesolicitor.co.uk


----------



## Liz H (17 October 2014)

Sugar_and_Spice said:



			I'm not saying its justified, what he did. Only saying I can see why he did it. 30 pounds is a debt, the amount is irrelevant - a debt is a debt. And if he thought the debt was going to increase because she has a reputation for not paying, I can see why he would want to put a stop to that. Grass livery does cost him. It's a livery space that could be taken by a paying customer just as easily as a non paying customer.

I agree with you he should have handled it differently. To take the horse lead it to the house and tie it to the gate would have got it off his land. Maybe he couldn't be bothered to do that :confused3:  

I wonder if he will be prosecuted? Is it legal for a YO to shoot any horse that isn't suffering or even one who is suffering? If it was the YO who did it, that is. I would think that shooting a horse he doesn't own would only make the situation worse, if its a crime.
		
Click to expand...

No. Sorry. I can't see why he did it, nor will I ever.


----------



## Equi (17 October 2014)

Just read this 

"Nothing whatsoever to do with RSPCA York and district"

So that's how the RSPCA are handling it. Sensitively and with emotion. And isn't the gg centre in York?!


----------



## Smurf's Gran (17 October 2014)

rockysmum said:



			Good point, the owner of the horse could have agreed to all this, including the return of the body to the loaner.  Sounds very unlikely and then why would the police arrest anyone?   

I do feel more sorry for the owner than the loaner to be honest.  I cant imagine how they are feeling with pics of their dead horse all over national newspapers
		
Click to expand...

The owner has been on here ...saying she knew nothing about it !!!


----------



## ladyt25 (17 October 2014)

equi said:



			Just read this 

"Nothing whatsoever to do with RSPCA York and district"

So that's how the RSPCA are handling it. Sensitively and with emotion. And isn't the gg centre in York?!
		
Click to expand...

Yes, it is in Raskelf which I am pretty sure is a York postcode. And yes, the RSPCA DO keep many horses on land at the centre. I guess it isn't technically their issue as no queries over welfare. It is a police matter


----------



## Chavhorse (17 October 2014)

Having been in the position of having a loaner who just decided not to pay any livery for three months, I was contacted by the YO asking if I had in fact given her the horse as she had said as he wanted to change ownership so he could sell to repay the debt.  I thank god that I was dealing with a reasonable human being who in the end refused to take my money (even though I offered) as it was not my debt.

This sends shivers down my spine the person I have real sympathy for is that poor owner finding out what had happened via some pics on a facebook thread.

If this was my horse I would by now be appealing to the group for bail money for the damage I had done to the land owner who has to be deranged as in no way can this ever be considered a proper reaction and the loaner for nor being up front with me and telling me she was having problems paying and taking my horse to a yard which has such a reputation.


----------



## Dry Rot (17 October 2014)

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/law-trial-by-media-watching-for-prejudice-1577021.html


----------



## Alec Swan (17 October 2014)

Spring Feather said:



			Out of interest, and going off on a different tangent here; does the DM and Mirror pay for stories?
		
Click to expand...

I've never dealt with either,  and wouldn't,  but those who have tell me that when you make your enquiry,  they will agree that if the story is of value,  then Yes they will pay for it,  you tell them your sorry tale,  and then they just print it anyway!  Hardly big enough to involve Max Clifford as an agent,  and anyway,  he's still doing a bit of pokey,  isn't he? 

Alec.


----------



## Mariposa (17 October 2014)

Spring Feather said:



			Out of interest, and going off on a different tangent here; does the DM and Mirror pay for stories?
		
Click to expand...

I used to work for the Daily Mail (don't hate me...it was my first job out of uni!) - and they would pay for some stories (exclusives etc) but I doubt they'd have had to pay for a small story like this that's also been covered by rest of the national press.


----------



## HBB (17 October 2014)

rockysmum said:



			Good point, the owner of the horse could have agreed to all this, including the return of the body to the loaner.  Sounds very unlikely and then why would the police arrest anyone?   

I do feel more sorry for the owner than the loaner to be honest.  I cant imagine how they are feeling with pics of their dead horse all over national newspapers
		
Click to expand...

Sadly the owner had no idea and has already posted on this thread....




green007 said:



			My horse Kit was not hard to catch or handle she was a loving mare who did not deserve to end up like this. I would of collected myself rather then it resulting like this. *I would hope people would now stop posting pictures and speculating about my horse. I'm devastated that they decided to carry out there actions without my consent*.
		
Click to expand...

Again Green007, I am sorry for your loss.


----------



## Alec Swan (17 October 2014)

Dry Rot said:



http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/law-trial-by-media-watching-for-prejudice-1577021.html

Click to expand...

An interesting article,  even though it's rather out of date,  it none-the-less raises an interesting point.  

To quote;  "To have a case which is untriable is almost anarchy. It leaves the person accused in limbo, neither proved innocent nor guilty."

If the person being tried knows full well that they are guilty,  and that they will most probably face a prison sentence,  then sabotaging the case by having the media render it un-triable,  would be their 'Get out of jail card',  I'd have thought!

It's also interesting to see that as the article was written all but 20 years ago,  still the media seem to assume a free hand.

Alec.


----------



## Goldenstar (17 October 2014)

On the subject of signing a contract that says the horse will be disposed of if you don't pay it could only be disposed of within the frame work of existing laws ie abdonment / eviction notices , you can't sign away the rights English law gives you .


----------



## *hic* (17 October 2014)

EmmasMummy said:



			So I could effectively hire a slaughterman, take him to afield, say the animal is mine and ask him to shoot it...and it is legal?

It says this here:http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/11538293.Horse_killed_and_dumped_in_garden___2_men_arrested/?ref=rss

_Insp Colman said a police investigation had been launched and the RSPCA would assist, but it is not illegal to humanely kill a horse *if the owner's permission has been sought*._

Click to expand...

I understood that it was in black and white in the contract that debts would result in this drastic action so permission had been given.

Further to this, I ended up with a small pony on my land, to my surprise my husband suggested sending it to the hunt. When I rang the police to ask what to do about it and who would take it from me their view was that if it hadn't been collected in 14 days and I didn't know who the owner was then getting it pts was perfectly reasonable if I didn't want it. 

We found the owner and in any case my husband wasn't serious.


----------



## Equi (17 October 2014)

ladyt25 said:



			Yes, it is in Raskelf which I am pretty sure is a York postcode. And yes, the RSPCA DO keep many horses on land at the centre. I guess it isn't technically their issue as no queries over welfare. It is a police matter
		
Click to expand...

Yeah but they could have shown at least a smidge of compassion in their post :/


----------



## fatpiggy (17 October 2014)

Goldenstar said:



			I believe so.
But this story is on all the mainstream media I have just seen a report on the TV news .
		
Click to expand...

DM did an article about me and my horse back in 2000, about a third of a page.  I certainly didn't get any money for it, but the photographer very kindly emailed me all the pictures he had taken, which were beautiful.


----------



## Moya_999 (17 October 2014)

How ever the tabloid dress it up its not the actions of a normal human person to kill an animal over a petty £ 30 bill.  As I said before there were many other ways of recouping their so called losses.

  This action is a bolt out the blue suffice to say not the actions of most YO//YM in the world.  I am not saying this has not been done somewhere in the world.

  It was a vicious act  on a defenseless animal  on its own but to transport it the way they did is not a normal human thing to do.   I hope this place closes before more horses die this way over a petty small amount.

  The people involved should be held accountable for their actions as I am sure if they had actually contacted the owner they would have got their monnies.  I wonder if that yard will start getting hate mail or threats after all this publicity.!   It certainly wont get them liveries that is for sure.  The horse world is small and word gets around so hopefully people will leave and no one will darken their doors again.


----------



## Red-1 (17 October 2014)

Answered further up the thread


----------



## cptrayes (17 October 2014)

Red-1 said:



			I believe Criminal Damage is an offence for which someone may be sent to prison.
		
Click to expand...


Not for damaging 'property' to the  value of an ottb used as an occasional hack, I'm afraid 

I'm really sorry for everyone wanting to see justice done here, but the law simply will not allow for the kind of punishment that almost everyone in the country would like to see him get.

Instead of petitioning for a jail term for this man, we need to be petitioning for the law to distinguish horses and pets from other 'property' and give them a much higher value for the purposes of punishing offenders.

Please don't get your hopes up for any justice for the owner or the horse here. If he can prove that he had a contract, and apparently other liveries say that they had the same terms, then he may have committed no offence at all  in the eyes of the law at all in killing the horse.

Morally disgusting, yes. Legally?  we'll have to wait and see.


----------



## Alec Swan (17 October 2014)

Goldenstar said:



			On the subject of signing a contract that says the horse will be disposed of if you don't pay it could only be disposed of within the frame work of existing laws ie abdonment / eviction notices , you can't sign away the rights English law gives you .
		
Click to expand...

Whilst an animal such as a horse,  or any farm livestock are on anyone's land,  then they are deemed to be 'The Keepers',  even if they don't own the animal,  and that includes animals which have strayed or been dumped on to the land of another.  

There are responsibilities attached to being 'The Keeper',  and the disposal or the removal of any such animal fall under the description of 'responsible'.  If animals stray on to your land,  for instance,  then opening the gate and turfing them back out would be a criminal offence,  just as would the order of 'Failing to dispose of,  correctly',  of any fallen or dead stock.  Simply dumping the dead horse in it's owner's garden is in itself a criminal offence.  As the land owner had a dead horse on his property,  so he was responsible for ethical and correct disposal.  I can't be bothered to find the relevant conditions attached to the disposal of fallen stock,  but they are there should anyone decide to investigate them.  I very much doubt that the CPS or Trading Standards (the land owner is running a commercial enterprise,  don't forget),  will go to the trouble of prosecuting though.

Alec.


----------



## Equi (17 October 2014)

Think it has to be over a retain amount of money though? Like a Mercedes would be more jailable than a ftgh 


Sorry I keep missing updates and posting to older posts! Lol


----------



## Nettle123 (17 October 2014)

Feel so sorry for the poor horse and of course the owner such a tragic thing to happen. The yard Owner does sound deranged.

Surely though its standard practice to pay livery rent up front?, why would you expect not to pay at least a week in advance?. This situation could have been avoided imo.


----------



## Alec Swan (17 October 2014)

cptrayes said:



			&#8230;&#8230;..

Please don't get your hopes up for any justice for the owner or the horse here. If he can prove that he had a contract, and apparently other liveries say that they had the same terms, then he may have committed no offence at all  in the eyes of the law at all in killing the horse.

&#8230;&#8230;.. .
		
Click to expand...

Which has long been my point.  See above for a possible contravention of statutory conditions,  concerning his disposal responsibilities.  Mind you,  perhaps if the animal could be considered as a pet,  he might yet be in the clear!

Alec.


----------



## webble (17 October 2014)

ladyt25 said:



			Yes, it is in Raskelf which I am pretty sure is a York postcode. And yes, the RSPCA DO keep many horses on land at the centre. I guess it isn't technically their issue as no queries over welfare. It is a police matter
		
Click to expand...

The branches are run independently to the main charity I expect that is what they mean


----------



## cptrayes (17 October 2014)

Alec Swan said:



			Which has long been my point.  See above for a possible contravention of statutory conditions,  concerning his disposal responsibilities.  Mind you,  perhaps if the animal could be considered as a pet,  he might yet be in the clear!

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

What a good point Alec. And disappointing, too. I was holding my hopes for an additional penalty from the disposal angle, but horses aren't agricultural animals, so does that mean he'll not even get done for that?  I don't think it's even a criminal offence to fly tip on someone else's land, just civil.

This is a moral crime for which the law has a completely inadequate answer. But who in their right minds would think anyone would ever do it?


----------



## Grumpy Herbert (17 October 2014)

I think I could almost deal with the bar steward shooting the horse, although it is a disproportionately extreme way of getting rid of a problem livery debt of £30 and utterly reprehensible.  But to then go to the trouble of loading the body onto a JCB, drive through a village street and dump the body in someone's front garden, in full knowledge that the neighbours, their children and any other poor sod that happened to be in the area at the time would see it?  That shows a level of vindictiveness that goes way beyond the realms of normal thinking, it borders on psychotic.

I think there must be some way of dealing with this through the Public Order Act, if nothing else.  His actions have caused alarm, fear and distress to many I would imagine.  Whatever, he mustn't be allowed to get away with this - what will he do next if nothing is done?  Even if it's only a loss to his business and livelihood rather than a jail term, I hope the local community will rally round to ensure that no-one does business with this complete and utter thug ever again.


----------



## Alec Swan (17 October 2014)

The other point which I've yet to see raised of course,  is that his actions haven't actually recovered the £30 debt,  have they?  Assuming that he paid a licensed horse slaughterer probably £20-30 to actually turn out and put the animal down,  then he's simply increased his losses,  and that's additional to the risk of prosecution,  of some form.  Clearly,  the man's an idiot,  and not a very nice one.

Alec.


----------



## fburton (17 October 2014)

Sugar_and_Spice said:



			I'm not saying its justified, what he did. Only saying I can see why he did it. 30 pounds is a debt, the amount is irrelevant - a debt is a debt. And if he thought the debt was going to increase because she has a reputation for not paying, I can see why he would want to put a stop to that. Grass livery does cost him. It's a livery space that could be taken by a paying customer just as easily as a non paying customer.
		
Click to expand...

Absolutely - and especially if that £30 was bringing him to the edge of bankruptcy (or pushing him over!).



cptrayes said:



			Sorry, there is nothing whatever illegal about anyone, you or me included, shooting a horse as long as it is done humanely.

His crime is only criminal damage of a low value.
		
Click to expand...

Is there a crime of performing a deed with the intention of inflicting mental cruelty on another person? I don't think so, but I could be wrong.


----------



## saddlesore (17 October 2014)

fburton said:



			Absolutely - and especially if that £30 was bringing him to the edge of bankruptcy (or pushing him over!)
		
Click to expand...

Lol!


----------



## Dry Rot (17 October 2014)

Under EU law and the Animal By Products Regulations dead livestock must be disposed of promptly and properly. The old Diseases of Dogs Act 1948 I think stated 48 hours but I am not sure if that is still in force. Disposal can be expensive as has been discussed on HHO from time to time. The owner of a pet can bury it on their own land subject to approval of the site by the environmental agencies. This horse did not belong to the landowner.

In the absence of any agreement to the contrary, I would have though that the person responsible for every day care, let alone proper disposal, would either be the loaner or the owner. I suspect the loaner in this case.

I am not siding with anyone. I think the YO has acted very stupidly but it is also irresponsible for an owner not to pay all fees relating to the welfare of their animals.

There are so many knobs and knurls to this story that it needs to be left to the courts. Journalists are notorious for making up quotes from the public and this is accepted if the quote is considered to be what the interviewee probably would have said anyway! How much can we believe? Newspapers thrive on controversy. I think it was Mark Twain who said the art of journalism is to upset half your readers every week. The skill comes in upsetting a different half each time!


----------



## Dry Rot (17 October 2014)

I forgot to add that the YO is probably in breach of the law for not having a waste carriers' licence! There will probably be other regulations involving the carrying of animal by products which might need inspections and licences.

https://www.gov.uk/waste-carrier-or-broker-registration

(&#8230;and, no, I am not a bureaucrat. Just one of their victims!)


----------



## brucea (17 October 2014)

Whatever the law does or doesn't do, I can hardly imagine that anyone wants to be a livery on his yard any more.  He should be driven under, and his yard retain such a reputation that no liveries would even consider using him.


----------



## shadeofshyness (17 October 2014)

My thoughts are with the owner, loaner and other liveries. I hope they all manage to get off the yard as soon as possible. What a terrible situation.


----------



## georgiegirl (17 October 2014)

I think it's utterly disgusting that the RSPCA are involved on assessing this case in the first place seeing as they have a highly vested interest in the place. Wholly inappropriate.


----------



## saddlesore (17 October 2014)

brucea said:



			Whatever the law does or doesn't do, I can hardly imagine that anyone wants to be a livery on his yard any more.  He should be driven under, and his yard retain such a reputation that no liveries would even consider using him.
		
Click to expand...

This absolutely. I can't believe some people are almost justifying his actions!


----------



## luckyoldme (17 October 2014)

saddlesore said:



			This absolutely. I can't believe some people are almost justifying his actions!
		
Click to expand...

i would nt seek to justify his actions. 
I also would nt seek to justify the actions of someone who thinks that you can use a service and pay when you feel like it.
Its disgusting what he did, she should have had a live horse tied up in her garden but i guess she just chose the wrong person to mess with.


----------



## rockysmum (17 October 2014)

georgiegirl said:



			I think it's utterly disgusting that the RSPCA are involved on assessing this case in the first place seeing as they have a highly vested interest in the place. Wholly inappropriate.
		
Click to expand...

I agree, WHW have just replied to my email on the night it came out saying the RSPCA are dealing with it.  I have suggested that people have no faith whatsoever in the RSPCA handling horse cases and that they should look into it


----------



## fatpiggy (17 October 2014)

saddlesore said:



			This absolutely. I can't believe some people are almost justifying his actions!
		
Click to expand...

I'm not justifying his actions at all, it was an appalling thing to do when it could probably have been sorted out quickly by the owner, not the loaner, but there are plenty of horse owners out there who quite happily rip off the YO knowing full well that no sanctions will be placed against them.  From personal experience, I knew of one YO who was owed over £1000 unpaid livery by a single family - they had 6 horses they couldn't afford to keep, and also owed the haylage supplier several hundred as well, but neither wanted to do anything to serious about it because they feared for the welfare of the horses, and on two other yards the same livery did a moonlight owing each over £700 rent.  I could have told them the livery would do something like that because I'd known her since she was a teenager and wouldn't have believed a word that came out of her mouth.  At the end of the day, the loaner in this case seems to be to blame since she refused to pay her rent in advance. How many yards does anyone here know that allow payment in arrears?

Poor horse.


----------



## Biglets Mummy (17 October 2014)

webble said:



			Somtimes there are no words
		
Click to expand...

Exactly....I am totally speechless.


----------



## ester (17 October 2014)

rockysmum said:



			I agree, WHW have just replied to my email on the night it came out saying the RSPCA are dealing with it.  I have suggested that people have no faith whatsoever in the RSPCA handling horse cases and that they should look into it
		
Click to expand...

and more that they shouldn't as an interested party.


----------



## Alec Swan (17 October 2014)

Dry Rot said:



			&#8230;&#8230;..

In the absence of any agreement to the contrary, I would have though that the person responsible for every day care, let alone proper disposal, would either be the loaner or the owner. I suspect the loaner in this case.

&#8230;&#8230;..!
		
Click to expand...

As another has pointed out,  you can't Contract outside the Law.  As you (whilst wearing your farming hat) will be aware,  "The Keeper" is the person upon who's land,  the animals reside.  "The Owner" and "The Keeper" may well be one and the same,  but only with Owners who keep their animals on their own land.  

If "The Keeper",  correctly or otherwise,  elects to shoot a horse which is on his property,  as seems to have happened,  then as The Keeper,  they've become responsible for the correct and legally compliant disposal conditions.

It's time and case proven that those who have animals,  on their land,  even though they don't own them,  assume by taking them in,  or even arriving by chance,  a certain responsibility for their actions.  That,  I assure you,  is fact,  and the guy who apparently caused the horse to be shot,  and then delivered it to the front garden of a.n.other,  is in breach of the Law.

Alec.

ps.  Love the Mark Twain quote!!


----------



## Archangel (17 October 2014)

Surely the horse (RIP) would have had goods and chattels to the value of £30 or even £50 on or about the yard that could have been taken to cover the debt.


----------



## Honey08 (17 October 2014)

It was more likely to have been over repeatedly not paying on time or disagreement about how being a livery should work than over a £30 bill, who knows.

If he does get away with this legally there will be horses shot all over the place.  No need for abandonment notices etc and procedures that we are told we need to follow...  It could end up a huge mess.


----------



## Spring Feather (17 October 2014)

I suspect the money was not really the issue.  I'd say most livery yard owners have been in his situation, whereby some liveries don't pay their way and treat you like a bank!  It is infuriating, I do understand that, but it's still no excuse to kill a horse however if it's in his T&Cs then his liveries would be in no doubt that it was something he *might* be prepared to do.  I am in no way justifying what he did, not by a long chalk, but the facts remain that had the person who had the horse on loan paid their livery costs then this would not have happened.


----------



## luckyoldme (17 October 2014)

Spring Feather said:



			I suspect the money was not really the issue.  I'd say most livery yard owners have been in his situation, whereby some liveries don't pay their way and treat you like a bank!  It is infuriating, I do understand that, but it's still no excuse to kill a horse however if it's in his T&Cs then his liveries would be in no doubt that it was something he *might* be prepared to do.  I am in no way justifying what he did, not by a long chalk, but the facts remain that had the person who had the horse on loan paid their livery costs then this would not have happened.
		
Click to expand...

thank god some common sense at last. my whole feeling about the story is that the loaner is playing the victim card when in fact she could have done what everyone else does and paid her due.......its not just liveries its any business, there are a proportion of people who think that its ok to decide what and when to pay what they owe...........and i bet they would be the first to complain if they turned up at work and had to beg for their wages.
It was £30 for gods sake...@£10 a week........you get a good deal like that then still think its ok to mess some one around for the money. Most of us know there is a line not to be crossed in this case the loaner crossed someone who crosses the line. 
Its a shame for the owner and the horse that they got involved with such stupid people.


----------



## Wagtail (17 October 2014)

It seems she refused to pay up front as was the requirement of the livery and told him she would pay in arrears. Personally, I don't allow a livery to land here without paying a month up front on arrival of the horse. Once I get to know people and trust them, I don't mind if livery is late, but I am very careful to begin with.


----------



## Goldenstar (17 October 2014)

Wagtail said:



			It seems she refused to pay up front as was the requirement of the livery and told him she would pay in arrears. Personally, I don't allow a livery to land here without paying a month up front on arrival of the horse. Once I get to know people and trust them, I don't mind if livery is late, but I am very careful to begin with.
		
Click to expand...

The loaner IMO clearly bears a heavy responsibility for this happening all she had to do was the right thing and pay like everybody else in advance .
I would feel so guilty if I where her .


----------



## Alec Swan (17 October 2014)

Wagtail said:



			It seems she refused to pay up front as was the requirement of the livery and told him she would pay in arrears. Personally, I don't allow a livery to land here without paying a month up front on arrival of the horse. Once I get to know people and trust them, I don't mind if livery is late, but I am very careful to begin with.
		
Click to expand...

I've run 2 DIY livery yards,  and on behalf of others.  Never again,  EVER!

Alec.


----------



## Red-1 (17 October 2014)

Goldenstar said:



			The loaner IMO clearly bears a heavy responsibility for this happening all she had to do was the right thing and pay like everybody else in advance .
I would feel so guilty if I where her .
		
Click to expand...

I think that is harsh. I think she should feel guilty towards the man for not paying on time, but I don't think  she should feel guilty for the shooting of the horse. 

I am sure the lady did not foresee the outcome, nor would I have expected her to. 

As the lady is known to read this thread I would like to tell her that I do not think you should feel guilty for this totally unexpected outcome, and I am very sorry for your loss.


----------



## Sebastian (17 October 2014)

Red-1 said:



			I think that is harsh. I think she should feel guilty towards the man for not paying on time, but I don't think  she should feel guilty for the shooting of the horse. 

I am sure the lady did not foresee the outcome, nor would I have expected her to. 

As the lady is known to read this thread I would like to tell her that I do not think you should feel guilty for this totally unexpected outcome, and I am very sorry for your loss.
		
Click to expand...

I thought it was the owner of the horse and not the loaner that has commented in this thread. The post you have quoted refers to the loaner.


----------



## marmalade76 (17 October 2014)

luckyoldme said:



			thank god some common sense at last. my whole feeling about the story is that the loaner is playing the victim card when in fact she could have done what everyone else does and paid her due.......its not just liveries its any business, there are a proportion of people who think that its ok to decide what and when to pay what they owe...........and i bet they would be the first to complain if they turned up at work and had to beg for their wages.
It was £30 for gods sake...@£10 a week........you get a good deal like that then still think its ok to mess some one around for the money. Most of us know there is a line not to be crossed in this case the loaner crossed someone who crosses the line. 
Its a shame for the owner and the horse that they got involved with such stupid people.
		
Click to expand...

Totally agree, £10 a week is an exceptionally good deal and I would expect most yards require a certain amount up front from any new livery. The YO has probably had more than his fair share of bad payers to put such a thing in his T&Cs.


----------



## Bigbenji (17 October 2014)

Has the BHS made any comment to this yet? Be intrested to know their thoughts on how this was handled and if any measures could be put in place to prevent this ever happening again. 

In my line of work I can be waiting anywhere from 4 weeks to 4 months for payments from clients and as frustrating as it can be to keep being told  the money will with you on xxx and it doesn't arrive I wouldn't head over to their home with a baseball bat and destroy their property! 

Sadly as ctpy said they will legally Proberly get away with it. 

Hope the liveries vote with their feet and leave.


----------



## showaddy1 (17 October 2014)

Two sides to every story, I feel for the owner and obviously the horse...  
I can't imagine why the yard owner thought it appropriate to shoot the horse over a thirty pound debt, surely putting it through sales would have been a kinder alternative? Or even contacting the actual owner, as the yard  owner would have the details from the horse passport.
It was a very bizarre over reaction, and if they  can shoot a healthy horse and dump it unceremoniously using a JCB, I certainly wouldn't be using their services!


----------



## Dry Rot (17 October 2014)

Alec Swan said:



			As another has pointed out,  you can't Contract outside the Law.  As you (whilst wearing your farming hat) will be aware,  "The Keeper" is the person upon who's land,  the animals reside.  "The Owner" and "The Keeper" may well be one and the same,  but only with Owners who keep their animals on their own land.  

If "The Keeper",  correctly or otherwise,  elects to shoot a horse which is on his property,  as seems to have happened,  then as The Keeper,  they've become responsible for the correct and legally compliant disposal conditions.

It's time and case proven that those who have animals,  on their land,  even though they don't own them,  assume by taking them in,  or even arriving by chance,  a certain responsibility for their actions.  That,  I assure you,  is fact,  and the guy who apparently caused the horse to be shot,  and then delivered it to the front garden of a.n.other,  is in breach of the Law.

Alec.

ps.  Love the Mark Twain quote!!
		
Click to expand...

I accept that "the keeper" has a duty of care towards an animal on his land, but that does not confer ownership. That duty can surely be conveyed to another by agreement. I had sheep straying onto my land from a neighbour. The police advised me that I should not do anything to harm them -- but that I was under no obligation to close gates! (I am not sure whether that conforms exactly to the law but this is rural Scotland!). Once dead, I would say it is debatable who is then responsible. Surely the owner? Or, in this situation, the owner's delegated "agent", i.e. the loaner. If the horse had died from natural causes, would the YO be responsible for it's disposal? I don't think so.

If the horse had been loaded up and transported to the loaner's premises, as the YO apparently intended, wouldn't that relieve him of any further responsibility (assuming it had been placed in a a secure enclosure with grazing and water)? A dead horse is as much personal property as a live one so delivering the corpse is no different in law.

There is definitely ownership in a dead dog because if you shoot a dog that is worrying your sheep (as you would be perfectly legally entitled to do) you must hand the corpse into the police. The police have no authority to dispose of it without informing you (the owner) and returning it to you if asked.

I think we are arguing some fine points of law here which is why these things are best left to the courts.

Incidentally, the information about the bad debt of £30 seems to have come from an anonymous and unidentified source. I wouldn't put much credibility on that.

As someone who has let grazing for horses (and got the bad debts to prove it), I can understand how exasperated the YO had probably become. First, a string of bad debts (you think there won't be others?). Then the loaner/owner not removing the horse when asked. Then the problems of it refusing to load. And finally the horse becoming dangerous. 

On the other hand, the loaner, who is presumably responsible for the care of the horse, involves the Press and whips up public sympathy to cover her own neglect. A brilliant piece of public manipulation that even Max Clifford would have been proud of!


----------



## dogatemysalad (17 October 2014)

I think we all have sympathy with YO's who have liveries who don't pay their bills or pay late. The best prevention, although not foolproof, is to get paid in advance along with a deposit. I've never known a YO shoot someone's horse and dump it on their lawn though. It takes a vindictive person to do that for £30.


----------



## Mike007 (17 October 2014)

Certainly a bizarre overreaction,yet somehow I dont feel we have the full story.Horse loaner moves horse in and immediately breaks the terms of the livery, For £30 for heaven sakes. Knows the terms and conditions  ,but has absolutely nothing to loose ,as its not even her horse. Sounds rather as if this person set out to provoke this response.


----------



## rockysmum (17 October 2014)

Dry Rot, it has been confirmed the horse had only been on the yard for 3 weeks, £10 a week, hence the £30.   And although I agree that she was wrong in not paying up, it doesn't excuse the actions of the people concerned.  To be honest nothing she could have done would.  The only possible reason would have been horse welfare and apparently the horse was in good health.  The owner is trying to say it was neglected because it didn't have a rug.  FFS how many others which aren't clipped and in work are still out without rugs.


----------



## Sebastian (17 October 2014)

Dry Rot said:



			Incidentally, the information about the bad debt of £30 seems to have come from an anonymous and unidentified source. I wouldn't put much credibility on that.
		
Click to expand...

The latest info in the press confirms that this is the case, but, we all know how reliable the press is, especially the Daily Mail.




			Ms Warner said: 'I am absolutely devastated. I still cannot think straight. It's like being in a trance. 
'I cannot get my head round what has happened, that someone could do something so evil. It's unreal - it's like something you would read about. 

'I'm distressed by how somebody could do something so evil to an innocent animal, put a bullet in its head for just £30, not three grand but £30.'
		
Click to expand...





			Today, Edward Harvey Johnson, owner of the GG Centre, confirmed the horse had been left with them in a DIY livery field, at a cost of £10 a week.
The stables describes itself on its website as &#8216;one of the finest horse and rider facilities in the UK.&#8217; 
He said the centre had tried frequently to contact Ms Warner, explaining they would tether the horse in her garden if she did not contact them. 
But he claims they were forced to put down the horse after several failed attempts to get Kit into a horse box.
He claims it was done humanely by a licensed specialist in the field, before it was transported to Ms Warner's garden.
Mr Johnson said: 'We removed the destroyed horse for them to dispose of in the correct or legal manner, as is the responsibility of the owner.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...er-s-garden-unpaid-bill-30.html#ixzz3GPZHLMPM 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Sandstone1 (17 October 2014)

Don't really get why the livery owner would shoot and dump the horse for unpaid bill, he's not getting his money back by doing that is he. 
Surely, it would have made more sense to sell the horse, even for meat money.
It sounds like more of a personal vendetta against the loaner.
Either that or he's got mental problems.


----------



## Sebastian (17 October 2014)

rockysmum said:



			To be honest nothing she could have done would.
		
Click to expand...

Well, she could have paid and stuck to the terms of the livery agreement - i.e. pay up front. I think that this would have prevented this. Let's not get carried away. What the GG Centre has done is horrific, but to try and wash away all of the blame of this tragedy from Ms Warner is naive. She is not the victim here. The horse and the owner of the horse are. 




			But 26-year-old Beckie Warner - an experienced rider who leased the horse - told the centre she did not want to pay the charge until the end of Kit's stay.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...er-s-garden-unpaid-bill-30.html#ixzz3GPZgtJ21 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Wagtail (17 October 2014)

I do find myself feeling extremely angry with the loaner, and it wasn't even my horse. Of course she was not to know she was messing with an unhinged YO, but the more I think about her attitude... There are a certain minority of livery 'clients' who are serial offenders and go from yard to yard never paying. No one deserves their horse to end up like that. I just really feel so sorry for the owner in all this. It's hard to feel sorry for the loaner, sadly.

RIP beautiful mare. From some reports it seems that she wasn't being cared for properly either.


----------



## Sebastian (17 October 2014)

Mike007 said:



			Certainly a bizarre overreaction,yet somehow I dont feel we have the full story.Horse loaner moves horse in and immediately breaks the terms of the livery, For £30 for heaven sakes. Knows the terms and conditions  ,but has absolutely nothing to loose ,as its not even her horse. Sounds rather as if this person set out to provoke this response.
		
Click to expand...

This is exactly why I have been saying earlier that I would like to know the full story, because I believe that there is a lot more to this. I am not sure if I want to continue my full thoughts on the matter, but all of the warning signs about Ms Warner are there when one considers what we know so far.


----------



## honetpot (17 October 2014)

Goldenstar said:



			The loaner IMO clearly bears a heavy responsibility for this happening all she had to do was the right thing and pay like everybody else in advance .
I would feel so guilty if I where her .
		
Click to expand...

  As a land owner that has had several horses dumped on me so I can see it from the landowners side, why on earth should the loaner think she has brought this upon herself. No sane person would transport a dead horse down the road and dump in someone's front garden, its not only against the law but downright threatening and nasty.
https://www.gov.uk/fallen-stock
''According to the 2005 ABPR, horses are generally categorised as farm animals and their carcasses must be promptly disposed of at an approved site, in the same way as any other fallen stock''

   The law is an ass in respect to horse dumping and the land owner has very little legal rights, the horse did not belong to her so he would not be able to sell the horse to get any money owed. How ever much money he was owed he just saw this as a easy way of getting rid of the problem


----------



## Goldenstar (17 October 2014)

Red-1 said:



			I think that is harsh. I think she should feel guilty towards the man for not paying on time, but I don't think  she should feel guilty for the shooting of the horse. 

I am sure the lady did not foresee the outcome, nor would I have expected her to. 

As the lady is known to read this thread I would like to tell her that I do not think you should feel guilty for this totally unexpected outcome, and I am very sorry for your loss.
		
Click to expand...

If she had paid the horse would not be dead .
And it was not even her horse .


----------



## Spring Feather (17 October 2014)

"There's fates worse than death for a horse" isn't that what we are constantly told on this forum?  To send the horse to the auction for meat money goes against the grain of almost everyone here, doesn't it?

I don't know what it's like in the UK as I've been away too long now, but over here you cannot just go dumping a live horse in someone's garden, or tying it up at the end of their driveway.  You would be prosecuted for doing that.  When someone brings a horse onto your property you are responsible for that horse and all costs for it are laid on your doorstep if the owner does not pay.  Is it like that in the UK too?  YOs can't go around not tending to horses just because the owners don't pay them, and this can go on for months for some poor unlucky YOs.  Once again, I reiterate I think he went overboard but then I can't understand anyone accepting the possible death of their horse if they don't pay as laid out in a livery contract.


----------



## rockysmum (17 October 2014)

Sebastian said:



			Well, she could have paid and stuck to the terms of the livery agreement - i.e. pay up front. I think that this would have prevented this. Let's not get carried away. What the GG Centre has done is horrific, but to try and wash away all of the blame of this tragedy from Ms Warner is naive. She is not the victim here. The horse and the owner of the horse are.
		
Click to expand...

If you had quoted the full post, I meant that nothing she could have done would have deserved this horrific action.   Not defending her on non payment at all


----------



## Wagtail (17 October 2014)

Spring Feather said:



			Once again, I reiterate I think he went overboard but then I can't understand anyone accepting the possible death of their horse if they don't pay as laid out in a livery contract.
		
Click to expand...

I keep thinking about this, and can only imagine it's because it is so darn cheap. £10 a week, I mean...


----------



## Goldenstar (17 October 2014)

Wagtail said:



			I keep thinking about this, and can only imagine it's because it is so darn cheap. £10 a week, I mean...
		
Click to expand...

Me too , when it's so cheap why not just pay , and on the YOers side why overreact so wildly over £30 .


----------



## Spring Feather (17 October 2014)

Goldenstar said:



			Me too , when it's so cheap why not just pay , and on the YOers side why overreact so wildly over £30 .
		
Click to expand...

I suspect, as others have said, that there is a whole load more to this story than what has been reported.  It's a beautiful looking EC with all those arenas everywhere and post and rail fencing ... and all that for 10 a week.  Seems very disproportionate, but then maybe it has to be that cheap to entice owners to sign such a contract!


----------



## touchstone (17 October 2014)

According to our local news the horse had been neglected and the loaner had hardly been to see to it and the action was taken by the yo to prevent future suffering.   While he is responsible for the welfare of horses on his property I can understand, but not condone, his actions.


----------



## Moya_999 (17 October 2014)

Right so the horse was only there 3 weeks right, well you would expect a new livery to be given a little more rope till they settled in or  the owner go round to the house of the loaner or write a letter to the loaner which would be the best way to go and what most of us would do in this situation as someone else mentioned.  Some of its equipment could have been sold off in payment of outstanding fees. 
  Regardless of the loaner non committal to pay the fees, the owners actions are way out there on the extreme measures actions.

  Owner at his age should have a system in place where by anyone not paying there fees within a certain time would:


Be asked to leave immediately or within a set time  if they did not pay ( and court would be involved )said would proceed that way to Redeem fees unpaid by padlock the stable until  fees paid
Told to sell equipment or hand over equipment to the value and only then the horse released from the yard
Attempts should be made to find the actual owner to recoup fees.

 How ever its dressed up this "so called livery Yard" took matters into their own hands without a thought for the animal or the owner.  They acted totally inhumanly without a care in the world for doing it in a civilized fashion.

 I hope he and this yard go down down down to the deepest dept of the world and rot in hell............................


----------



## stencilface (17 October 2014)

But how can a horse be neglected in 3 weeks? At grass livery in our current weather, you wouldn't even need to provide water for a horse to survive. And I'm pretty sure there are troughs, not water buckets in the fields, so that's out of the question. The pics of the dead horse did not looked starved either, so I would like to know they're definition of neglected. There are horses behind my house who's owners come up twice a week or less and there's a foal there that was born this year. And whilst that's not ideal, they have plenty of water and food (currently at least) that I'm not concerned.

It is cheap at the GG centre, even £10 to use their facilities for as long as you want is cheap, they have some Xc fences and a lovely grass gallops too. Maybe it will get sold to someone new now?


----------



## Chavhorse (17 October 2014)

Spring Feather said:



			I suspect, as others have said, that there is a whole load more to this story than what has been reported.  It's a beautiful looking EC with all those arenas everywhere and post and rail fencing ... and all that for 10 a week.  Seems very disproportionate, but then maybe it has to be that cheap to entice owners to sign such a contract!
		
Click to expand...

From reading everything yesterday it seems the "if you don't pay up I will shoot your horse" is not in the actual livery contract it is something that liveries are told verbally....but even so If a YO said this to me I would run for the hills


----------



## georgiegirl (17 October 2014)

As stated earlier do NOT be fooled by the pretty pictures on the establishments website which are very old and no where near a true representation of the facilities and what its like there. Decent establishments DONT house RSPCA horses with strangles and other diseases and also double up as a public access facility......basically putting horses at risk all over the area. As stated before the RSPCA have a VERY heavily vested interest in this property so any comments they make at all on this case should be taken with a pinch of salt. And its wholly inappropriate, biased and unprofessional that they are there reporting on the case at all.

I dont give two figs wether the girl paid or didnt pay or wether it was £30 or 30k. It still leaves absolutely NO excuse to destroy a healthy horse, load it in a tractor bucket and dump it over someones lawn hedge in the pitch black night.

This has got my blood absolutely boiling.


----------



## Spring Feather (17 October 2014)

Moya_999 said:



			Owner at his age should have a system in place where by anyone not paying there fees within a certain time would:
		
Click to expand...

It sounds like he did have a system in place though.  Anyone not paying their fees within a certain time would:

Result in their horse being PTS.


----------



## Goldenstar (17 October 2014)

touchstone said:



			According to our local news the horse had been neglected and the loaner had hardly been to see to it and the action was taken by the yo to prevent future suffering.   While he is responsible for the welfare of horses on his property I can understand, but not condone, his actions.
		
Click to expand...

It was not the loaners horse .
The YOer had no right to do this .
YOers cannot shoot horses will nilly because they feel they might be suffering .
You can in some circumstances shoot a horse without permission but they owe me £30 and it had not got a rug on is not sufficient reason . 
This horse had an owner who ought to have had the option to remove his or her property .


----------



## Amirah (17 October 2014)

I don't often comment on posts, but this has really upset me, she has a look of one of my lovely mares. 

I am not convinced that he tried to load her, that just sounds like an excuse for killing her, claiming she had become dangerous etc (and don't ex-racehorses load well usually?) Did he try to load the three gypsy cobs he allegedly shot? I highly doubt it. Also, as she was a five minute walk away, he could have walked the poor mare round as others have said. 

My feeling (and this is purely conjecture) is that she infuriated him on the phone with a refusal to pay, and being a vindictive nutjob he went straight off and took his anger out on the poor innocent mare. He dumped her in the loaner's garden to 'teach her a lesson', Godfather style. Just awful. The mare has been let down by several of our wonderful species that I am so often ashamed to be a member of. 

I am puzzled as to why the livery owner has not been arrested, as he is in his seventies apparently and the men arrested were younger. 

I don't know what sort of crime he will be held to account for, but I  wonder if he'd have got off scott free (as with the cobs) if he'd not gone the extra spiteful mile and dumped her in the garden. 

Sadly, he'd have been in more trouble for going round and giving the loaner a slap than for killing the innocent horse. 

I just hope that the other liveries there have moved their horses.


----------



## Sebastian (17 October 2014)

georgiegirl said:



			I dont give two figs wether the girl paid or didnt pay or wether it was £30 or 30k. It still leaves absolutely NO excuse to destroy a healthy horse, load it in a tractor bucket and dump it over someones lawn hedge in the pitch black night.
		
Click to expand...

To me, on the other hand, it is worrying to see the attitudes of some posters here. How can you not give two figs whether the girl paid, or not? It is an important part of the story. I am going to repeat this - what the GG centre has done is inexcusable and horrific, but the loaner is just as responsible for what has happened. It is absolutely ridiculous, in my mind, to absolve her of any responsibility.


----------



## Princess Rosie (17 October 2014)

green007 said:



			My horse Kit was not hard to catch or handle she was a loving mare who did not deserve to end up like this. I would of collected myself rather then it resulting like this.I would hope people would now stop posting pictures and speculating about my horse. I'm devastated that they decided to carry out there actions without my consent.
		
Click to expand...

Our thoughts and prayers are with you at this Absolutely horrific time. I hope that you can get justice for your lovely mare. God bless.


----------



## rockysmum (17 October 2014)

Well it seems as though once again the RSPCA will be able to report on their involvement by investigating it themselves.

I have has a reply from World Horse Welfare, and I quote


Thank you again for your email. From information received, the two gentleman who were involved in the incident are under arrest by police. The RSPCA are also actively involved with investigating this horrible event. Unless requested by police or the RSPCA, we will not be getting directly involved as one Welfare Organization is already involved. If asked, we would be more than happy to assist


----------



## Sebastian (17 October 2014)

rockysmum said:



			Well it seems as though once again the RSPCA will be able to report on their involvement by investigating it themselves.
		
Click to expand...

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Pretty poor, but it does not surprise me.


----------



## Illusion100 (17 October 2014)

Both parties are at fault, although IMO very disproportionally. 

Yes the loaner should have paid up but for the YO to slaughter a horse because of it is atrocious. I'm forgetful, I'm either in credit or arrears re: livery payment. Should I be more on the ball with paying on time, yes. Does my horse deserve to be destroyed for late payment, no. 

Tbh, I don't really care what the Law says, this act deserves punishment. If technically the YO has done nothing wrong, the Law needs changing.


----------



## NeilM (17 October 2014)

Amirah said:



			He dumped her in the loaner's garden to 'teach her a lesson',
		
Click to expand...

And possibly show others what he will do if they don't pay up.

This keeps striking me as an unbelievably threatening and intimidating (as well as barbaric and wrong) thing to do. 

My feeling is that this was not just aimed at the person directly involved and that there is an awful lot that we don't know and probably won't ever know.


----------



## Goldenstar (17 October 2014)

NeilM said:



			And possibly show others what he will do if they don't pay up

This keeps striking me as an unbelievably threatening and intimidating (as well as barbaric and wrong) thing to do..
		
Click to expand...

Intimidating behaviour is illegal and I think this where the law will go with it .


----------



## gmw (17 October 2014)

Do you have to have the horses passport with you when horses are PTS. Shouldn't there be a signature agreeing to horse being PTS by owner and relevant person doing the destroying?  I know that when I produced a passport for our beloved horse to be PTS the vet said it wasn't necessary. I just feel that this should be compulsory. Then the passport returned to relevant society.  This surely would have alerted the actual owner of the horse as to what was happening.   Still a disgusting way to behave and if not.. should be illegal


----------



## wowser (17 October 2014)

i think the loaner is playing the victim, i feel for the owner and horse.
if the loaner had paid the rent when asked, this would never of happened, i look at it when you put an animal on someones property, they say they want their rent paid by such and such, that's what you do, after all if you don't like that find somewhere else. as for what yard  owner did,very very wrong. everyone has bills to pay


----------



## Goldenstar (17 October 2014)

gmw said:



			Do you have to have the horses passport with you when horses are PTS. Shouldn't there be a signature agreeing to horse being PTS by owner and relevant person doing the destroying?  I know that when I produced a passport for our beloved horse to be PTS the vet said it wasn't necessary. I just feel that this should be compulsory. Then the passport returned to relevant society.  This surely would have alerted the actual owner of the horse as to what was happening.   Still a disgusting way to behave and if not.. should be illegal
		
Click to expand...

It's a good idea than injured horses can always be put down quickly without mucking around with paperwork.
As a welfare officer I was present several times when horses where PTS without owners knowing each time delay would have prolonged suffering .
In this case on a well run livery yard the YO ought to have all the horses passports so the owner could be easily circumvented anyway .
Anyway a little thing like paperwork is not going to stop someone prepared to shoot a horse and dump it on the debtors lawn over £30.


----------



## BlairandAzria (17 October 2014)

The pictures on have website are old, the facilities are tired and aging now. 

The lady lived less than 5 minutes away - they could have walked the horse.

My horse is about 10 miles away, and currently still out un rugged and a tb- he is not a welfare case. 

There are well known rumours that this gentleman has done this before to travellers ponies, we were discussing it the other day at the yard as I am new to the area and mentioned to a local livery about going and using the gallops. Travellers never got the police involved.  We will not be using the facilities now.

Allegedly, The yard has some vicious guard dogs, the night the men were arrested they let out the dogs and locked the gates, meaning existing liveries could not get access to their horses. 

The entire incident is disgusting and really horrific. No matter the details, the fact is an innocent horse paid the price.


----------



## Amirah (17 October 2014)

Poor horse didn't owe him any money. And on the other side of the coin there are all the lovely yard owners on here who dig deep into their own pockets to feed horses that have been dumped on them by irresponsible owners. 

Obviously the YO in this case has two younger accomplacies who are willing to go along with his appalling ideas regarding the 'right way' to deal with things. He really can't see he has done anything wrong! How anyone with even a tiny slither of a heart could shoot that mare is beyond me. She didn't ask to be there, or get a say in who was responsible for her.


----------



## fburton (17 October 2014)

Wagtail said:



			I do find myself feeling extremely angry with the loaner, and it wasn't even my horse. Of course she was not to know she was messing with an unhinged YO, but the more I think about her attitude... There are a certain minority of livery 'clients' who are serial offenders and go from yard to yard never paying.
		
Click to expand...

I suspect the sort of people who do this are also unhinged/deranged.


----------



## digitalangel (17 October 2014)

from beckie warner:

"Cooper Wilson shot her for no reason other than could not load her. He looks after rspca horse that reside at the gg centre he gets paid to do it. A lot of gypsy horses got shot cz they couldn't move them within an hour he shot them. The gypsys we're going crazy and snapped both his ankles. He shot another and took it to a garden in strensal a few years ago. I'd been there 2 weeks and spoke to his mother an hour before to say was bringing £30 around Friday and she said fine. He had other ideas of bringing to garden but went wrong. Into a cattle trailer come on she is 16.3. Not the size if a cow. No headcollar tried to chase her in. Doesn't load well anywhy. No wonder she went crazy. Poor girl. The rspca are up laytons arse as the rspca is a homing centre for 200+ horses and he will kick them off if they say anything out of term about him"

source - facebook

So neither of the people arrested were the YO.


----------



## digitalangel (17 October 2014)

"Beckie said cooper Wilson shot him and cooper Wilson is the RSPCA man"

-- fb


----------



## Moya_999 (17 October 2014)

Funny how their terms and conditions are no longer available for download.
 love the road they are in Hags Lane.


----------



## digitalangel (17 October 2014)

the YO son called Lynden apparently told this Cooper person to shoot the mare


----------



## *hic* (17 October 2014)

digitalangel said:



			from beckie warner:

"Cooper Wilson shot her for no reason other than could not load her. He looks after rspca horse that reside at the gg centre he gets paid to do it. A lot of gypsy horses got shot cz they couldn't move them within an hour he shot them. The gypsys we're going crazy and snapped both his ankles. He shot another and took it to a garden in strensal a few years ago. I'd been there 2 weeks and spoke to his mother an hour before to say was bringing £30 around Friday and she said fine. He had other ideas of bringing to garden but went wrong. Into a cattle trailer come on she is 16.3. Not the size if a cow. No headcollar tried to chase her in. Doesn't load well anywhy. No wonder she went crazy. Poor girl. The rspca are up laytons arse as the rspca is a homing centre for 200+ horses and he will kick them off if they say anything out of term about him"

source - facebook

So neither of the people arrested were the YO.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, lovely, so why if she knew all that did she not pay the man what she had agreed to?


----------



## be positive (17 October 2014)

Is the loaner now saying it is Cooper Wilson who shot the horse, I thought he was supposed to be a horse whisperer, he does seem to be linked to the RSPCA and based in the area.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99aVPmoaZG0


----------



## Grumpy Herbert (17 October 2014)

georgiegirl said:



			As stated earlier do NOT be fooled by the pretty pictures on the establishments website which are very old and no where near a true representation of the facilities and what its like there. Decent establishments DONT house RSPCA horses with strangles and other diseases and also double up as a public access facility......basically putting horses at risk all over the area. As stated before the RSPCA have a VERY heavily vested interest in this property so any comments they make at all on this case should be taken with a pinch of salt. And its wholly inappropriate, biased and unprofessional that they are there reporting on the case at all.

I dont give two figs wether the girl paid or didnt pay or wether it was £30 or 30k. It still leaves absolutely NO excuse to destroy a healthy horse, load it in a tractor bucket and dump it over someones lawn hedge in the pitch black night.

This has got my blood absolutely boiling.
		
Click to expand...

Well said.  Good to hear what it's like there from people like you and Smurf's Gran who actually know the place and the YO.


----------



## digitalangel (17 October 2014)

http://www.cooper-wilson.co.uk/#


----------



## Smurf's Gran (17 October 2014)

brucea said:



			Whatever the law does or doesn't do, I can hardly imagine that anyone wants to be a livery on his yard any more.  He should be driven under, and his yard retain such a reputation that no liveries would even consider using him.
		
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, the facilities are fantastic and the livery rates very reasonable.  I'm sorry to say that people will creep back


----------



## rockysmum (17 October 2014)

digitalangel said:



http://www.cooper-wilson.co.uk/#

Click to expand...

OMG he has been on our yard.  I thought the owners who got him in had lost the plot, so was he definitely involved in it all


----------



## Big Ben (17 October 2014)

As a business owner, we farm, we do custom/contract work at times for people, there are times when we do not get paid, there are times when we can't pay, we do not have regular incomes, I get that in this world things happen. 

What I can't get my head around is this happening at all, but more so 3 weeks into the horse being there. I WOULD understand, the YO explaining that they aren't a charity, they need paying, but somehow setting a date at the end of the month, when people on salary could expect to be paid, give me my money by then or you are out, that I get. Taking the horse around and dumping it in the garden after that time and saying "here you go" I can understand. I just do not get shooting the horse, do not get it at all.

Just out of interest, I'm guessing, because I don't know, that if he had just taken the horse off of his property and turned it loose he would be facing a bigger legal problem, something around endangering others, abandoning livestock, or something  rather than shooting the horse.

I am also totally baffled how anywhere along the line it is OK to kill an animal without even contacting the rightful owner.....this world is just too crazy


----------



## Smurf's Gran (17 October 2014)

rockysmum said:



			OMG he has been on our yard.  I thought the owners who got him in had lost the plot, so was he definitely involved in it all
		
Click to expand...

Well assuming that he was the person who shot the horse, people need to remember his name and ensure that all know that he was the one who "communicated" with this horse.


----------



## saddlesore (17 October 2014)

I stand by my point they I cannot believe some people are new part of justifying this mans reaction. Yes £30 is a debt- but it's still £30! Shooting and dumping the poor horse is in no way a reasonable response to that- or any amount for that matter! If he felt, after 3 weeks, that an abandonment notice should be served then fair enough. I do hope all the liveries leave, what a terrifying place to keep your pride and joy &#128531;


----------



## digitalangel (17 October 2014)

Yes he would have been liable if he tied the horse to her garden fence and it had gotten free and caused an accident.

I think thats his ' excuse ' for shooting it.


----------



## Amirah (17 October 2014)

If it is the ac that shot her, just confirms my view that ac's are charlatans that rip people off. 

There is now a Facebook group called close down gg centre, not that it's going anywhere with the rspca's money behind it. 

Totally agree that the rspca should be no part of the investigation given their vested interest.


----------



## cbmcts (17 October 2014)

What gets me on this horrific case is how they are going to justify shooting the horse?

She wasn't theirs, there is no question of a catastrophic injury that meant PTS was the only humane option. 

Yes, there was a debt linked to the horse but I've always understood that there is a clearly defined procedure in civil law to deal with a situation like that involves a paper trail and results in the person who is owed money taking ownership of the property in a relatively short time... a matter of weeks rather than months once the process is started. 

Annoying and irresponsible as the loaner was, this could all have been avoided by simply not letting the horse onto the premises without the livery upfront - by the looks of things this is a biggish yard which allegedly has livery contracts so why wasn't cash/cheque handed over when that is signed BEFORE the horse set hoof on the place? 

The vindictiveness of these YOs is outstanding - I really hope that Kits owner has the means and determination to go after them with all legal means possible and although I very rarely say things like this I, for one would be happy to support a crowd funding initiative to enable her to do so if she felt able.


----------



## pootler (17 October 2014)

Cbmts, my thoughts exactly, I was thinking the same thing this morning and would help crowd fund to ensure a prosecution.


----------



## rockysmum (17 October 2014)

Another petition just came up on my Facebook

http://www.yousignanimals.org/signatures.php?petition_id=389&sign=ok


----------



## Sebastian (17 October 2014)

saddlesore said:



			I stand by my point they I cannot believe some people are new part of justifying this mans reaction. Yes £30 is a debt- but it's still £30! Shooting and dumping the poor horse is in no way a reasonable response to that- or any amount for that matter! If he felt, after 3 weeks, that an abandonment notice should be served then fair enough. I do hope all the liveries leave, what a terrifying place to keep your pride and joy &#128531;
		
Click to expand...

I haven't seen anybody trying to justify the GG centre's actions. However, Ms Warner is responsible for this as much as the GG Centre, yet she is now playing the victim to the press. If she paid up front, like she was supposed to, then the horse would still be alive. This is a fact. 

There are some people that should not be allowed to keep animals. Ms Warner and the people running the GG Centre both fall into this category.


----------



## Dry Rot (17 October 2014)

rockysmum said:



			Dry Rot, it has been confirmed the horse had only been on the yard for 3 weeks, £10 a week, hence the £30.   And although I agree that she was wrong in not paying up, it doesn't excuse the actions of the people concerned.  To be honest nothing she could have done would.  The only possible reason would have been horse welfare and apparently the horse was in good health.  The owner is trying to say it was neglected because it didn't have a rug.  FFS how many others which aren't clipped and in work are still out without rugs.
		
Click to expand...

Nowhere have I tried to excuse the YO for his actions. I am just trying to fight my way through the morass of hysteria to deal with the facts and the law as it stands.

You say "it has been confirmed" that the debt is £30. By who? Are you saying I should believe everything I read in the newspapers?

We don't know the terms of the livery agreement.

Leave it to the courts and if you don't like the law, write to your MP or sign a petition, I believe there is one. But I will not condone trial by media especially when the public response is fuelled by emotion.


----------



## saddlesore (17 October 2014)

Sebastian said:



			I haven't seen anybody trying to justify the GG centre's actions. However, Ms Warner is responsible for this as much as the GG Centre
		
Click to expand...

Um, no. She's responsible for the 'debt' (such as it was). The centre is responsible for killing and dumping the horse. The responsibility may be shared, but in no way equally!


----------



## Sebastian (17 October 2014)

saddlesore said:



			Um, no. She's responsible for the 'debt' (such as it was). The centre is responsible for killing and dumping the horse. The responsibility may be shared, but in no way equally!
		
Click to expand...

She knew that this place has a history of shooting horses (as per her own comments on facebook)
She was told that she must pay up front and was adamant that she would not do this
If she had paid, the horse would still be alive.

Those are the facts.


----------



## Rollin (17 October 2014)

I cannot follow all of this thread.  Am I right in believing that Cooper Wilson was the one who shot the horse?

I had to look in my email box, but have had contact with this man, recommended to me by a CB breeder in the UK after a stallion she bred showed no interest in covering our mares.  She said he had been traumatised and this man could help...he wanted a photo and details of what the horse had to eat. We had already had stallion seen by a vet blood tested etc.

My current boy loves his work!!!


----------



## stencilface (17 October 2014)

Where did the cooper Wilson bit come in?


----------



## jools68 (17 October 2014)

It makes me wonder If the loaner could not afford to pay the basic livery costs that were incredibly cheap anyway how on earth could she afford to look after the horse properly , including basics such as shoeing and worming especially throughout the impending winter.?? 
Horse owners need to be very careful who they loan their horses too. Vetting should include asking about the loaners ability to give a financial commitment to the horse. 
Very sad state of affairs... Poor horse has paid the ultimate price.
In the meantime The GG centre needs shutting down and the RSPCA subsequently need to get the hell out of there if they are to salvage any credibility for themselves.


----------



## Rollin (17 October 2014)

digitalangel said:



			from beckie warner:

"Cooper Wilson shot her for no reason other than could not load her. He looks after rspca horse that reside at the gg centre he gets paid to do it. A lot of gypsy horses got shot cz they couldn't move them within an hour he shot them. The gypsys we're going crazy and snapped both his ankles. He shot another and took it to a garden in strensal a few years ago. I'd been there 2 weeks and spoke to his mother an hour before to say was bringing £30 around Friday and she said fine. He had other ideas of bringing to garden but went wrong. Into a cattle trailer come on she is 16.3. Not the size if a cow. No headcollar tried to chase her in. Doesn't load well anywhy. No wonder she went crazy. Poor girl. The rspca are up laytons arse as the rspca is a homing centre for 200+ horses and he will kick them off if they say anything out of term about him"

source - facebook

So neither of the people arrested were the YO.
		
Click to expand...

For Stencil face


----------



## stencilface (17 October 2014)

Thanks, didn't know that


----------



## Equi (17 October 2014)

There are too many petitions flying about. There needs to be ONE petition on gov.uk to change the law in who can shoot a horse, and why. I personally think that a vet should be the ONLY person to be able to shoot a horse, and MUST have the passport or if they can't they must get permission from a board of trustees, and by that i mean maybe just one other vet to agree the animal NEEDS pts. If someone takes a horse to the meat man a vet has to be there, so why not if they just want rid of it? I get that loads of hunts men shoot horses and its handy to have them on a hunt, but i still think a vet should be there - even if it costs the hunt money to get vet to follow.


----------



## YorksG (17 October 2014)

equi said:



			There are too many petitions flying about. There needs to be ONE petition on gov.uk to change the law in who can shoot a horse, and why. I personally think that a vet should be the ONLY person to be able to shoot a horse, and MUST have the passport or if they can't they must get permission from a board of trustees, and by that i mean maybe just one other vet to agree the animal NEEDS pts. If someone takes a horse to the meat man a vet has to be there, so why not if they just want rid of it? I get that loads of hunts men shoot horses and its handy to have them on a hunt, but i still think a vet should be there - even if it costs the hunt money to get vet to follow.
		
Click to expand...

I have had several horses shot at home over the years, never had a vet there and neither should there be a need, a riduculous idea, very few licenced horse slaughterers would have behaved as the one at the GG centre did.


----------



## julie111 (17 October 2014)

equi said:



			There are too many petitions flying about. There needs to be ONE petition on gov.uk to change the law in who can shoot a horse, and why. I personally think that a vet should be the ONLY person to be able to shoot a horse, and MUST have the passport or if they can't they must get permission from a board of trustees, and by that i mean maybe just one other vet to agree the animal NEEDS pts. If someone takes a horse to the meat man a vet has to be there, so why not if they just want rid of it? I get that loads of hunts men shoot horses and its handy to have them on a hunt, but i still think a vet should be there - even if it costs the hunt money to get vet to follow.
		
Click to expand...


Hunts men and knacker men are the only people I would want to shoot a horse and in an emergency there might not be enough time to get a vet there if a horse is to be shot!


----------



## Kaida (17 October 2014)

I agree she's playing the victim and should have paid on time. However it seems she had been speaking to one of the people running the yard (the wife/mother) who may (saying may instead of did as no proof) have agreed for her to bring round the money on Friday - which is today, two days after the shooting.

As far as I can tell timeline goes: she receives call threatening to put horse (alive) on her lawn if no payment. As YO has said he couldn't get through I am assuming a voicemail but this is speculation. 
She calls yard and gets wife, says she will bring money on Friday in two days time.
Yard owner goes to field, allegedly attempts to load horse into cattle trailer without a headcollar on and in failing to do so shoots horse. Delivers horse via jcb to garden.

So yes she didn't pay but apparently (and by her own word currently unverified) she did contact the yard to agree a date for payment - this is the point when any other yard owner would have waited two days to se if payment was forthcoming.

The whole thing is insane. I wish I could have transcripts of the conversations the rspca are having about it, lol! World Horse Welfare need more powers.


----------



## georgiegirl (17 October 2014)

Sebastian - don't be so silly of course I'm not defending the girl who didn't pay the rent. I was merely stating that despite wether she owed £30 or 3k it makes absolutely no difference as to wether the men in question were right to shoot a perfectly healthy horse which didn't belong to them, load it in a tractor bucket, drove to through the village and dump it on her front lawn. 

This is real life were dealing with here not the 'Godfather' and if these guys get away scot free with what they have done what do you think that means for equines all over the country wether they are owned by irresponsible owners or not. You can't just take the law into your own hands, shoot horses and dump them in gardens! 

My point was stated merely for horse welfare. Not to defend the loaner/owner or whoever. 

I can't believe people haven't picked up on the RSPCA and how unprofessional their 'reports' are seeing as they are highly biased to this place. But having said that considering they house diseased horses on what is a public facility says a lot to be honest.... 

I look forward to seeing the vets report to see if it tallys up with their story.......


----------



## Smurf's Gran (17 October 2014)

Sebastian said:



			I haven't seen anybody trying to justify the GG centre's actions. However, Ms Warner is responsible for this as much as the GG Centre, yet she is now playing the victim to the press. If she paid up front, like she was supposed to, then the horse would still be alive. This is a fact. 

There are some people that should not be allowed to keep animals. Ms Warner and the people running the GG Centre both fall into this category.
		
Click to expand...

They're nor exactly comparable though are they???  one owes a £30 bill, and the other shoots a horse and dumps it in the owners garden  Godfather Style,  and they are both as responsible??  how does that work then ?  I really don't get your logic


----------



## Echo Bravo (17 October 2014)

The facts are this horse was shot on the yard owners say so, it was not his property to destroy. If someone came along and shot your horse and said you owed them money and Woops sorry wrong person because you had loaned the horse out to somebody that did owe money. 1) where do you stand in getting cost of horse back and what I understand this horse was counted at low value and 2) What would you do to bring the persons that shot your horse to count.


----------



## saddlesore (17 October 2014)

Sebastian said:



			She knew that this place has a history of shooting horses (as per her own comments on facebook)
She was told that she must pay up front and was adamant that she would not do this
If she had paid, the horse would still be alive.

Those are the facts.
		
Click to expand...

Well if the owner has a history of shooting horses then maybe not!


----------



## ladyt25 (17 October 2014)

I don't think it's right to be naming the person who allegedly shot this horse. Unless their name has been confirmed then that could be very damaging. I do not believe that person,  although licenced would agree to shoot a healthy horse in those circumstances.


----------



## saddlesore (17 October 2014)

Smurf's Gran said:



			They're nor exactly comparable though are they???  one owes a £30 bill, and the other shoots a horse and dumps it in the owners garden  Godfather Style,  and they are both as responsible??  how does that work then ?  I really don't get your logic
		
Click to expand...

Me either tbh.


----------



## ladyt25 (17 October 2014)

georgiegirl said:



			Sebastian - don't be so silly of course I'm not defending the girl who didn't pay the rent. I was merely stating that despite wether she owed £30 or 3k it makes absolutely no difference as to wether the men in question were right to shoot a perfectly healthy horse which didn't belong to them, load it in a tractor bucket, drove to through the village and dump it on her front lawn. 

This is real life were dealing with here not the 'Godfather' and if these guys get away scot free with what they have done what do you think that means for equines all over the country wether they are owned by irresponsible owners or not. You can't just take the law into your own hands, shoot horses and dump them in gardens! 

My point was stated merely for horse welfare. Not to defend the loaner/owner or whoever. 

I can't believe people haven't picked up on the RSPCA and how unprofessional their 'reports' are seeing as they are highly biased to this place. But having said that considering they house diseased horses on what is a public facility says a lot to be honest.... 

I look forward to seeing the vets report to see if it tallys up with their story.......
		
Click to expand...

How do you know diseased horse were or have been kept on this land?


----------



## Smurf's Gran (17 October 2014)

Rollin said:



			I cannot follow all of this thread.  Am I right in believing that Cooper Wilson was the one who shot the horse?

I had to look in my email box, but have had contact with this man, recommended to me by a CB breeder in the UK after a stallion she bred showed no interest in covering our mares.  She said he had been traumatised and this man could help...he wanted a photo and details of what the horse had to eat. We had already had stallion seen by a vet blood tested etc.

My current boy loves his work!!!
		
Click to expand...

But could you honestly keep using his services after this !!


----------



## Smurf's Gran (17 October 2014)

Goldenstar said:



			It's a good idea than injured horses can always be put down quickly without mucking around with paperwork.
As a welfare officer I was present several times when horses where PTS without owners knowing each time delay would have prolonged suffering .
In this case on a well run livery yard the YO ought to have all the horses passports so the owner could be easily circumvented anyway .
Anyway a little thing like paperwork is not going to stop someone prepared to shoot a horse and dump it on the debtors lawn over £30.
		
Click to expand...

The pass port is the property of the owner.  I don't know of any yards in York that ask for the passport to be held by them


----------



## georgiegirl (17 October 2014)

Ladyt25 - I presume the RSPCA are bound by freedom of information so why not ask them? 

All I'm saying is it's not just land they rent from this guy and whistle needs blowing on this outfit good and proper.


----------



## Smurf's Gran (17 October 2014)

Dry Rot said:



			Nowhere have I tried to excuse the YO for his actions. I am just trying to fight my way through the morass of hysteria to deal with the facts and the law as it stands.

You say "it has been confirmed" that the debt is £30. By who? Are you saying I should believe everything I read in the newspapers?

We don't know the terms of the livery agreement.

Leave it to the courts and if you don't like the law, write to your MP or sign a petition, I believe there is one. But I will not condone trial by media especially when the public response is fuelled by emotion.
		
Click to expand...

Don't you think there is enough fact about this to condemn it though - loaner owes YO money so YO has horse shot and delivers its dead body to loaner lawn via JCB bucket.   These are the facts..     how much more do you need to know...the rest is surely minor detail, is this not bad enough.


----------



## Smurf's Gran (17 October 2014)

Smurf's Gran said:



			Don't you think there is enough fact about this to condemn it though - loaner owes YO money so YO has horse shot and delivers its dead body to loaner lawn via JCB bucket.   These are the facts..     how much more do you need to know...the rest is surely minor detail, is this not bad enough.
		
Click to expand...

I don't know of any livery agreement anywhere that says we can shoot your horse if you don't pay.. how ridiculous


----------



## PeterNatt (17 October 2014)

I find this incident quite unbelievable.  How can someone shoot a healthy horse just because they are owed £30.00 by the person loaning the horse?


----------



## minesadouble (17 October 2014)

Rollin said:



			I cannot follow all of this thread.  Am I right in believing that Cooper Wilson was the one who shot the horse?


I had to look in my email box, but have had contact with this man, recommended to me by a CB breeder in the UK after a stallion she bred showed no interest in covering our mares.  She said he had been traumatised and this man could help...he wanted a photo and details of what the horse had to eat. We had already had stallion seen by a vet blood tested etc.

My current boy loves his work!!!
		
Click to expand...

I haven't previously commented on this post as I hate to pass comment where the facts are not truly known.
However the Cooper Wilson aspect has left me intrigued. He has shot a horse (livery) at our place and and as far as i can gather he is not actually licensed for horse slaughtering?
I have also been led to believe he is an 'animal communicator' who has, in the past, 'communicated' to an owner her horse 'wanted' to be destroyed and then shot the said animal??? 
This could all be fabrication but am merely repeating what I have heard. All very odd!!


----------



## eggs (17 October 2014)

Smurf's Gran said:



			The pass port is the property of the owner.  I don't know of any yards in York that ask for the passport to be held by them
		
Click to expand...

I don't want to comment on this particular story but the passport should be in possession of the person in charge of the care of the horse so on part/full livery this is usually the YM although for DIY they usually stay with the owner / loaner.


----------



## ladyt25 (17 October 2014)

georgiegirl said:



			Ladyt25 - I presume the RSPCA are bound by freedom of information so why not ask them? 

All I'm saying is it's not just land they rent from this guy and whistle needs blowing on this outfit good and proper.
		
Click to expand...

I am just saying I do not know where this information about horses having strangles etc has come from.  Someone mentioned it in the thread earlier. There doesn't seem to be any evidence and, even if it is the case it's not like other yards haven't suffered with strangles outbreaks.  We have had a few at various yards in Yorkshire. 
It's not really relevant to the event this thread is about and, as much as I am no fan of the RSPCA I don't actually feel this is a welfare issue so it isn't really something they need involvement in.
However,  going forwards it is not good press for them to be associated with this yard. I feel for the horses now as there will not be space for them so they are likely to meet the same fate as this poor horse.


----------



## ladyt25 (17 October 2014)

minesadouble said:



			I haven't previously commented on this post as I hate to pass comment where the facts are not truly known.
However the Cooper Wilson aspect has left me intrigued. He has shot a horse (livery) at our place and and as far as i can gather he is not actually licensed for horse slaughtering?
I have also been led to believe he is an 'animal communicator' who has, in the past, 'communicated' to an owner her horse 'wanted' to be destroyed and then shot the said animal??? 
This could all be fabrication but am merely repeating what I have heard. All very odd!!
		
Click to expand...

Unsure about this. Surely he'd have to be licensed for him to be who the RSPCA use to shoot the horses they have? If not then that is not good


----------



## Smurf's Gran (17 October 2014)

ladyt25 said:



			I don't think it's right to be naming the person who allegedly shot this horse. Unless their name has been confirmed then that could be very damaging. I do not believe that person,  although licenced would agree to shoot a healthy horse in those circumstances.
		
Click to expand...

Cooper Wilsons name has been mentioned by the person who loaned the horse, and this is all over facebook (and the facebook transcript has also been pasted onto this thread)  if she is wrong then this would be defamation of character.


----------



## cronkmooar (17 October 2014)

minesadouble said:



			I haven't previously commented on this post as I hate to pass comment where the facts are not truly known.
However the Cooper Wilson aspect has left me intrigued. ..............I have also been led to believe he is an 'animal communicator' who has, in the past, 'communicated' to an owner her horse 'wanted' to be destroyed and then shot the said animal??? 
This could all be fabrication but am merely repeating what I have heard. All very odd!!
		
Click to expand...

For the love of all that is holy, surely not.

These people all seem to live on a different planet to me


----------



## ladyt25 (17 October 2014)

Smurf's Gran said:



			Cooper Wilsons name has been mentioned by the person who loaned the horse, and this is all over facebook (and the facebook transcript has also been pasted onto this thread)  if she is wrong then this would be defamation of character.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, but nothing official has been mentioned has it? Something very fishy if it is the true as would suggest he was spun a story about why the horse was to be destroyed.  All very tragic &#55357;&#56862;


----------



## georgiegirl (17 October 2014)

Actually I think it's very pertinent information regarding the general attitude and care that the place and the RSPCA offers....


Imagine if there was a show centre that had strangles/salmonella etc but because they are 'kept round the back then that's ok?' There would be absolute public uproar. 

What has basically happened here is a horse has been unlawfully shot by one their own employees. On top of the above...doesn't look good does it? 

Said 'charity' is also the ones who have provided the welfare statements to the police. Now seeing as they rent a huge amount of land and buildings from this place doesn't it occur to you that any reports from them may perhaps be biased at the very least? Where else in the law would you see someone advising and reporting on there own crime?


----------



## be positive (17 October 2014)

ladyt25 said:



			Unsure about this. Surely he'd have to be licensed for him to be who the RSPCA use to shoot the horses they have? If not then that is not good
		
Click to expand...


I think the RSPCA's comments were that the horse had been humanely killed but that the gun was not a legal one for use on horses, so the killing was in fact illegal from that point of view, which could tie in with someone who legally has a weapon but is using it inappropriately.
 No idea about the RSPCA using an unlicensed person but as they seem to interpret rules on welfare as it suits them they can probably do whatever they like within reason as long as it is considered humane.


----------



## Smurf's Gran (17 October 2014)

ladyt25 said:



			Yes, but nothing official has been mentioned has it? Something very fishy if it is the true as would suggest he was spun a story about why the horse was to be destroyed.  All very tragic &#55357;&#56862;
		
Click to expand...

HERE IS THE FACEBOOK TRANSCRIPT

Default Re: Facebook - Horse shot by livery owner 



from beckie warner:

 "Cooper Wilson shot her for no reason other than could not load her. He looks after rspca horse that reside at the gg centre he gets paid to do it. A lot of gypsy horses got shot cz they couldn't move them within an hour he shot them. The gypsys we're going crazy and snapped both his ankles. He shot another and took it to a garden in strensal a few years ago. I'd been there 2 weeks and spoke to his mother an hour before to say was bringing £30 around Friday and she said fine. He had other ideas of bringing to garden but went wrong. Into a cattle trailer come on she is 16.3. Not the size if a cow. No headcollar tried to chase her in. Doesn't load well anywhy. No wonder she went crazy. Poor girl. The rspca are up laytons arse as the rspca is a homing centre for 200+ horses and he will kick them off if they say anything out of term about him"

 source - facebook


----------



## NeilM (17 October 2014)

I just looked up the requirements of the licence and if the dispatching is carried out "in the field", or for emergency purposes, then you do not need to be a licensed slaughterman.


----------



## ladyt25 (17 October 2014)

georgiegirl said:



			Actually I think it's very pertinent information regarding the general attitude and care that the place and the RSPCA offers....


Imagine if there was a show centre that had strangles/salmonella etc but because they are 'kept round the back then that's ok?' There would be absolute public uproar. 

What has basically happened here is a horse has been unlawfully shot by one their own employees. On top of the above...doesn't look good does it? 

Said 'charity' is also the ones who have provided the welfare statements to the police. Now seeing as they rent a huge amount of land and buildings from this place doesn't it occur to you that any reports from them may perhaps be biased at the very least? Where else in the law would you see someone advising and reporting on there own crime?
		
Click to expand...

The person mentioned is not a direct employee of the RSPCA as far as i am aware. Plus I am not sure where the proof of the strangles has come from but it's not unheard of for yards to be hit and some competition yards in the area have been closed over the past few months.  I am not sure if this yard was amongst them but it may well have been and that makes it no better or worse than others.  These things do happen. 
I still don't think it has any relevance to the horrific incident that has occurred and there is far too much speculation about who was involved.  what this YO did/had done is disgraceful and angers and upsets me but, the horse it seems would never had suffered this horrible fate if the link as loanee had just paid the measly £30


----------



## Echo Bravo (17 October 2014)

To destroy an animal through not fault of it's own for a £30 debt is dispicable and should be regarded as such and why people are trying to defend what this monster and his henchman did who should have the book thrown at them and prison, makes me wander how they would react in the same situation?


----------



## brucea (17 October 2014)

Am I the only one that finds it very sad that there is such a lack of trust, indeed a huge level of mistrust and contempt, for the organisation that is meant to be protecting animals in this country? 

Dear Lord, I hope none of my animals ever fall into the "care" or RSPCA.


----------



## ladyt25 (17 October 2014)

Echo Bravo said:



			To destroy an animal through not fault of it's own for a £30 debt is dispicable and should be regarded as such and why people are trying to defend what this monster and his henchman did who should have the book thrown at them and prison, makes me wander how they would react in the same situation?
		
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is trying to defend the yard owner but, if the person who has been named as actually shooting the horse is correct then I certainly don't think the full story has been heard as i cannot believe that person would shoot a horse without good reason or having been spun a line about the reason!  As far as i was aware the person who shot the horse was released without charge if initial reports were correct.


----------



## georgiegirl (17 October 2014)

ladyt25 said:



			The person mentioned is not a direct employee of the RSPCA as far as i am aware. Plus I am not sure where the proof of the strangles has come from but it's not unheard of for yards to be hit and some competition yards in the area have been closed over the past few months.  I am not sure if this yard was amongst them but it may well have been and that makes it no better or worse than others.  These things do happen. 
I still don't think it has any relevance to the horrific incident that has occurred and there is far too much speculation about who was involved.  what this YO did/had done is disgraceful and angers and upsets me but, the horse it seems would never had suffered this horrible fate if the link as loanee had just paid the measly £30
		
Click to expand...

What I'm basically trying to say is people are angry because they know what goes on there and the attitudes of the people running the joint. 

Whatever the loaner did or did not do is in fact completely irrelevant when compared to shooting dead a perfectly healthy horse and dumping it on someone's lawn. There is NEVER an excuse for doing such a thing regardless of what the owner/loaner or whoever has done. 

Given the charity's involvement with the place it can generally be assumed that any evidence or reports given by them can be regarded as irrelevant as they have an interest in the place. Where do you move over 200 horses to? 

Hopefully the vets report will shine through the smoke and mirrors of other so called expert opinions. I sincerely hope so a) to get this place shut down completely and b) for the welfare of horses up and down the country who may fall foul of unlawful or unecessary killing just because they 'can get away with it'


----------



## Smurf's Gran (17 October 2014)

georgiegirl said:



			What I'm basically trying to say is people are angry because they know what goes on there and the attitudes of the people running the joint. 

Whatever the loaner did or did not do is in fact completely irrelevant when compared to shooting dead a perfectly healthy horse and dumping it on someone's lawn. There is NEVER an excuse for doing such a thing regardless of what the owner/loaner or whoever has done. 

Given the charity's involvement with the place it can generally be assumed that any evidence or reports given by them can be regarded as irrelevant as they have an interest in the place. Where do you move over 200 horses to? 

Hopefully the vets report will shine through the smoke and mirrors of other so called expert opinions. I sincerely hope so a) to get this place shut down completely and b) for the welfare of horses up and down the country who may fall foul of unlawful or unecessary killing just because they 'can get away with it'
		
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more


----------



## Pearlsasinger (17 October 2014)

PeterNatt said:



			I find this incident quite unbelievable.  How can someone shoot a healthy horse just because they are owed £30.00 by the person loaning the horse?
		
Click to expand...


None of this makes sense!  

Why would YO allow the horse onto the land without upfront payment, if that was the usual terms?  Having done so why did he suddenly decide that £30 was more than enough debt?  If the mare refused to load why didn't YO just lead her to the garden, which can only have been a short distance away?

There has to be more to this than meets the eye!

I shall be interested to hear how this pans out eventually.  I wonder if YO and loaner have some kind of previous history.


----------



## Honey08 (17 October 2014)

The poor horse landed in the middle of some really bad characters.


----------



## ladyt25 (17 October 2014)

Honey08 said:



			The poor horse landed in the middle of some really bad characters.
		
Click to expand...

Yep. Ultimately,  as per usual the poor, innocent animal suffers.  &#55357;&#56862;


----------



## orionstar (17 October 2014)

What they did was inexcusable but I agree that this cant be the whole story, but he needs to be prosecuted for what he did to a healthy normal horse!


----------



## Illusion100 (17 October 2014)

As the GG Centre YO said, the buck has to stop somewhere. Hopefully he will die by his own sword.


----------



## Copperpot (17 October 2014)

brucea said:



			Am I the only one that finds it very sad that there is such a lack of trust, indeed a huge level of mistrust and contempt, for the organisation that is meant to be protecting animals in this country? 

Dear Lord, I hope none of my animals ever fall into the "care" or RSPCA.
		
Click to expand...

I feel the same. My Dad is in hospital at the minute and I am looking after his 2 dogs. One of my dogs doesn't like his, so it's a juggling act. My friend said "the RSPCA can look after them in situations like this" I thought God no! I wouldn't trust them to come back in one piece, if at all!


----------



## Mike007 (17 October 2014)

Sadly in law ,a horse is merely property. Being arrested doesnt mean being charged which in turn doesnt mean  being prosecuted ,let alone found guilty. In a simplistic way it is like cutting off a branch of your neighbours tree which overhangs your property.You are within your rights provided you return the branches to him. Will the CPS take up this case,I think not. All I can say is that the poor horse still had more dignity in the bucket of that JCB ,than ALL who had a hand in putting him there.


----------



## Kaida (18 October 2014)

Totally agree - poor poor horse to pay the price for human stupidity.

If nothing happens is there no way to force an investigation by a third party given the RSPCA link to all this making them biased?


----------



## Sheik (18 October 2014)

I think people should stop speculating and know hard truth facts about Layton and cooper what they did was inexcusable and wrong and corrupt and as far as the rspca horses on layton land they will all probably end up dead anyway as that's what the rspca does to them I know this for a fact as I worked there and rescued a horse from been shot from them this needs to go to the governing body at horse welfare as the rspca doesn't have one and they get away with murder literally


----------



## MollyMoomin (18 October 2014)

ladyt25 said:



			I don't think anyone is trying to defend the yard owner but, if the person who has been named as actually shooting the horse is correct then I certainly don't think the full story has been heard as i cannot believe that person would shoot a horse without good reason or having been spun a line about the reason!  As far as i was aware the person who shot the horse was released without charge if initial reports were correct.
		
Click to expand...

This, 100%


----------



## charliecrisps (18 October 2014)

The poor 'actual' owner of the horse!!! Why did the man let the loaner move on the yard if he wanted payment in advance though? & He's obviously got a screw loose to shoot the horse and dump it in her garden but she should've paid her rent.. If you can't afford horses you shouldn't have them!!


----------



## Overread (18 October 2014)

Might have been answered in the previous 40odd pages but I wonder, which is easier and has less legal bite-back - killing the horse or selling it on. It might be that selling the horse the YO doesn't own (under the argument of it being abandoned and going through the paperwork) might actually come with a greater potential legal threat than simply killing it. 

A question as to the time and volume of paperwork needed as well might be a key factor. Speed and lack of strong legal punishment might well explain the brutal approach (assuming no further information comes to light that might have forced the YO hand in the kill itself - though then we've the body dumping which suggests a more malicious element).


----------



## Equi (18 October 2014)

charliecrisps said:



			The poor 'actual' owner of the horse!!! Why did the man let the loaner move on the yard if he wanted payment in advance though? & He's obviously got a screw loose to shoot the horse and dump it in her garden but she should've paid her rent.. If you can't afford horses you shouldn't have them!!
		
Click to expand...

Im not sure if its been said that she couldnt afford the payment, from what i can gather it was more of a didn't want to pay it upfront, wanted to pay it after the horse had already been there


----------



## brucea (18 October 2014)

She said: "I walked over and used the torch on my phone and she was still moving at that point.
I was horrified. I ran back inside and locked the door then phoned the police."
The RSPCA today said they believed Kit, above, had been humanely killed,
		
Click to expand...

if the horse was still moving after being "humanely killed", driven in a JCB and dumped in the garden......how can the RSPCA justify that stance?

We have the SSPCA up here, and I am so glad they are not the same organisational culture as the RSPCA.


----------



## Equi (18 October 2014)

brucea said:



			We have the SSPCA up here, and I am so glad they are not the same organisational culture as the RSPCA.
		
Click to expand...

Many would disagree there lol


----------



## FionaM12 (18 October 2014)

Sheik said:



			I think people should stop speculating and know hard truth facts about Layton and cooper what they did was inexcusable and wrong and corrupt and as far as the rspca horses on layton land they will all probably end up dead anyway as that's what the rspca does to them I know this for a fact as I worked there and rescued a horse from been shot from them this needs to go to the governing body at horse welfare as the rspca doesn't have one and they get away with murder literally
		
Click to expand...

Welcome to the forum.

However, there's no evidence that your version is any more "fact" than any other.

Murder is the unlawful killing of a HUMAN so no, the RSPCA do not get away with murder "literally". Unless there's something we don't know....


----------



## Wagtail (18 October 2014)

brucea said:






			She said: "I walked over and used the torch on my phone and she was still moving at that point.
 I was horrified. I ran back inside and locked the door then phoned the police."
 The RSPCA today said they believed Kit, above, had been humanely killed,
		
Click to expand...

if the horse was still moving after being "humanely killed", driven in a JCB and dumped in the garden......how can the RSPCA justify that stance?

We have the SSPCA up here, and I am so glad they are not the same organisational culture as the RSPCA.
		
Click to expand...

Strange reaction from the loaner. If it had been my horse and she was still moving I would have examined her quickly and then phoned a vet before the police. I would also have stayed with her!


----------



## cptrayes (18 October 2014)

I can't believe the disinformation in the press.

Let's get a few facts straight.

It is perfectly legal for any person to kill any horse as long as it is done humanely.

It is completely normal for horses to be put down with a bolt gun, as was apparently used here to the outrage of the Daily Mail. It is also normal to use a pistol, but in that case the holder must, since Dunblane, have a special licence.

It is not 'normal' for any other gun to be used, but neither is it illegal if humanely done.

Lots of horses move for minutes after being shot even though they are dead. One of mine was still running while his body was being winched into the wagon. The horse is dead, it is only the last of the signals in the nerves firing off.


----------



## Wagtail (18 October 2014)

cptrayes said:



			I can't believe the disinformation in the press.

Let's get a few facts straight.

It is perfectly legal for any person to kill any horse as long as it is done humanely.

It is completely normal for horses to be put down with a bolt gun, as we apparently used here to the outrage of the daily mail. It is also normal to use a pistol, but in that case the holder must, since Dunblane, have a special licence.

It is not 'normal' for any other gun to be used, but neither is it illegal if humanely done.

Lots of horses move for minutes after being shot even though they are dead. One of mine was still running while his body was being winched into the wagon. The house is dead, it is only the last of the signals in the nerves firing off.
		
Click to expand...

But it wasn't 'minutes' was it? Horse is shot, then JCB brought over to scoop her up. That would probably take ten minutes at least. Then has to go off to loaner's house. Must have been half an hour later at least with all the messing about they would have had to do first. I have also heard of horses being shot, loaded up and then 'coming round' in the wagon. I have heard of several first hand experiences of horses needing to be shot more than once.

But whatever reason the horse was still moving, the natural reaction would be to stay with it surely?


----------



## charliecrisps (18 October 2014)

Wagtail said:



			But whatever reason the horse was still moving, the natural reaction would be to stay with it surely?
		
Click to expand...

I would stay with mine... but then maybe she thought it was like a scene from godfather, panicked and feared for her life. He sounds like a rather crazy stubborn man who though 'sod you ill show you' 

I just fear on the outcome of the prosecution... no one will be able to rest at yards ever again if this is deemed as acceptable to kill horses for money owed.


----------



## Honey08 (18 October 2014)

Wagtail said:



			Strange reaction from the loaner. If it had been my horse and she was still moving I would have examined her quickly and then phoned a vet before the police. I would also have stayed with her!
		
Click to expand...

That was one of the first things that I thought on reading the initial reports.  If I thought for a moment that the horse was alive I would never have left her side.  Let alone going inside and locking the door.


----------



## bakewell (18 October 2014)

Wagtail said:



			But whatever reason the horse was still moving, the natural reaction would be to stay with it surely?
		
Click to expand...

Yes, for most horsepeople. You'd usually get a little forewarning/ time to pull it together mentally though. 
However a lot of people are scared of death and pain, look at the amount that won't move an injured animal out of the street. Plus it's got to be a singularly grim surprise to find a dead/ dying horse in your front garden. 
If it wasn't shot with an appropriate firearm I'd say probably not humane; look at the requirements for pithing with bolt guns. Horses are tough to kill, as you say, may need more than once.


----------



## Overread (18 October 2014)

Different people react to shock in different ways, plus different up-bringing results in different reactions again. For someone who might have been brought up without being on a working farm the death of an animal (in such a violent manner) might well be just so far outside of their personal experiences that they don't quite know how to react. With all that fear and the sudden brutality chances are they probably felt threatened as well from whoever killed and then dumped the horse - so fleeing inside and locking the door and calling the police makes perfect sense.


----------



## Sebastian (18 October 2014)

cptrayes said:



			It is perfectly legal for any person to kill any horse as long as it is done humanely.
		
Click to expand...

This cannot be true, surely?


----------



## charliecrisps (18 October 2014)

Eh? anyone can wander in a field and shoot a horse ???


----------



## cptrayes (18 October 2014)

charliecrisps said:



			Eh? anyone can wander in a field and shoot a horse ???
		
Click to expand...

If done humanely and they have a licence for the gun and the owner's permission to shoot the horse, yes.  Same goes for killing your cat or dog or any other animal which is not going into the food chain, unless it's a protected species, of course.

A friend of mine shoots his very old cats. It's a lot more humane than taking them down to the vet, having their arm shaved and a needle stuck in it, like I do to mine


----------



## *hic* (18 October 2014)

georgiegirl said:



			Actually I think it's very pertinent information regarding the general attitude and care that the place and the RSPCA offers....


Imagine if there was a show centre that had strangles/salmonella etc but because they are 'kept round the back then that's ok?' There would be absolute public uproar.
		
Click to expand...

There is. There wasn't.


----------



## digitalangel (18 October 2014)

One of my neighbours puts down his own horses.


----------



## *hic* (18 October 2014)

And as for the horse still moving, load of rubbish, if it was still moving its heart would still have been pumping and there would have been a whole lot more blood.


----------



## charliecrisps (18 October 2014)

cptrayes said:



			If done humanely and they have a licence for the gun and the owner's permission to shoot the horse, yes.  Same goes for killing your cat or dog or any other animal which is not going into the food chain, unless it's a protected species, of course.

A friend of mine shoots his very old cats. It's a lot more humane than taking them down to the vet, having their arm shaved and a needle stuck in it, like I do to mine 

Click to expand...

Phew, with the owners permission!! I thought I had a whole load of anxiety to deal with worrying about them out in the field then!


----------



## cptrayes (18 October 2014)

God no!   But it would only be criminal damage even then. We really need a law change to recognise pets and horses as being more than just 'property' .


----------



## Sheik (18 October 2014)

Yes this is 100% the RSPCA are corrupt and all the horses that go to GG are case horses from owners that are waiting trail if the RSPCA win the case the the horses are in there care and a lot of them in fact over half of them will be put to sleep as they can't be bothered to rehome them or give them a chance of a new home 

As regarding beckys horses layton and cooper have done the wrong thing and it's barbaric and inhumane and copper would only destroy a horse if it was life threatening he would not just shot it for no reason unless the threat from Layton about the RSPCA horses on his land 
Also it was agreed she was paying the rent at the end of the month as in earlier massage it states this as she spoke to lay tons mum dorthey about this and she agreed what her son Layton has done behind his back it's discusting and he should fear for his life right now


----------



## Wagtail (18 October 2014)

Sheik said:



			Yes this is 100% the RSPCA are corrupt and all the horses that go to GG are case horses from owners that are waiting trail if the RSPCA win the case the the horses are in there care and a lot of them in fact over half of them will be put to sleep as they can't be bothered to rehome them or give them a chance of a new home 

As regarding beckys horses layton and cooper have done the wrong thing and it's barbaric and inhumane and copper would only destroy a horse if it was life threatening he would not just shot it for no reason unless the threat from Layton about the RSPCA horses on his land 
Also it was agreed she was paying the rent at the end of the month as in earlier massage it states this as she spoke to lay tons mum dorthey about this and she agreed what her son Layton has done behind his back it's discusting and he should fear for his life right now
		
Click to expand...

Say what?


----------



## fburton (18 October 2014)

Sebastian said:



			She knew that this place has a history of shooting horses (as per her own comments on facebook)
She was told that she must pay up front and was adamant that she would not do this
If she had paid, the horse would still be alive.

Those are the facts.
		
Click to expand...

Those are _some_ of the facts, yes.


----------



## fburton (18 October 2014)

Smurf's Gran said:



			They're nor exactly comparable though are they???  one owes a £30 bill, and the other shoots a horse and dumps it in the owners garden  Godfather Style,  and they are both as responsible??  how does that work then ?  I really don't get your logic
		
Click to expand...

Would the offence have been any different if her horse's head had been placed in her bed Godfather Style? Just more criminal damage (to bed sheets) and trespass? Or does the emotional effect on the victim have an additional bearing on the crime? What about "outraging public decency"?


----------



## Dry Rot (18 October 2014)

cptrayes said:
			
		


			"It is perfectly legal for any person to kill any horse as long as it is done humanely".
		
Click to expand...




Sebastian said:



			This cannot be true, surely?
		
Click to expand...

A bit of a sweeping statement but basically true. More information here:

https://www.gov.uk/farm-animal-welfare-at-slaughter


----------



## fburton (18 October 2014)

jemima*askin said:



			And as for the horse still moving, load of rubbish, if it was still moving its heart would still have been pumping and there would have been a whole lot more blood.
		
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. An animal can still move (e.g. kick legs) even after the heart has stopped, for a minute or two anyway.


----------



## Sebastian (18 October 2014)

Dry Rot said:



			A bit of a sweeping statement but basically true. More information here:

https://www.gov.uk/farm-animal-welfare-at-slaughter

Click to expand...

I see. Thanks.


----------



## Dizzle (18 October 2014)

charliecrisps said:



			no one will be able to rest at yards ever again if this is deemed as acceptable to kill horses for money owed.
		
Click to expand...

Or everyone could just pay their bills?


----------



## bakewell (18 October 2014)

Dizzle said:



			Or everyone could just pay their bills?
		
Click to expand...

There are always issues around bills and livery... say your horse causes damage, or maybe it was "likely" it was your horse, or it's felt you should pay for the vet treatment of a horse your's may have kicked, or is this "normal wear and tear" or excessive. Yes it's nice if everyone is reasonable and adult/ accepts accidents do happen. However the nature of humans means that's as likely as flying pigs.


----------



## Leo Walker (18 October 2014)

What about the lady who was asked to pay for a car windscreen to be replaced a few days ago? The YO believed she owed that money, she and pretty much everyone on here did not and advised her not to pay and move the horses ASAP


----------



## Red-1 (18 October 2014)

georgiegirl said:



			Actually I think it's very pertinent information regarding the general attitude and care that the place and the RSPCA offers....


Imagine if there was a show centre that had strangles/salmonella etc but because they are 'kept round the back then that's ok?' There would be absolute public uproar.
		
Click to expand...




ladyt25 said:



			The person mentioned is not a direct employee of the RSPCA as far as i am aware. Plus I am not sure where the proof of the strangles has come from but it's not unheard of for yards to be hit and some competition yards in the area have been closed over the past few months.  I am not sure if this yard was amongst them but it may well have been and that makes it no better or worse than others.  These things do happen. 
I still don't think it has any relevance to the horrific incident that has occurred and there is far too much speculation about who was involved.  what this YO did/had done is disgraceful and angers and upsets me but, the horse it seems would never had suffered this horrible fate if the link as loanee had just paid the measly £30
		
Click to expand...

TBH the fact that this centre houses 200 RSPCA horses would lead me to believe that Strangles would be pretty much endemic with a transient horse population, rather like a low standard market would be.

Knowing that this was happening on the premises would be enough to stop me taking my horse there just alone. 

Who knows, maybe the number of people hiring these premises and then attending shows or returning to their livery yards has been one of the reasons there has been more then a few infected yards in North Yorkshire? Strangles does not just float on the breeze, horses have to actually come into contact with  infected materiel. 

Visiting a yard with strangles is just a risk I don't need to take, and would choose not to if I am aware it is there. 

Knowing that someone was daily looking after these horses would make me very cautious to use them for any private service as well. I would have to be convinced as to their disinfection procedures for them, their clothes, cars, dogs.....


----------



## digitalangel (18 October 2014)




----------



## digitalangel (18 October 2014)

"Beckie Warner Yes all liverys still there barring 4/5. As petrified to move. And he will not pay bonds back the whole reason I didn't pay in front in the first place cz he doesn't return deposits!"

-- source, fb.


----------



## Wagtail (18 October 2014)

What a beautiful mare. Such a cruel waste of life. x


----------



## siennamum (18 October 2014)

I wonder whether he tried to load the mare - with a piece of baling twine round her neck, couldn't and actually injured her and shot her as a result. Speculation I know but it was my initial thought when I read he's tried to load her & she had kicked off.
I saw a picture of the loaner standing next to a pool of blood, there was quite a bit more blood than I would expect to see. Only time I have seen as much was with a horse who had Cushings.

To my mind it is irrelevant whether the loaner had paid the guy. Can't believe people think she should share the blame for the outcome. How ridiculous, she is responsible for being a poor payer, not for shooting the horse. Hope something nasty and very painful happens to this guy.


----------



## Reacher (18 October 2014)

Illusion100 said:



http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/boycott-the-gg-center.html

Click to expand...

    Signed


----------



## gmw (18 October 2014)

Absolutely agree equi.


----------



## gmw (18 October 2014)

200 RSPCA horses!!!!!!!   Are these horses well looked after? Is there enough grazing (lets allow a minimum of one and a half acres per horse !!!!!!!! etc etc   The mind boggles.


----------



## Equi (18 October 2014)

Dry Rot said:



			A bit of a sweeping statement but basically true. More information here:

https://www.gov.uk/farm-animal-welfare-at-slaughter

Click to expand...

Thats terrible. That should change


----------



## WelshD (18 October 2014)

The loaner knew the terms of payment and chose to decide when she wanted to pay. She knew the owner had a reputation for not returning deposits but chose to use the yard, she knew the owner wasnt known for being rational but chose to use the yard. 

If I was the horse's owner I would be devastated by what the chap did but I would be absolutely LIVID with the loaner for thinking she could beat 'the system' 

The yard owner called the loaners bluff in the most awful unacceptable way but the loaner chose to walk a very fine line and the poor horse paid the ultimate price


----------



## Wagtail (18 October 2014)

WelshD said:



			The loaner knew the terms of payment and chose to decide when she wanted to pay. She knew the owner had a reputation for not returning deposits but chose to use the yard, she knew the owner wasnt known for being rational but chose to use the yard. 

If I was the horse's owner I would be devastated by what the chap did but I would be absolutely LIVID with the loaner for thinking she could beat 'the system' 

The yard owner called the loaners bluff in the most awful unacceptable way but the loaner chose to walk a very fine line and the poor horse paid the ultimate price
		
Click to expand...

Completely agree with this.


----------



## cronkmooar (18 October 2014)

On the point that the horse was moving after being dumped in her garden, this is a possibility and would tie in with a post a few pages back from the vet nurse (sorry cant remember name) who said for various reasons the horse did not look like it had just been shot.

When rigor is setting in there can be muscle movement in any animal - I had something put down a couple of weeks ago and it was immediately covered up.

My vet did remind me not to think there was still life if I seen the cover moving as it was going to be a few hours before burial


----------



## *hic* (18 October 2014)

fburton said:



			Not necessarily. An animal can still move (e.g. kick legs) even after the heart has stopped, for a minute or two anyway.
		
Click to expand...

Absolutely, but from killing our animals at home I have never known one that's still moving after we've manouevred it into a barrow and taken it across the yard, let alone having taken sufficient time to load it into a tractor bucket and drive it round to someone's house where, in the first reports, the loaner didn't realise it was there for some little time.


----------



## Big Ben (18 October 2014)

I am just amazed as ever at the way people view the world..

You know I have zero idea how I would react if someone turned up with a horse that they had just shot, I'm not sure if I would of stayed there and waited with the horse, I can't imagine how I would react, it is a situation so awful that I can't  compute it, but I kind of think that if there was someone out here with a gun, I would of gone into the house and locked myself in.

Those who are saying the the leaser is responsible, well yes they are responsible for not paying, I have no idea if she intended to pay or not, but it is just totally beyond any comprehension of mine that anyone thanks that it is OK to shoot a horse over a 30 quid, three week debt.


----------



## Sukistokes2 (18 October 2014)

Look, I agree totally the loaner was an idiot not to pay, however NOTHING excuses this mans actions!


----------



## *hic* (18 October 2014)

equi said:



			Thats terrible. That should change 

Click to expand...

You may not be aware that as the law stands it is illegal for me to employ a licensed slaughterman to kill my animals on my land I choose to have them shot at home as I don't believe that travelling them does them any favours at this critical point in their lives. I used to employ an extremely experienced man who was one of those people that all animals adore and who had despatched countless animals and took a real pride in knowing that he had done his best for them. Then the law changed and now, for it to be legal for me to not have to transport animals that I have bred and grown for my own private consumption on my own land, I HAVE to kill them myself. 

In reality I have my very experienced slaughterman guiding my every movement and nothing has gone wrong so far but doesn't it make an utter ass of the law when the experienced and licensed man is not allowed to do his job and the rank amateur has to.


----------



## *hic* (18 October 2014)

Big Ben said:



			I am just amazed as ever at the way people view the world..

You know I have zero idea how I would react if someone turned up with a horse that they had just shot, I'm not sure if I would of stayed there and waited with the horse, I can't imagine how I would react, it is a situation so awful that I can't  compute it, but I kind of think that if there was someone out here with a gun, I would of gone into the house and locked myself in.

Those who are saying the the leaser is responsible, well yes they are responsible for not paying, I have no idea if she intended to pay or not, but it is just totally beyond any comprehension of mine that anyone thanks that it is OK to shoot a horse over a 30 quid, three week debt.
		
Click to expand...

It was a captive bolt gun. If they're not touching flesh they ain't going to harm you.


----------



## Sukistokes2 (18 October 2014)

jemima*askin said:



			It was a captive bolt gun. If they're not touching flesh they ain't going to harm you.
		
Click to expand...

Still that guy was killed with one during the foot and mouth outbreak way back, and this guy has got to be a bit of a nutter!  Really how many other people would vent their spleen out on an Animal, just to get at its owner/ loaner.

Totally respect your stand on your own animals. I am and will remain a vegetation due to the stupid and cruel way meat animals are dealt with in this country. Home killed meat is so much better.


----------



## Big Ben (18 October 2014)

jemima*askin said:



			It was a captive bolt gun. If they're not touching flesh they ain't going to harm you.
		
Click to expand...

Again though, in the heat of the moment are you going to process that information?  I just can't imagine acting rationally if someone had just dumped my horses dead body on the lawn. You think it has been shot, well out here anyway, I would think gun, and maybe someone still has it. If I was involved with a person who was bat **** crazy enough to do this thing, what else would they be capable of.

It is like any situation like that, it is far easier to sit here, warm safe and comfortable in my front room drinking coffee, saying Oh yes, well in situation A, I would do XY and Z. On a cold, dark windy night, with a lunatic on the loose, I think plan 44 run like a fast thing, comes into mind.


----------



## brucea (18 October 2014)

If anyone had done that to one of my horses......


----------



## Dry Rot (18 October 2014)

equi said:



			Thats terrible. That should change 

Click to expand...




jemima*askin said:



			You may not be aware that as the law stands it is illegal for me to employ a licensed slaughterman to kill my animals on my land I choose to have them shot at home as I don't believe that travelling them does them any favours at this critical point in their lives. I used to employ an extremely experienced man who was one of those people that all animals adore and who had despatched countless animals and took a real pride in knowing that he had done his best for them. Then the law changed and now, for it to be legal for me to not have to transport animals that I have bred and grown for my own private consumption on my own land, I HAVE to kill them myself. 

In reality I have my very experienced slaughterman guiding my every movement and nothing has gone wrong so far but doesn't it make an utter ass of the law when the experienced and licensed man is not allowed to do his job and the rank amateur has to.
		
Click to expand...

A link or reference to the relevant law would be useful, especially as the link I posted above about animal welfare and the law on slaughter was on a government web site for DEFRA.


----------



## mulledwhine (18 October 2014)

ladyt25 said:



			I have used the facilities here several times over the years and it's always been pleasant.  Pony clubs often hire the facilities for training and camps I believe as well.  I certainly would not consider giving any money to anywhere where they consider this behaviour acceptable over non-payment of a debt!  Selling a horsr to cover unpaid livery debts is one thing but this?  Just appalling. 
Dread to think what will happen to the poor RSPCA'S equines now as not good to be associated with this.
		
Click to expand...

Seriously!!!! You still will want to use this facility?????

Head bang on desk


----------



## mulledwhine (18 October 2014)

Apologies, just re read, I was so angry I only read the first bit


----------



## Red-1 (18 October 2014)

jemima*askin said:



			It was a captive bolt gun. If they're not touching flesh they ain't going to harm you.
		
Click to expand...

I don't know about that, reports said it was a .38, which is a revolver, not a captive bolt.

Other than a hole in the head of the horse I am interested as to how, in the dark, you would know what type of gun was used? 

I honestly don't know what I would do. Finding my shot horse dumped in my garden, with deranged gunman possibly outside (well he is not inside that much is certain), I don't think running inside and phoning the Police is way out there. I suspect I would be wailing at my horse's head, calling the vet, but I don't know that, especially if I had two toddlers or young children in the house. In that case I suspect locking the door and calling the Police was entirely the correct course of action.

I am more amazed that most of the liveries have stayed. My deposit, bond and a month up front would not make me leave my horse in the yard of such a different thinking person.

I also disagree that the loaner is as guilty. She is indeed guilty of non payment of £30. She is not guilty of shooting the horse, and delivering it to a family home and dumping it over the wall.

To the poster asking about the head in bed scenario - it would be more than criminal damage of the sheets, it would actually be burglary as they would have entered as a trespasser in order to commit the criminal damage to the sheets.

What kind of a wacky world do we live in where we even have to discuss such things?


----------



## Sandstone1 (18 October 2014)

brucea said:



			If anyone had done that to one of my horses......
		
Click to expand...

Quite, I'm afraid if it was my horse and the law was doing nothing, then I would be taking steps myself.


----------



## Red-1 (18 October 2014)

Oh, and to add, I wonder what the RSPCA's stance is to trying to load a 16.3hh horse into a cattle trainer? 

I am sure if someone was to try to load with force a similar horse into a similar trailer at a hunt meet then there would be a rumpus.


----------



## rockysmum (18 October 2014)

One thing I have been considering, why was there not this kind of outrage when they did this before?

Why were there not 52 page threads on here, Facebook campaigns, petitions, pages in memory etc etc

Apparently plenty of people knew about it at the time.

The difference?   The three he did this to before were traveler horses.  Do we have different standards depending on who the owners are?


----------



## mulledwhine (18 October 2014)

Sebastian said:



			I agree that there is no justification for this, but I would like to know the full story of what actually happened here. 



I don't know why people assume that wanting to know the full story equates with trying to justify what has happened. 

I am confused.
		
Click to expand...

Agreed!!!, #confused #disgusted


----------



## cobgoblin (18 October 2014)

I have been following this dreadful story over the last couple of days.
The thing that keeps jumping out at me, despite the conflicting reports is that, to me, this guy actually seemed to want to kill this horse. There were so many other ways of dealing with the situation at any point, especially as he knew where the loaner lived and it was only one mile away. If he couldn't catch the horse, what difference would one day have made anyway?
Ghastly situation, poor owner, loaner and horse!


----------



## Goldenstar (18 October 2014)

rockysmum said:



			One thing I have been considering, why was there not this kind of outrage when they did this before?

Why were there not 52 page threads on here, Facebook campaigns, petitions, pages in memory etc etc

Apparently plenty of people knew about it at the time.

The difference?   The three he did this to before were traveler horses.  Do we have different standards depending on who the owners are?
		
Click to expand...

No I don't think so those horses according to what I have read were dumped on his land he has to put up a notice then after fourteen days ( I think ) he can get rid of them that's very different to shooting a horse belonging to a customer in arrears when the horse belongs to someone else .


----------



## Red-1 (18 October 2014)

rockysmum said:



			One thing I have been considering, why was there not this kind of outrage when they did this before?

Why were there not 52 page threads on here, Facebook campaigns, petitions, pages in memory etc etc

Apparently plenty of people knew about it at the time.

The difference?   The three he did this to before were traveler horses.  Do we have different standards depending on who the owners are?
		
Click to expand...

I doubt the owners of the previous cases went to the Police and press.

In fact recently there was a coloured cob stabbed at the roadside, and because the vet and authorities were involved, and the press got the story and there was plenty said about how awful that was too.

Awful is awful, no matter who owns the horse.


----------



## Amirah (18 October 2014)

rockysmum said:



			One thing I have been considering, why was there not this kind of outrage when they did this before?

Why were there not 52 page threads on here, Facebook campaigns, petitions, pages in memory etc etc

Apparently plenty of people knew about it at the time.

The difference?   The three he did this to before were traveler horses.  Do we have different standards depending on who the owners are?
		
Click to expand...

I  thought that too, if a stink had been raised the first time this happened then Kit might still be here. He got away with it back then and thought he could do it again, bet he's regretting it now. 

The travellers' horses were just as innocent as poor Kit. 

The lady who started the Facebook group has a donations page now, for getting horses relocated etc. 

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/in-honour-of-kit-and-the-horses-at-gg-centre


----------



## Sukistokes2 (18 October 2014)

With the gypsy cobs ....again he killed! He did not sell to potters or offer them for sale for fifty quid, he slaughtered them, there is no doubt in my mind that this man is a total nutter who will go on to worst things.......if he has not already....!


----------



## Honey08 (18 October 2014)

rockysmum said:



			One thing I have been considering, why was there not this kind of outrage when they did this before?

Why were there not 52 page threads on here, Facebook campaigns, petitions, pages in memory etc etc

Apparently plenty of people knew about it at the time.

The difference?   The three he did this to before were traveler horses.  Do we have different standards depending on who the owners are?
		
Click to expand...

No, of course not, but the owners probably didn't care much or publicise it on that occasion.  They probably work on the some you win/some you lose theory when it comes to fly grazing,  on that occasion it wax an epic lose..


----------



## rockysmum (18 October 2014)

I would be interested to know how many liveries have actually left the place, or people cancelled bookings.  He might get away with it again when thinks calm down


----------



## Moya_999 (18 October 2014)

I would be moving out asap if I was there, even if I had to do it secretly I would not stay at a yard with a sadistic prat like this.

 Heart felt vibes to all concerned, such a beautiful mare, run free KIT  over the Rainbow.

 How anyone would stay at this yard is beyond me, you owe it to the memory of KIT and for your own horses to MOVE............................


----------



## Dolcé (18 October 2014)

minesadouble said:



			I haven't previously commented on this post as I hate to pass comment where the facts are not truly known.
However the Cooper Wilson aspect has left me intrigued. He has shot a horse (livery) at our place and and as far as i can gather he is not actually licensed for horse slaughtering?
I have also been led to believe he is an 'animal communicator' who has, in the past, 'communicated' to an owner her horse 'wanted' to be destroyed and then shot the said animal??? 
This could all be fabrication but am merely repeating what I have heard. All very odd!!
		
Click to expand...

Funnily enough, and I very much doubt it is me you are talking about, he pretty much told me the same thing about my pony.  I had just been wondering how many other people he has told this to when your post popped up, anyone else?  He went off my yard having convinced me he was a total fake!  Why was I not surprised when his name popped up on this thread in relation to the 'murdered' horse!  FWIW, my boy is happily munching in the field over a year later.


----------



## Wagtail (18 October 2014)

My vet told me about a male animal communicator who told someone their horse was depressed because he wanted to die. I am now wondering if it's the same person as most ACs are female and it's a very odd thing for them to say...


----------



## YorksG (18 October 2014)

The comments about the 'communicator' telling people that their horse wants to be shot, then offering to do the deed, concern me immensly. That type of behaviour pattern speaks of someone with grandiose delusions of their right of dominion over life and death.


----------



## Leo Walker (18 October 2014)

Didnt he get both ankles broken by the owners of the coloured cobs he shot? They could have come on to social media and called the polie, but looks like they choose to deal with it in a different way, and in light of what people have said here, I'm not sure I wouldnt have at least considered similar!


----------



## Dolcé (18 October 2014)

ooh Wagtail, depression was mentioned, and YorksG, yes, he did offer to do the deed for us.  I was incredibly disappointed by the whole thing as he came very highly recommended by someone I have a lot of respect for.  It was a waste of money and, had I been easy to persuade, would have ended the life of the little lad (but it would be the best for him you see!!) who was perfectly healthy but very shy.

Oh, and if I remember correctly he had a foul mouth which was very inappropriate around my children!


----------



## MotherOfChickens (18 October 2014)

FrankieCob said:



			Didnt he get both ankles broken by the owners of the coloured cobs he shot? They could have come on to social media and called the polie, but looks like they choose to deal with it in a different way, and in light of what people have said here, I'm not sure I wouldnt have at least considered similar!
		
Click to expand...

is that actually true though? was it just from the one post we've heard about that? 

I want to say of course he's a charlatan if he's a horse whisperer  but one that goes around telling owners their horses want to die is a new level of weird and disturbing. But if this guy is relatively well known in the area, well 2 broken ankles (even if not the knowledge of how it happened) would have been known. He's no spring chicken, would have throughout two broken ankles would have put him out of action a fair while.


----------



## ladyt25 (18 October 2014)

mulledwhine said:



			Apologies, just re read, I was so angry I only read the first bit[/QUOTE
Glad you you re-read!  I have been there (not for about 5 years). Just goes to show you never know people! 
As for the 'communicator' I have had him recently and he certainly did not tell me my horse was depressed! He did pick up some weird things about me though and was bang on with some things he said about my horse. 
I still cannot comprehend he would destroy a healthy horse though as am aware he does not like having to do this when the RSPCA instruct him to
		
Click to expand...


----------



## FestiveFuzz (18 October 2014)

Red-1 said:



			I think that is harsh. I think she should feel guilty towards the man for not paying on time, but I don't think  she should feel guilty for the shooting of the horse. 

I am sure the lady did not foresee the outcome, nor would I have expected her to. 

As the lady is known to read this thread I would like to tell her that I do not think you should feel guilty for this totally unexpected outcome, and I am very sorry for your loss.
		
Click to expand...

Really? I think the alleged spoken agreement with the YO that any horse whose livery is in arrears will be shot/PTS means this is far from an unexpected outcome if you chose to refuse to pay your livery on time. I also don't buy the excuse that the YO was known to withhold bonds/deposits when terminating livery. Surely if you're unhappy with the arrangement you look elsewhere rather than moving on to the yard anyway and then trying to make up your own rules. Not to mention that I have never known a yard that doesn't expect the first months livery upfront.

I'm not for one moment condoning the mindless killing of an innocent horse but my sympathies lie with the horse and it's owner, not the loaner.



Sukistokes2 said:



			With the gypsy cobs ....again he killed! He did not sell to potters or offer them for sale for fifty quid, he slaughtered them, there is no doubt in my mind that this man is a total nutter who will go on to worst things.......if he has not already....!
		
Click to expand...

I really don't get this. Time and time again we hear their are worst fates than PTS and yet here you're suggesting the mare should have been sold for meat/£50 for an unknown future. If it were my horse I know which outcome I'd prefer.


----------



## ladyt25 (18 October 2014)

GG2B said:



			Really? I think the alleged spoken agreement with the YO that any horse whose livery is in arrears will be shot/PTS means this is far from an unexpected outcome if you chose to refuse to pay your livery on time. I also don't buy the excuse that the YO was known to withhold bonds/deposits when terminating livery. Surely if you're unhappy with the arrangement you look elsewhere rather than moving on to the yard anyway and then trying to make up your own rules. Not to mention that I have never known a yard that doesn't expect the first months livery upfront.

I'm not for one moment condoning the mindless killing of an innocent horse but my sympathies lie with the horse and it's owner, not the loaner.



I really don't get this. Time and time again we hear their are worst fates than PTS and yet here you're suggesting the mare should have been sold for meat/£50 for an unknown future. If it were my horse I know which outcome I'd prefer.
		
Click to expand...

It's the same with people going off about the RSPCA and the horses they have at this yard and the fact many are destroyed.  What do people think is going to happen?  I don't see people jumping up to rehome these poor souls who have been seized by the RSPCA for various reasons.  There's only so much space and, like council dog pounds there is sadly too many that they feel can't be rehomed.  You only have to look at their rehoming website.  The vast majority are very poor examples of coloured cobs. Who here has given these a home? I don't think you're in a position to judge. It's the owners' fault these poor animals end up with this happening. 
I am not an RSPCA supporter by any means but too many unwanted horses is only going to result in one outcome. 
That situation though has no relevance to this incident in my opinion though.


----------



## Sukistokes2 (18 October 2014)

GG2B said:



			Really? I think the alleged spoken agreement with the YO that any horse whose livery is in arrears will be shot/PTS means this is far from an unexpected outcome if you chose to refuse to pay your livery on time. I also don't buy the excuse that the YO was known to withhold bonds/deposits when terminating livery. Surely if you're unhappy with the arrangement you look elsewhere rather than moving on to the yard anyway and then trying to make up your own rules. Not to mention that I have never known a yard that doesn't expect the first months livery upfront.

I'm not for one moment condoning the mindless killing of an innocent horse but my sympathies lie with the horse and it's owner, not the loaner.



I really don't get this. Time and time again we hear their are worst fates than PTS and yet here you're suggesting the mare should have been sold for meat/£50 for an unknown future. If it were my horse I know which outcome I'd prefer.
		
Click to expand...

Surely everything/ one deserves a chance, who is to say they would not have found homes!  Your sympathy seems to be fickle...maybe these ponies don't deserve the consideration given a TB


----------



## diamonddogs (18 October 2014)

I'm still in a state of near shock over all this. So many questions.

We don't know the ins-and-outs of the situation as we weren't present at the time of the slaughter, but even if the YO was telling the truth about dangerous behaviour and he had to shoot it in the interests of the safety of his staff, there was no need to parade the body through the village and leave it on the front of her house - we've seen the pictures of the house, and the frontage isn't fenced off and is in full view of the public - a traumatic sight for anyone to witness, even of they're not an animal lover.

What I don't get is this - if he shot the horse using a humane killer and it died instantly, legally there's no case to answer (morally, he needs to be restrained in a public area with a report of his crime tied round his neck and left for anyone to deal with as they see fit). However, if the reports saying it WASN'T a humane killer are to be believed, there are several firearms charges they could make, the very least, discharging a firearm in a public place (I'm assuming the yard was open for any livery visiting, as some reports say that the gates were normally left unlocked). He may have held a licence for a humane killer, but some reports say a pistol was used, and I admit I'm ignorant of firearms and the law, I would have thought possession of a pistol capable of firing live ammunition of a calibre high enough to kill a horse would be highly illegal.

On the subject of paying in arrears, my yard does, and no deposit is requested before you move on. However, I appreciate this is unusual, and I know people who've had to pay a deposit and one month in advance *before they were allowed to move their animal on to the yard* so why did he accept the horse without payment? Odd.

Why would the YO go to the owner? His contract was with the loaner, and he may not even have been aware it wasn't her horse - not that he'd care about little things like legal ownership, since nothing I've read so far convinces me he acted within the law. I think if a potential YO said "Make sure you pay else we'll shoot the horse" to me, I'd think he was joking, specially as it doesn't seem to appear in the written contract. I mean, WTF?

RIP Kit - you didn't deserve any of this and I hope you're at peace now, wherever you are.


----------



## FestiveFuzz (18 October 2014)

Sukistokes2 said:



			Surely everything/ one deserves a chance, who is to say they would not have found homes!  Your sympathy seems to be fickle...maybe these ponies don't deserve the consideration given a TB
		
Click to expand...

Wow that's quite the assumption you're making! As the owner of a coloured cob of unknown breeding I definitely don't think one horse's life is more valuable than another and my sympathy is far from fickle. I'm not familiar with the situation regarding the gypsy horses as there's not been much said on it but my point was regardless of breed or owner if I had the unfortunate choice of having the YO shoot my horse or sell for £50 I know which I'd choose. Yes everything does deserve a chance but we're in the middle of an equine crisis and there's no guarantee that that chance would mean the horse was better off than if it had been PTS.


----------



## Clara Mo 3 (18 October 2014)

Hi, Just thought I would add my two pennies as I have read this thread with interest and I keep my horse close to this place.  I know a lot of people are in too much shock to comprehend that this killing is simply over a £30 debt and think surely there must be more to this than we are hearing.  Sadly, there probably isn't more to it than the small debt. The man in question (the livery owner) is renowned in this area for being a particularly evil man.  In addition to the stories we have read on here, there are three others I can relate which may give you some idea as to the sort of individual he is.  He once was owed some money for horse livery so he took the horse to a roundabout in thirsk and tethered it there (alive fortunately).  A little odd maybe ?  He fell out with an ex employee and took his farm vehicle (JCB/digger or something similar) to the guy's car which was parked outside his house and rammed it until it stood up on its end against the guy's garage wall - a little odd too I think.  And he shot his daughters ponies when they decided they weren't as interested in them as they once were - surely one would remind said daughters how fortunate they were or sell the ponies.

So, shooting horses willy nilly and doing things that most of the rest of the population thinks crazy just seem to come as second nature to this individual and are not likely to stop here either if he gets away with it.

As for Cooper, well I am disappointed if he did this without having been given some convincing lies about why it needed to be done, he has looked after my pony before now and always been lovely (not the horse whispering that he does, I don't believe in it !), so this has really given me a kick up the bum with respect to him.  I shan't be using either his or the livery's services again, that is for sure.

Kit's owner - I am devastated for you love, so sorry you lost her this way.


----------



## blackandwhite (18 October 2014)

Is anyone else getting fb posts asking for donations to allow the other liveries at the gg place to leave?


----------



## ladyt25 (18 October 2014)

blackandwhite said:



			Is anyone else getting fb posts asking for donations to allow the other liveries at the gg place to leave?
		
Click to expand...

Nope and why would they need donations?


----------



## Sebastian (18 October 2014)

Big Ben said:



			I am just amazed as ever at the way people view the world..

You know I have zero idea how I would react if someone turned up with a horse that they had just shot, I'm not sure if I would of stayed there and waited with the horse, I can't imagine how I would react, it is a situation so awful that I can't  compute it, but I kind of think that if there was someone out here with a gun, I would of gone into the house and locked myself in.

Those who are saying the the leaser is responsible, well yes they are responsible for not paying, I have no idea if she intended to pay or not, but it is just totally beyond any comprehension of mine that anyone thanks that it is OK to shoot a horse over a 30 quid, three week debt.
		
Click to expand...

I don't know how many times I have to repeat this, but no one here is saying that it's ok to shoot a horse because of a debt. I don't know why people are not getting this. The point remains though, if the loaner had paid her upfront, like she was supposed to, or took the horse to a better livery yard, then the horse would still be alive.


----------



## ladyt25 (18 October 2014)

Clara Mo 3 said:



			Hi, Just thought I would add my two pennies as I have read this thread with interest and I keep my horse close to this place.  I know a lot of people are in too much shock to comprehend that this killing is simply over a £30 debt and think surely there must be more to this than we are hearing.  Sadly, there probably isn't more to it than the small debt. The man in question (the livery owner) is renowned in this area for being a particularly evil man.  In addition to the stories we have read on here, there are three others I can relate which may give you some idea as to the sort of individual he is.  He once was owed some money for horse livery so he took the horse to a roundabout in thirsk and tethered it there (alive fortunately).  A little odd maybe ?  He fell out with an ex employee and took his farm vehicle (JCB/digger or something similar) to the guy's car which was parked outside his house and rammed it until it stood up on its end against the guy's garage wall - a little odd too I think.  And he shot his daughters ponies when they decided they weren't as interested in them as they once were - surely one would remind said daughters how fortunate they were or sell the ponies.

So, shooting horses willy nilly and doing things that most of the rest of the population thinks crazy just seem to come as second nature to this individual and are not likely to stop here either if he gets away with it.

As for Cooper, well I am disappointed if he did this without having been given some convincing lies about why it needed to be done, he has looked after my pony before now and always been lovely (not the horse whispering that he does, I don't believe in it !), so this has really given me a kick up the bum with respect to him.  I shan't be using either his or the livery's services again, that is for sure.

Kit's owner - I am devastated for you love, so sorry you lost her this way.
		
Click to expand...

I too am shocked if he was involved without having been spun a set of lies (although you'd think with his 'intuition' he'd have known it was a lie?!!). His reputation will be well and truly down the pan


----------



## FionaM12 (18 October 2014)

Sebastian said:



			I don't know how many times I have to repeat this, but no one here is saying that it's ok to shoot a horse because of a debt. I don't know why people are not getting this. The point remains though, if the loaner had paid her upfront, like she was supposed to, or took the horse to a better livery yard, then the horse would still be alive.
		
Click to expand...

You could equally say if the owner hadn't loaned her the mare would still be alive. All these things are irrelevent. Those who killed her are the only ones to blame for er death.


----------



## Sebastian (18 October 2014)

FionaM12 said:



			You could equally say if the owner hadn't loaned her the mare would still be alive. All these things are irrelevent. Those who killed her are the only ones to blame for er death.
		
Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree.


----------



## YorksG (18 October 2014)

ladyt25 said:



			I too am shocked if he was involved without having been spun a set of lies (although you'd think with his 'intuition' he'd have known it was a lie?!!). His reputation will be well and truly down the pan
		
Click to expand...

I would have thought his reputation would have been flushed the first time he shot a horse having told the owner that the horse told him that was what it wanted !


----------



## Big Ben (18 October 2014)

Sebastian said:



			I don't know how many times I have to repeat this, but no one here is saying that it's ok to shoot a horse because of a debt. I don't know why people are not getting this. The point remains though, if the loaner had paid her upfront, like she was supposed to, or took the horse to a better livery yard, then the horse would still be alive.
		
Click to expand...

I guess again and again until everyone agrees with the point that you, me, or anyone else is trying to make. 

With the paying up front, well to me the Yard Owner is at fault, if your rules are money upfront, don't let a horse set foot on your property until you have the cash it really is that simple.

Once he has ignored his own rules and taken the horse onto the property without cash up front, then as the person involved I would then think that this guy is OK and relaxed about the whole thing.

Once again, to me, her actions, though incorrect, well she could not of fore seen the tragic consequences. 

My point again, and I have no idea why this is important to me, but it does make a difference in how I view it. I'm back to the end of the month thing, I get how money can run out, and when people owe me, you give them at least to the next payday to make right, because if there is no money, there is no money, and all the shouting in the world wont make it appear. To have a horse on your property for 3 weeks, which you accepted without your normally required upfront payment, then *shrugs* I would have let it go a week or two more. 

The law of unintended consequences is a harsh one, and everyone in this case lost sadly, and some paid a bigger price than others.


----------



## Big Ben (18 October 2014)

FionaM12 said:



			You could equally say if the owner hadn't loaned her the mare would still be alive. All these things are irrelevent. Those who killed her are the only ones to blame for er death.
		
Click to expand...

And I respectfully Agree!


----------



## Leo Walker (18 October 2014)

The other thing to consider it, that as hes based near York, York Sales run monthly. He would have got more than £30 if he had taken the horse there. He could have put the paper work through before the next sale and come out with the £30 and his costs. There was clearly more to this than just money


----------



## brucea (18 October 2014)

YorksG said:



			I would have thought his reputation would have been flushed the first time he shot a horse having told the owner that the horse told him that was what it wanted !
		
Click to expand...

That bloke sounds like a total nutter. What stone did he crawl out from under?

If he said that to me about my horses he'd be shown off the premises after being handed a wad of tissues for his bloody nose!


----------



## ladyt25 (18 October 2014)

brucea said:



			That bloke sounds like a total nutter. What stone did he crawl out from under?

If he said that to me about my horses he'd be shown off the premises after being handed a wad of tissues for his bloody nose!
		
Click to expand...

I am not aware of him telling people their horses needed or wanted to be shot!


----------



## ladyt25 (18 October 2014)

brucea said:



			That bloke sounds like a total nutter. What stone did he crawl out from under?

If he said that to me about my horses he'd be shown off the premises after being handed a wad of tissues for his bloody nose!
		
Click to expand...

I am not aware of him telling people their horses needed or wanted to be shot!


----------



## Sebastian (18 October 2014)

Big Ben said:



			I guess again and again until everyone agrees with the point that you, me, or anyone else is trying to make. 

With the paying up front, well to me the Yard Owner is at fault, if your rules are money upfront, don't let a horse set foot on your property until you have the cash it really is that simple.

Once he has ignored his own rules and taken the horse onto the property without cash up front, then as the person involved I would then think that this guy is OK and relaxed about the whole thing.

Once again, to me, her actions, though incorrect, well she could not of fore seen the tragic consequences. 

My point again, and I have no idea why this is important to me, but it does make a difference in how I view it. I'm back to the end of the month thing, I get how money can run out, and when people owe me, you give them at least to the next payday to make right, because if there is no money, there is no money, and all the shouting in the world wont make it appear. To have a horse on your property for 3 weeks, which you accepted without your normally required upfront payment, then *shrugs* I would have let it go a week or two more. 

The law of unintended consequences is a harsh one, and everyone in this case lost sadly, and some paid a bigger price than others.
		
Click to expand...

Why do you and others keep saying, "I can't believe people here think it's ok to shoot a horse for £30"? Nobody has said that.


----------



## Red-1 (18 October 2014)

GG2B said:



			Really? I think the alleged spoken agreement with the YO that any horse whose livery is in arrears will be shot/PTS means this is far from an unexpected outcome if you chose to refuse to pay your livery on time.
		
Click to expand...

Really?

I know of a well known and respected eventing venue, when you turn up at an event there is a sign telling people that if their dog is found loose at the event it will be shot.

I don't take my dog eventing so I don't have to worry about that being true, and I do know that if there is stock being worried then a farmer is entitled to shoot the dog doing the worrying. 

HOWEVER at a horse event I always presumed that this was a notice to bring dog owners to realise that they really must keep their dogs under control, I have never stressed in case I were approaching fence no 12 on the Cross Country and have to hold hard while a volley of shotguns dispatches a loose dog or two. 

In fact I do remember a dog being found loose and put the the secretary's tent, and it was announced that it would be ransomed for £10 donation to a charity. 

I hear a lot of threats on a Saturday night (worker (not That type)) where people say "I will kill you". I don't habitually have to pile up the dead bodies in the street.

I think there are threats, and there is a line that it would be "unexpected" for people to cross.

I am all for paying bills on time.  I believed the loaner did wrong by not paying the £30 in 2 and a half weeks. But on a scale it is way below the actions of the livery yard, and yes, it would have been "unexpected" to me, at least.

I guess we will be agreeing to disagree on this one.


----------



## YorksG (18 October 2014)

ladyt25 said:



			I am not aware of him telling people their horses needed or wanted to be shot!
		
Click to expand...

There are  previous posts on this thread which state that he did.


----------



## Moya_999 (18 October 2014)

blackandwhite said:



			Is anyone else getting fb posts asking for donations to allow the other liveries at the gg place to leave?
		
Click to expand...

Nope who is sending them, I see no requests!!


----------



## Sebastian (18 October 2014)

Red-1 said:



			Really?

I know of a well known and respected eventing venue, when you turn up at an event there is a sign telling people that if their dog is found loose at the event it will be shot.

I don't take my dog eventing so I don't have to worry about that being true, and I do know that if there is stock being worried then a farmer is entitled to shoot the dog doing the worrying. 

HOWEVER at a horse event I always presumed that this was a notice to bring dog owners to realise that they really must keep their dogs under control, I have never stressed in case I were approaching fence no 12 on the Cross Country and have to hold hard while a volley of shotguns dispatches a loose dog or two. 

In fact I do remember a dog being found loose and put the the secretary's tent, and it was announced that it would be ransomed for £10 donation to a charity. 

I hear a lot of threats on a Saturday night (worker (not That type)) where people say "I will kill you". I don't habitually have to pile up the dead bodies in the street.

I think there are threats, and there is a line that it would be "unexpected" for people to cross.

I am all for paying bills on time.  I believed the loaner did wrong by not paying the £30 in 2 and a half weeks. But on a scale it is way below the actions of the livery yard, and yes, it would have been "unexpected" to me, at least.

I guess we will be agreeing to disagree on this one.
		
Click to expand...

Yet the loaner knew these weren't just idle threats, silly banter, or humorous signs, since she was aware of the GG Centre's previous history when it comes to shooting horses


----------



## ladyt25 (18 October 2014)

YorksG said:



			There are  previous posts on this thread which state that he did.
		
Click to expand...

Yes but without actually being there and hearing exactly what was said then that cannot be taken as gospel can it.
I will say he has been to see my horse as i felt I had nothing to lose.  He did not tell me my horse needed to be destroyed but he did pick up some points,  not only about my horse but also me. One of the things he picked up about me was quite freaky as was nothing he should have 'read'. Even if he was a com charlatan it would make no sense for him to tell customers their horses wanted to die?! All reports I have heard from people have been positive so I am not sure where these have come from. 
Still bears no relevance to this case though.  There is no excuse for what this livery yard owner has had done


----------



## FestiveFuzz (18 October 2014)

Red-1 said:



			Really?

I know of a well known and respected eventing venue, when you turn up at an event there is a sign telling people that if their dog is found loose at the event it will be shot.

I don't take my dog eventing so I don't have to worry about that being true, and I do know that if there is stock being worried then a farmer is entitled to shoot the dog doing the worrying. 

HOWEVER at a horse event I always presumed that this was a notice to bring dog owners to realise that they really must keep their dogs under control, I have never stressed in case I were approaching fence no 12 on the Cross Country and have to hold hard while a volley of shotguns dispatches a loose dog or two. 

In fact I do remember a dog being found loose and put the the secretary's tent, and it was announced that it would be ransomed for £10 donation to a charity. 

I hear a lot of threats on a Saturday night (worker (not That type)) where people say "I will kill you". I don't habitually have to pile up the dead bodies in the street.

I think there are threats, and there is a line that it would be "unexpected" for people to cross.

I am all for paying bills on time.  I believed the loaner did wrong by not paying the £30 in 2 and a half weeks. But on a scale it is way below the actions of the livery yard, and yes, it would have been "unexpected" to me, at least.

I guess we will be agreeing to disagree on this one.
		
Click to expand...

To a certain extent it depends on exactly how the YO broaches the subject, if it were in a jovial manner than I would naturally assume it were a joke, if it were a passing comment I may consider it to be an empty threat but if however he wanted my express agreement to such a clause (be it verbal or otherwise) before I moved onto the yard and was known to have shot horses in the past for non-payment I would take it as his policy and either ensure I was never in arrears or not move there in the first place. 

As I never intend to be a livery there I will never know how he broaches the subject but from the conversations I've seen on Facebook it seems it was local knowledge that this YO was likely to act on his threat. So I wouldn't deem it unexpected for said YO to shoot my horse if I were in arrears and therefore would do everything in my power to not owe him so much as a penny, more so if I was loaning someone else's horse. 

But that's just my take on things and I'm more than happy to agree to disagree as as the last 55 pages show with good reason this is an incredibly emotive topic.


----------



## Hurricanelady (18 October 2014)

Dolcé;12658660 said:
			
		


			Funnily enough, and I very much doubt it is me you are talking about, he pretty much told me the same thing about my pony.  I had just been wondering how many other people he has told this to when your post popped up, anyone else?  He went off my yard having convinced me he was a total fake!  Why was I not surprised when his name popped up on this thread in relation to the 'murdered' horse!  FWIW, my boy is happily munching in the field over a year later.
		
Click to expand...

He did exactly the same to a friend of mine, told her the horse had given up, wanted to die and offered to shoot him. Luckily she declined and had no more to do with him. He did come up with some very perceptive things about this horse (who had a very troubled past in training) but this seems to be a very worrying thing that he often "advises". I had him for a visit to see what he had to communicate about my horses, and it was very general stuff he came up with. He suggested I send a yearling to his yard but there was absolutely no reason for doing that, so I didn't.  I have no idea if he was or wasn't involved in this dreadful incident, but I would caution anyone considering using him to be aware of this bizarre and very worrying suggestion to allow him to shoot owners horses, that he allegedly often makes.


----------



## Regandal (18 October 2014)

If even half of the alleged deeds this guy is supposed to have carried out are true, you really start to wonder why he's still walking about.  I've known people sectioned for less.


----------



## YorksG (18 October 2014)

ladyt25 said:



			Yes but without actually being there and hearing exactly what was said then that cannot be taken as gospel can it.
I will say he has been to see my horse as i felt I had nothing to lose.  He did not tell me my horse needed to be destroyed but he did pick up some points,  not only about my horse but also me. One of the things he picked up about me was quite freaky as was nothing he should have 'read'. Even if he was a com charlatan it would make no sense for him to tell customers their horses wanted to die?! All reports I have heard from people have been positive so I am not sure where these have come from. 
Still bears no relevance to this case though.  There is no excuse for what this livery yard owner has had done
		
Click to expand...

But your post is no more likely to be true than anyone elses.  I have had a 'communication' done with my horses, amazing results (different communicator!), so no argument regarding that aspect. There are some people who will take their power over others to the extreme, this bloke sounds as if he has some serious narcistic problems and believes he has the right to exercise the power of life and death over other peoples horses. He sounds like a dangerous individual to me.


----------



## ladyt25 (18 October 2014)

YorksG said:



			But your post is no more likely to be true than anyone elses.  I have had a 'communication' done with my horses, amazing results (different communicator!), so no argument regarding that aspect. There are some people who will take their power over others to the extreme, this bloke sounds as if he has some serious narcistic problems and believes he has the right to exercise the power of life and death over other peoples horses. He sounds like a dangerous individual to me.
		
Click to expand...

No, that is true but what I am saying is he certainly never suggested my horse should be destroyed. Neither has that ever been something that has been conveyed by anyone I know who has ever had any dealings with him. That is why I find it bizarre these accounts have now come about. 
I am open-minded and asked for him to come out in case he could shed any light on my horse's issues.  He said nothing remarkable but more confirmed some thoughts we had had. He did however pick up on some bizarre things about me that I was not expecting!


----------



## blackandwhite (18 October 2014)

Sorry I have no idea how or if I can quote on my phone... I think the fb donations thing might just be someone local to me. Does seem a bit odd that liveries would need donations to be able to leave. I don't doubt the intention is genuine but it's a bit odd.


----------



## Chavhorse (18 October 2014)

Just seen this update on FB

UPDATE: Hi Danielle, thanks for approving me to the group, the whole thing is outrageous but I didn't want to post on the group as I live close by, I heard tonight that 4 C &C lorries were booked to pick up the liveries but, the gates where locked so police were called and Armed police arrived about 15 of them to get the gates opened. Most of the liveries have now gone. The man that is pictured is not the man who chased poor Kit around the field with the JCB, it was his son. People who were present say this person WILL go to jail and there is a lot more to come out" no names will be mentioned on any posts guys thank you Danielle x


----------



## Chavhorse (18 October 2014)

blackandwhite said:



			Sorry I have no idea how or if I can quote on my phone... I think the fb donations thing might just be someone local to me. Does seem a bit odd that liveries would need donations to be able to leave. I don't doubt the intention is genuine but it's a bit odd.
		
Click to expand...

Apparently it is because the liveries have given deposits and YO is refusing to return them unless they give the full months notice, I suppose it is a very dificult situation to be in I mean would you want to give this guy a months notice, I know I would think twice yet I suppose people need the deposit money back to give to a new livery yard, although I know there have been offers of free emergency livery and transport....tis a rum one!


----------



## Chavhorse (18 October 2014)

Sorry posted twice!


----------



## PollyP99 (18 October 2014)

Sickening that a couple of individuals on this thread seem to want to keep stirring
this up by suggestion that somehow the loaner should shoulder the majority of the blame is taking things too far, come on guys no one expects this to happen to their horse.  

You seemed to be forgetting this actually happened to someone's horse, please,  have some respect.  Find another thread to have "fun" on.


----------



## Equi (18 October 2014)

PollyP99 said:



			Sickening that a couple of individuals on this thread seem to want to keep stirring
this up by suggestion that somehow the loaner should shoulder the majority of the blame is taking things too far, come on guys no one expects this to happen to their horse.  

You seemed to be forgetting this actually happened to someone's horse, please,  have some respect.  Find another thread to have "fun" on.
		
Click to expand...


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


----------



## FestiveFuzz (19 October 2014)

PollyP99 said:



			Sickening that a couple of individuals on this thread seem to want to keep stirring
this up by suggestion that somehow the loaner should shoulder the majority of the blame is taking things too far, come on guys no one expects this to happen to their horse.  

You seemed to be forgetting this actually happened to someone's horse, please,  have some respect.  Find another thread to have "fun" on.
		
Click to expand...

No idea if this is directed at me or not but I can assure you the fact this has actually happened to someone's horse has definitely not been forgotten and my utmost sympathies go to the owner of the horse. However I struggle to understand how the loaner didn't expect this to happen when not only was she verbally told this was the policy before moving onto the yard but also acknowledged on Facebook that she was aware he'd shot other horses who were in arrears in the past. 

As I said before I in no way condone the actions of the YO but at the same time I cannot get my head around why anyone would move to a new yard knowing they expect a month's livery upfront and then refuse to pay, even without the threat of the horse being shot if they end up in arrears. The fact this is allegedly over such a nominal amount if anything makes it worse as surely if you can't scrape together £30 you're probably not in the position to be owning or loaning a horse in the first place?!


----------



## WelshD (19 October 2014)

PollyP99 said:



			Sickening that a couple of individuals on this thread seem to want to keep stirring
this up by suggestion that somehow the loaner should shoulder the majority of the blame is taking things too far, come on guys no one expects this to happen to their horse.  

You seemed to be forgetting this actually happened to someone's horse, please,  have some respect.  Find another thread to have "fun" on.
		
Click to expand...

I haven't seen a single post that says the loaner should shoulder the majority of the blame, just that they should take SOME blame, they knew payment was needed in advance and chose to decide when they feel it should be paid, they took a huge gamble knowing full well the reputation of the yard owner, no one could have forseen the horror that occurred but even the thought that the horse may find itself homeless should have been enough for the loaner to pay when payment was due - the other liveries seemed to be able to pay on time 

Yes this happened to someone's horse, the poor OWNER must no doubt be distraught 

Regarding the donations to help the liveries leave, that's the maddest thing I have ever heard. They cant scrape together a new deposit even when faced with this horror? Why do so many of these facebook campaigns involve donations?


----------



## Overread (19 October 2014)

GG2B said:



			However I struggle to understand how the loaner didn't expect this to happen when not only was she verbally told this was the policy before moving onto the yard but also acknowledged on Facebook that she was aware he'd shot other horses who were in arrears in the past.
		
Click to expand...


Few thoughts;

1) From what I recall the incident in the past happened one single time (or at least only one single event of it has been reported). This suggests that there might have been something unique in that encounter which resulted in the destruction of those specific horses. 
I say that because most normal people would assume any long running business will encounter late or delayed payments through its operation. As a result most people would assume that short term (and low value - £30 is low) outstanding debts would not be an issue that would warrant destruction of of the horse. Kind of like that "ultimate" punishment that only comes after months of contact, arguments and long term problems. 

2) Most people don't assume that and animal care centre will dispose of other peoples animals so quickly and in such a final and brutal fashion. It's just not done typically - again this makes people think that the clause is more a threat than a promise. 

3) The horses who were shot were "travellers" horses (and I seem to recall that they were left at the yard?). This might well have suggested that since this was the one and only time the yard actually performed the action that it was the nature of the horses being travellers horses (as opposed to other social groups - since no other kills have come to light since that incident) as opposed to those from other social groups. 

I suspect that the idea that the horses life would be at direct risk from the lack of payment of the £30 never crossed the persons mind. At worst they likely suspected that the animal would be returned to them and left in their garden tied up - or in the case of long term neglect (on their part) the yard would have moved to take ownership or contact the horses owner direct to resolve matters. 




This does beg the question on what else must have happened; the story does have two sides and it would seem a great folly for a functional livery stables to take such drastic and abnormal action as they have.


----------



## FestiveFuzz (19 October 2014)

Overread said:



			Few thoughts;

1) From what I recall the incident in the past happened one single time (or at least only one single event of it has been reported). This suggests that there might have been something unique in that encounter which resulted in the destruction of those specific horses. 
I say that because most normal people would assume any long running business will encounter late or delayed payments through its operation. As a result most people would assume that short term (and low value - £30 is low) outstanding debts would not be an issue that would warrant destruction of of the horse. Kind of like that "ultimate" punishment that only comes after months of contact, arguments and long term problems. 

2) Most people don't assume that and animal care centre will dispose of other peoples animals so quickly and in such a final and brutal fashion. It's just not done typically - again this makes people think that the clause is more a threat than a promise. 

3) The horses who were shot were "travellers" horses (and I seem to recall that they were left at the yard?). This might well have suggested that since this was the one and only time the yard actually performed the action that it was the nature of the horses being travellers horses (as opposed to other social groups - since no other kills have come to light since that incident) as opposed to those from other social groups. 

I suspect that the idea that the horses life would be at direct risk from the lack of payment of the £30 never crossed the persons mind. At worst they likely suspected that the animal would be returned to them and left in their garden tied up - or in the case of long term neglect (on their part) the yard would have moved to take ownership or contact the horses owner direct to resolve matters. 




This does beg the question on what else must have happened; the story does have two sides and it would seem a great folly for a functional livery stables to take such drastic and abnormal action as they have.
		
Click to expand...

I completely agree that there's definitely more to this than meets the eye, but whether we ever hear the full story is another matter. I also agree that it's a rather extreme action to an issue I suspect every YO has encountered at some point or another. Not being local I only know what's been posted on here and Facebook with regard to past incidences but no matter how extreme and unlikely the YO's threat seemed I'm still not sure I'd have put it to the test so to speak, especially if the horse in question wasn't even mine to put at risk in the first place. I just don't understand why anyone would risk their horse at the very least becoming homeless over £30.

All in all it's an incredibly sad state of affairs.


----------



## digitalangel (19 October 2014)

Yes agree with this a lot of it isn't making sense . Only heard of two liveries leaving and only 1 who has left that wasn't heresay . No horses have left according to an eyewitness . A lot of rumours going around . No liveries have asked for donations to help leave either . 

Here's what I think happened : 

Overly vindictive and cruel YO decided to make an example of loaner and teach her a lesson . Probably due to losing money on bad payers and as they said in the article the buck has got to stop somewhere . 



GG2B said:



			I completely agree that there's definitely more to this than meets the eye, but whether we ever hear the full story is another matter. I also agree that it's a rather extreme action to an issue I suspect every YO has encountered at some point or another. Not being local I only know what's been posted on here and Facebook with regard to past incidences but no matter how extreme and unlikely the YO's threat seemed I'm still not sure I'd have put it to the test so to speak, especially if the horse in question wasn't even mine to put at risk in the first place. I just don't understand why anyone would risk their horse at the very least becoming homeless over £30.

All in all it's an incredibly sad state of affairs.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## digitalangel (19 October 2014)

Oh and liveries haven't left and aren't talking because either they're either being intimidated into keeping their heads down or for whatever reason don't want to leave ...


----------



## FestiveFuzz (19 October 2014)

digitalangel said:



			Oh and liveries haven't left and aren't talking because either they're either being intimidated into keeping their heads down or for whatever reason don't want to leave ...
		
Click to expand...

I'd be interested to know if there's any truth in the rumour that armed police and a transporter had to assist liveries off the yard as the YO had barricaded them in and refused to let them leave.


----------



## Moya_999 (19 October 2014)

Chavhorse said:



			Apparently it is because the liveries have given deposits and YO is refusing to return them unless they give the full months notice, I suppose it is a very dificult situation to be in I mean would you want to give this guy a months notice, I know I would think twice yet I suppose people need the deposit money back to give to a new livery yard, although I know there have been offers of free emergency livery and transport....tis a rum one!
		
Click to expand...


I would be worried that my horse would not be alive at the end of the month so.....
I say Boll0cks to the deposit, my horses and sons horses are more important than a few hundred or what ever deposit.  I would say keep your damn deposit I'm out.  I am not staying in a yard who treats horses this way.  He then would not see me for the sparks on my horses feet.


----------



## Clara Mo 3 (19 October 2014)

Overread said:



			Few thoughts;

1) From what I recall the incident in the past happened one single time (or at least only one single event of it has been reported). This suggests that there might have been something unique in that encounter which resulted in the destruction of those specific horses. 
I say that because most normal people would assume any long running business will encounter late or delayed payments through its operation. As a result most people would assume that short term (and low value - £30 is low) outstanding debts would not be an issue that would warrant destruction of of the horse. Kind of like that "ultimate" punishment that only comes after months of contact, arguments and long term problems. 

2) Most people don't assume that and animal care centre will dispose of other peoples animals so quickly and in such a final and brutal fashion. It's just not done typically - again this makes people think that the clause is more a threat than a promise. 

3) The horses who were shot were "travellers" horses (and I seem to recall that they were left at the yard?). This might well have suggested that since this was the one and only time the yard actually performed the action that it was the nature of the horses being travellers horses (as opposed to other social groups - since no other kills have come to light since that incident) as opposed to those from other social groups. 

I suspect that the idea that the horses life would be at direct risk from the lack of payment of the £30 never crossed the persons mind. At worst they likely suspected that the animal would be returned to them and left in their garden tied up - or in the case of long term neglect (on their part) the yard would have moved to take ownership or contact the horses owner direct to resolve matters. 




This does beg the question on what else must have happened; the story does have two sides and it would seem a great folly for a functional livery stables to take such drastic and abnormal action as they have.
		
Click to expand...

I take it you didn't see my post about some of his past evil actions then ?  And, for the record, the gypsies who keep their horses round that area (and one of their horses lived with mine for a time) are good payers and do not just dump horses on private yards, so no reason to shoot them at all.

As per my previous post, there was most likely nothing "unique" about this situation, he does nasty things to people all the time.


----------



## LadyRascasse (19 October 2014)

But if the yard takes deposits and the women had only been there 3 weeks how is she in debt? Every yard I have been on that requires a deposit its about £100 but even if it was just 4 weeks livery thats £40. Something doesn't add up here.


----------



## undergroundoli (19 October 2014)

I was struggling to believe this so did a bit of googling. The local paper said the loaner had only had poor kit 3 months and implied the owner had inspected the yard she was kept at. What was wrong at yard A that loaner changed yards after 2months and 1 week?


----------



## Smurf's Gran (19 October 2014)

Big Ben said:



			I am just amazed as ever at the way people view the world..

You know I have zero idea how I would react if someone turned up with a horse that they had just shot, I'm not sure if I would of stayed there and waited with the horse, I can't imagine how I would react, it is a situation so awful that I can't  compute it, but I kind of think that if there was someone out here with a gun, I would of gone into the house and locked myself in.

Those who are saying the the leaser is responsible, well yes they are responsible for not paying, I have no idea if she intended to pay or not, but it is just totally beyond any comprehension of mine that anyone thanks that it is OK to shoot a horse over a 30 quid, three week debt.
		
Click to expand...

Completely agree with this.  While the loaner should have paid the livery fees as every livery user should.  However, the actions taken are totally unjustifiable, and completely unreasonable.  Don't understand some of the views of people on here.  In whose reality is it ever justifiable, or even understandable to shoot someone's horse because they haven't paid livery.  This is the UK and not some lawless country.   Yes, if she had paid her livery it wouldn't have happened, but is this seriously behaviour we would ever condone, whatever the amount of the unpaid bill.  I don't think I ever could, and amazed at some of the views on here.


----------



## Goldenstar (19 October 2014)

If it's true that the police had to attend to allow clients to remove their horses the YOer seems to be determined to dig an even bigger hole for himself .
I just can't understand why anybody would stay ( although do I do understand that losing a deposit and finding another at short notice might be difficult ) I mean a place where people are showing such a lack of control and behaving in such a vindictive way ( because the dumping of the horse can't be seen as anything but vindictive ) is not a place where I would feel safe to be and it's certainly not somewhere were I could go to relax and enjoy my horse.
And that's without thinking of the principle of the thing .
Those who have left and 'lost 'their deposits should seek advice ( BHS might be a good start point ) they well be able to make a case that the circumstances left them no choice but to leave and take the YOer to the small claims court for return of the deposit .
They would need some advice from a lawyer experienced in this field but one a lot of advise  could help a lot if not all of them so would not be too expensive .


----------



## teabiscuit (19 October 2014)

It's too brutal, to kill a horse over 30 quid, to a rational mind. 
I can't cope with the thought of it. 
Either there was much more to it, or the guy is off his trolly psycho. 
Either way, poor poor horse, humans stink sometimes.


----------



## Smurf's Gran (19 October 2014)

Clara Mo 3 said:



			Hi, Just thought I would add my two pennies as I have read this thread with interest and I keep my horse close to this place.  I know a lot of people are in too much shock to comprehend that this killing is simply over a £30 debt and think surely there must be more to this than we are hearing.  Sadly, there probably isn't more to it than the small debt. The man in question (the livery owner) is renowned in this area for being a particularly evil man.  In addition to the stories we have read on here, there are three others I can relate which may give you some idea as to the sort of individual he is.  He once was owed some money for horse livery so he took the horse to a roundabout in thirsk and tethered it there (alive fortunately).  A little odd maybe ?  He fell out with an ex employee and took his farm vehicle (JCB/digger or something similar) to the guy's car which was parked outside his house and rammed it until it stood up on its end against the guy's garage wall - a little odd too I think.  And he shot his daughters ponies when they decided they weren't as interested in them as they once were - surely one would remind said daughters how fortunate they were or sell the ponies.

So, shooting horses willy nilly and doing things that most of the rest of the population thinks crazy just seem to come as second nature to this individual and are not likely to stop here either if he gets away with it.

As for Cooper, well I am disappointed if he did this without having been given some convincing lies about why it needed to be done, he has looked after my pony before now and always been lovely (not the horse whispering that he does, I don't believe in it !), so this has really given me a kick up the bum with respect to him.  I shan't be using either his or the livery's services again, that is for sure.

Kit's owner - I am devastated for you love, so sorry you lost her this way.
		
Click to expand...

Really good to get some proper perspective on here, and local information which has been lacking.  I am getting sick of some people suggesting that in some way the loaner is responsible, and trying to offer reasonable excuses for said behaviour.


----------



## Amymay (19 October 2014)

GG2B said:



			I'd be interested to know if there's any truth in the rumour that armed police and a transporter had to assist liveries off the yard as the YO had barricaded them in and refused to let them leave.
		
Click to expand...

Wow.


----------



## justice4kit (19 October 2014)

To make matters worse the RSPCA refuse to remove horses from the establishment responsible - GG Equestrian. The RSPCA also refuse to give an explanation as to why they continue to financially support the monsters reponsible. Their arrogance in the face of public fury is unbelievable. Growing support ie. online petitions against both bodies is gathering momentum.


----------



## diamonddogs (19 October 2014)

undergroundoli said:



			I was struggling to believe this so did a bit of googling. The local paper said the loaner had only had poor kit 3 months and implied the owner had inspected the yard she was kept at. What was wrong at yard A that loaner changed yards after 2months and 1 week?
		
Click to expand...

Probably nothing. This yard is a short walk from her house, is cheap and on the face of it, has great facilities.


----------



## Clara Mo 3 (19 October 2014)

Smurf's Gran said:



			Really good to get some proper perspective on here, and local information which has been lacking.  I am getting sick of some people suggesting that in some way the loaner is responsible, and trying to offer reasonable excuses for said behaviour.
		
Click to expand...

Thanks, he is notoriously a nasty evil man.  I think people want to believe there is more to it, they cannot comprehend such disgraceful behaviour could possibly only be connected with a £30 debt.  Well, knowing how this man  operates, I'm afraid the likelihood is that it really was over a £30 debt.  he is deranged and should be stopped somehow, but he has got away with it for years, and when money is no object, what's to stop him ?


----------



## amandaco2 (19 October 2014)

Sickening. What a vile malicious act.to the killers of kit i hope you get whats due to you, and it aint your precious thirty quid thats for sure


----------



## Smurf's Gran (19 October 2014)

Clara Mo 3 said:



			Thanks, he is notoriously a nasty evil man.  I think people want to believe there is more to it, they cannot comprehend such disgraceful behaviour could possibly only be connected with a £30 debt.  Well, knowing how this man  operates, I'm afraid the likelihood is that it really was over a £30 debt.  he is deranged and should be stopped somehow, but he has got away with it for years, and when money is no object, what's to stop him ?
		
Click to expand...

Well hopefully this action taken will live on for long enough in peoples minds to out him out of business.  Good to get very local info though, as some of the posts on here seem to be looking for reasonable explanations, where it appears there are none


----------



## diamonddogs (19 October 2014)

Smurf's Gran said:



			... as some of the posts on here seem to be looking for reasonable explanations, where it appears there are none 

Click to expand...

I don't read most of the threads in the light of trying to excuse what's happened at all. People are just trying to get their heads round what's happened. I think this is because nobody wants to believe that a person could be capable of doing something so barbaric. It's just beyond my comprehension that someone would do something so vile and not even feel any remorse in the face of mounting support for Kit and her humans.


----------



## undergroundoli (19 October 2014)

diamonddogs said:



			Probably nothing. This yard is a short walk from her house, is cheap and on the face of it, has great facilities.
		
Click to expand...

True, so why not start off at it?


----------



## georgiegirl (19 October 2014)

I believe she had only just recently moved house which would tie in to moving to another yard


----------



## Wagtail (19 October 2014)

Smurf's Gran said:



			Really good to get some proper perspective on here, and local information which has been lacking.  I am getting sick of some people suggesting that in some way the loaner is responsible, and trying to offer reasonable excuses for said behaviour.
		
Click to expand...

Not ONE person has come out in support of the YO. I think, without exception everyone on this thread has condemned his actions as totally outrageous and disgusting. Please quote where anyone has supported him killing this poor horse. 

People HAVE said that they would be livid with the loaner if they owned the horse, as would I. I would totally hate her if it had been my horse. But I would be gunning for the person that actually carried out the horrendous deed. That person is a total psychopath.


----------



## BethanT (19 October 2014)

undergroundoli said:



			I was struggling to believe this so did a bit of googling. The local paper said the loaner had only had poor kit 3 months and implied the owner had inspected the yard she was kept at. What was wrong at yard A that loaner changed yards after 2months and 1 week?
		
Click to expand...

I too was starting to wonder why she was planning to leave the yard after only 4 weeks. To then find out the information you have provided does make it all sound a tad odd. Did the owner know she had moved yards? I know im my loan contract if the loaner moves my pony she has to inform me before she does so. 

While this whole situation is dreadful and I do not, in any way, condone what the YO has done - the loaner does have some degree of oddness about her. Not only that but I find that the pictures of her "showing off" the blood stained sheet odd, as I don't think I would want my face in the papers, not like that. But I could be getting at the wrong end of the stick. 

Again, I have the uthmost sympathy for both loaner and the owner as the whole thing is disgusting, and I am NOT saying that the loaner has equal blame as the YO, but something is just not sitting right with me. Like people have said, I think there is more to this than has been realsed to public knowlege.


----------



## Rollin (19 October 2014)

Can someone clarify for me WHO shot the horse, was it the Yard Owner or another person named who is an animal behaviourist or some such who I believe I have had dealings with.

Was the horse dumped dead or alive - it has been suggested it was delivered still alive - even more shocking.


----------



## Clara Mo 3 (19 October 2014)

I don't think the loaner is whiter than white, she appears to be a serial non-payer by all accounts and an attention-seeker (referring to the press pictures), however nothing excuses the YO's actions, nor his past actions - which are too many too mention - over the years.  He is an arrogant man who has got away with too much in the past and, like a naughty child who tests the boundaries and does something naughtier each time until there is a punishment or other discipline, he continues to behave badly and gets worse each time because he hasn't been "disciplined" so far.

I feel for Kit and her owner, I would probably be facing a prison sentence now if someone had done that to my horse and were looking likely to get away with it.


----------



## BethanT (19 October 2014)

Clara Mo 3 said:



			I don't think the loaner is whiter than white, she appears to be a serial non-payer by all accounts and an attention-seeker (referring to the press pictures),
		
Click to expand...

This is what I was getting at - mainly the attention seeking. Just doesn't feel right. Above all, just not fair on the actual owner of the horse for it to be publicised so much, I can't help but feel if it was another person it may not have been publicised to this extent. But again, I could be wrong.


----------



## cptrayes (19 October 2014)

Rollin said:



			Can someone clarify for me WHO shot the horse, was it the Yard Owner or another person named who is an animal behaviourist or some such who I believe I have had dealings with.

Was the horse dumped dead or alive - it has been suggested it was delivered still alive - even more shocking.
		
Click to expand...


All on the other thread.


----------



## digitalangel (19 October 2014)

I don't know I don't think it's fair to judge the loaner ! 

As for the rumour with armed police etc no it's *******s - someone trying to stir the pot . 

The other liveries aren't talking and I do find that interesting 






BethanT said:



			This is what I was getting at - mainly the attention seeking. Just doesn't feel right. Above all, just not fair on the actual owner of the horse for it to be publicised so much, I can't help but feel if it was another person it may not have been publicised to this extent. But again, I could be wrong.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Wagtail (19 October 2014)

Even though I have said I would have been livid with the loaner if it were my horse, I think the photographs would have been requested by the press. They decide what photographs they want and the more sensational, the better.

Also, I don't understand liveries needing money to move. Usually the deposit a yard takes is equivalent to one month's livery, which in this case would be around £40. Personally I never take a deposit, just ask for a month's livery in advance. But really, if liveries cannot afford to move, then they can't afford to keep horses. What would they do if their horse needs the vet?


----------



## Overread (19 October 2014)

As with any story hot in the social media and with little official info there are a lot of stories flying around - and someone suggests an idea in one thread; someone else reports that in another forum as fact then another repeats it and suddenly "facts" appear without any justification. 

It makes a messy sea of things quickly that can get out of hand - or can simply be very hard to sort out. That the situation is abnormal makes it even harder because of the YO's clearly strange and quite hostile nature. Plus, as with any online news story, its very easy for any party to make bold claims, even under different accounts, to further their end cause (I'm not in anyway saying that this is for certain happening or not - just that its always a possibility) 

This is especially true as it seems he's run the yard for a long time and done well; even getting the RSPCA on-site as well. This thus begs the questions as to if there is more to it or if he's just been very lucky in keeping his bad-press very local and not having it get out so overtly.



In the case of publicity chances are that its a good thing; if the YO has a history of doing similar things its likely that a lack of effective publicity (or any at all) meant he could continue without too much attention being drawn to it. 


The oddly muddy area that seems to be appearing is the actions of the other owners at the site using the livery services. Getting a fair few mixed messages there from claims everyone is jumping ship to a more muted response. Would be good to get some further solid fact on that front as it tells a big part of the picture (if they all are not jumping ship it suggests that there might be far more to the story than we've heard thus far).


----------



## rowan666 (19 October 2014)

digitalangel said:



			The other liveries aren't talking and I do find that interesting
		
Click to expand...

totally agree, very strange indeed! Although maybe they fear for their horses lives if they speak out? I dnt know its all very odd and extremely unnerving,  I cant quite believe its (in the eyes of the law) acceptable to randomly shoot people's pets without just cause!


----------



## Overread (19 October 2014)

rowan666 said:



			totally agree, very strange indeed! Although maybe they fear for their horses lives if they speak out? I dnt know its all very odd and extremely unnerving,  I cant quite believe its (in the eyes of the law) acceptable to randomly shoot people's pets without just cause!
		
Click to expand...

It might also be that they don't want to jeopardize any potential legal action by making claims. Cases have been thrown out in the past because of publicity of details and punishments reduced because of a "witch-hunt" claim.


----------



## Sugar_and_Spice (19 October 2014)

diamonddogs said:



			I don't read most of the threads in the light of trying to excuse what's happened at all. People are just trying to get their heads round what's happened. I think this is because nobody wants to believe that a person could be capable of doing something so barbaric. It's just beyond my comprehension that someone would do something so vile and not even feel any remorse in the face of mounting support for Kit and her humans.
		
Click to expand...


The problem is that everyone on here is looking at it from the perspective of being horse lovers that we are. To understand his actions you have to acknowledge that some people are nasty and selfish, without much of a conscience and that they don't value human life very highly, so don't care what suffering they cause and they don't value animal life at all, viewing them only in terms of monetary value as posessions rather than as living breathing creatures with thoughts and emotions. It horrified us on this forum because we don't think that way and we would never do such a thing. But I've met people like that and I can totally believe that he shot a horse over a 30 pound debt (and IMO probably to prevent further debt, as well as put others off from running up debts with him) and in his mind felt that he was justified in doing so.


----------



## cptrayes (19 October 2014)

I cant quite believe its (in the eyes of the law) acceptable to randomly shoot people's pets without just cause!
		
Click to expand...

It isn't. But in the eyes of the law, it is only damaging property. I have, probably pointlessly, started a gov.uk petition to have the law change to recognise the emotional value of our animals. As soon as it goes live, I will let everyone know and ask you to spread it as wide as you can.


----------



## Wagtail (19 October 2014)

cptrayes said:



			It isn't. But in the eyes of the law, it is only damaging property. I have, probably pointlessly, started a gov.uk petition to have the law change to recognise the emotional value of our animals. As soon as it goes live, I will let everyone know and ask you to spread it as wide as you can.
		
Click to expand...

That is certainly something I would support.


----------



## rowan666 (19 October 2014)

cptrayes said:



			It isn't. But in the eyes of the law, it is only damaging property. I have, probably pointlessly, started a gov.uk petition to have the law change to recognise the emotional value of our animals. As soon as it goes live, I will let everyone know and ask you to spread it as wide as you can.
		
Click to expand...

but from what im gathering, its unlikely that anyone would serve a decent custodial sentence for doing so? (I dont know, just going off what ive read on this thread) fantastic that you are doing something pro active! Completely support you and will definitely be signing


----------



## Circe (19 October 2014)

teabiscuit said:



			It's too brutal, to kill a horse over 30 quid, to a rational mind. 
I can't cope with the thought of it. 
Either there was much more to it, or the guy is off his trolly psycho. 
Either way, poor poor horse, humans stink sometimes.
		
Click to expand...

^ this . I'm just reading this thread, and cant quite believe it. 
My heart goes out to Kits owner. RIP kit


----------



## Amirah (19 October 2014)

cptrayes said:



			It isn't. But in the eyes of the law, it is only damaging property. I have, probably pointlessly, started a gov.uk petition to have the law change to recognise the emotional value of our animals. As soon as it goes live, I will let everyone know and ask you to spread it as wide as you can.
		
Click to expand...

Definitely will be signing it. Thank you for starting it, although I feel your pain at how little power petitions seem to have. 

Apparently you don't have to pay a deposit for grass livery, and she had paid the first ten pounds, and then didn't pay for three weeks. 

However, even if this lady is a poor payer, I feel people's annoyance at her (mine included) is because we wish she had paid and not put us all through the pain of seeing what happened to the poor horse. However, 'There for the grace of God go I'.  I feel very lucky to own my own land, but aren't we all just three pieces of bad luck away from struggling to pay our bills? Yes, she shouldn't have taken on a horse without being able to afford it, but that's another issue really. 

Who would believe he would take such extreme and frankly insane action over £30? Peanuts, probably cost him more in time and diesel to do what he did. Sheer spite, temper and vindictiveness. The man has mental problems and needs anger management help. 

It seems that his son is the one who is out on bail (a chip off the old block obviously) and that Cooper was persuaded that the horse was ill, which doesn't say much for his 'ac' skills, not that I believe in it anyway, or that any info they do get right comes from God or any place good. 

I sincerely hope that there is some justice for Kit, and that no animals are harmed by the Johnson family in the future. Kit's owner, my heart goes out to you that you are having to live through this horrible ordeal, God bless you.


----------



## brucea (19 October 2014)

It will be interesting to hear how other liveries are reacting

I guess they have been told that a dim view will be taken of any comments on social media.  In any case they will likely be taking time to work out what to do next rather than jumping quickly.


----------



## Holly Hocks (19 October 2014)

cptrayes said:



			It isn't. But in the eyes of the law, it is only damaging property. I have, probably pointlessly, started a gov.uk petition to have the law change to recognise the emotional value of our animals. As soon as it goes live, I will let everyone know and ask you to spread it as wide as you can.
		
Click to expand...

Excellent idea.


----------



## *Whinney* (19 October 2014)

RIP Kit and condolences to your owner.

While not condoning what the YO did in any way, if the loaner had just paid the measly £40 needed for the month in advance this would not have happened.


----------



## amandaco2 (19 October 2014)

I hope the liveries get away safely. Id also be forgoing any deposit to get my animals away, tho I do appreciate some wouldn't be able to...I hope they get lots of local help from yards if needed....


----------



## thehorsephotographer (19 October 2014)

As Clare Mo 3 says he is a notoriously evil man.  He has in the past shot several gypsy horses (2 I know for certain since he boasted about them to a very close relative himself, the third was passed on second hand).  Whether Cooper also shot the gypsy horses I don't know but be under no illusions that Cooper would not be fooled about whether a horse was sick or not - he's very astute and clued up.  One would have hoped that his advice would have been to leave the horse to settle until the following morning and then ask the loaner or owner to remove it from the yard.  Just why they were doing any of this at night raises questions as to their motive I think.

There is no justification for this act whatsoever.  What I will say however is that where the loaner lives is literally a stones throw from the GG centre - the horse could have been walked there in under 5 minutes - it's literally round the corner rather than all this herding about trying to get it into a trailer in the dead of night.


----------



## thehorsephotographer (19 October 2014)

Just to be clear my horses are also kept very close to the GG centre, in common with a lot of others from the area the GG centre owners are known very well by my family.


----------



## Moya_999 (19 October 2014)

lots of views here 
https://www.facebook.com/pages/GG-centre/272405556178498?fref=ts


----------



## diamonddogs (19 October 2014)

digitalangel said:



			...

The other liveries aren't talking and I do find that interesting
		
Click to expand...

I don't. OK, I've got my horse on what looks to be a very nice yard with good facilities, at a very reasonable cost. It's convenient, and I can visit my horse when I want to. I abide by the rules, pay my bills and get on with everyone else there.

Then one day I find out the the owner and his family perform this outrageous act, then I find out that he's got form for doing similar in the past. I'm scared to even look at any of them the wrong way, knowing that my horse is at their mercy, and they have a stock of what might even be unlicensed firearms that he's not afraid to use.

Damn right I wouldn't be talking. Not on social media, not to the press, nobody down the local pub.

Can I just say though, I probably couldn't afford to lose my deposit either, specially as it seems quite normal to have to pay it before you move on (I never have, so I thought THAT was normal, and we pay in arrears, which isn't, but each yard is different, and what works for one might not for another), and I resent anyone making the implication that if I can't afford to lose my deposit then I shouldn't have a horse, as I'm clearly too poverty stricken to afford one. I do have a contingency fund for emergencies, but in the normal run of things, dipping into it to pay a deposit on a new yard wouldn't be considered an emergency.

Obviously this situation is *not* normal, and I'd find the money somewhere even if it meant selling my tack or something. In fact, I'd rather sell my horse than leave her on that particular yard if the situation was that dire (I speak hypothetically of course, but I couldn't leave her at his mercy for a minute longer than I had to).


----------



## Spring Feather (19 October 2014)

Well if my horses were there, and there was no more to this, then I'd class it as an emergency relocation and would have already moved them.  Funny how we all see things differently.


----------



## diamonddogs (19 October 2014)

TBH, Spring Feather, mine would be off there even if there *was* more to it, because he's clearly a psycho, and has either bred a family of pyschos or they're too scared of him to do anything else but comply with his wishes. I've tried hard to imagine a circumstance that would make this all OK but there just isn't one, is there? Even if the loaner was an absolute nightmare, demanding this that and the other, threatening staff and other liveries, behaving in a violent manner, whatever else you can think of (and there's no evidence that she *was* any of these things), poor Kit didn't deserve to pay that price.

ETA: I'd hate to be in their shoes, I really would. I'd be beside myself with worry every minute my horse was there.


----------



## Sheik (19 October 2014)

There needs to be a clear understanding here. There were two men arrested. One of these was released WITHOUT charge. The other CHARGED. Doesn't this give us a clear understanding that perhaps the man who actually shot the horse was called to put it out of its misery and the actual perpetrator was the person that inflicted harm and suffering on the horse in the first place? A criminal can be very misleading and has been charged. But to prejudge the poor guy that shot the horse (that was suffering) has not!!!


----------



## Moya_999 (19 October 2014)

Sheik said:



			There needs to be a clear understanding here. There were two men arrested. One of these was released WITHOUT charge. The other CHARGED. Doesn't this give us a clear understanding that perhaps the man who actually shot the horse was called to put it out of its misery and the actual perpetrator was the person that inflicted harm and suffering on the horse in the first place? A criminal can be very misleading and has been charged. But to prejudge the poor guy that shot the horse (that was suffering) has not!!!
		
Click to expand...

 Newby poster only posts on this thread saying the horse was suffering when already stated by the owner that she was not   hmmmmmmmmmmm  smells like a troll


----------



## Sheik (19 October 2014)

Moya_999 said:



			Newby poster only posts on this thread saying the horse was suffering when already stated by the owner that she was not   hmmmmmmmmmmm  smells like a troll
		
Click to expand...

The horse was not suffering when the owner left it in the field. It suffered at the hands of the owner of the GG centre who went to the field late at night, hmmmmmm yeah. what was he doing there in the dark and with what equipment because the horse had string around its neck, not a halter.


----------



## Moomin1 (19 October 2014)

Moya_999 said:



			Newby poster only posts on this thread saying the horse was suffering when already stated by the owner that she was not   hmmmmmmmmmmm  smells like a troll
		
Click to expand...

The owner would hardly be likely to admit the horse was suffering.


----------



## diamonddogs (19 October 2014)

Sheik said:



			There needs to be a clear understanding here. There were two men arrested. One of these was released WITHOUT charge. The other CHARGED. Doesn't this give us a clear understanding that perhaps the man who actually shot the horse was called to put it out of its misery and the actual perpetrator was the person that inflicted harm and suffering on the horse in the first place? A criminal can be very misleading and has been charged. But to prejudge the poor guy that shot the horse (that was suffering) has not!!!
		
Click to expand...

Your point being...?

There's a crime of aiding and abetting, you know. Unless he turned up after the event and decided that this poor mare had had enough and needed to be put out of her misery, which I doubt, he's as bad as everyone else who was there, and either took part or stood and watched.

Actually, I don't give a **** - they were all there, and were therefore all as guilty as each other. Anyone with a smidgeon of love and respect for animals would have done SOMEthing.


----------



## Wagtail (19 October 2014)

diamonddogs said:



			Can I just say though, I probably couldn't afford to lose my deposit either, specially as it seems quite normal to have to pay it before you move on (I never have, so I thought THAT was normal, and we pay in arrears, which isn't, but each yard is different, and what works for one might not for another), and I resent anyone making the implication that if I can't afford to lose my deposit then I shouldn't have a horse, as I'm clearly too poverty stricken to afford one. I do have a contingency fund for emergencies, but in the normal run of things, dipping into it to pay a deposit on a new yard wouldn't be considered an emergency.
		
Click to expand...

You have a contingency fund for emergencies... THIS would be an emergency. I am talking about people who in an emergency could not find the funds to give an animal essential veterinary treatment. I am sorry, but they should not have animals. It is not fair on the animals. When we own horses in particular there are always going to be unexpected costs. Costs which you have made provisions for, and so I fail to see how you would think my comment would apply to you. None of us could 'afford' to lose money, not unless we are wealthy. I recently had to fork out over £500 for an emergency operation on my JRT. This was completely unexpected and has really hurt financially, but when you have animals you have to expect to have to fork out money which are beyond what you had budgeted for. I stand by my statement that anyone who cannot find money for these kinds of emergencies should not have animals.


----------



## Overread (19 October 2014)

We'll have to wait for the post mortem and any investigation to get an idea as to if the horse was suffering directly before it was shot. I wonder if the yard had CCTV installed as that would (if it were working and operating in the area that the horse was in) be pretty clear cut evidence. 

Otherwise we only know what there was string/cable around the horses neck and legs at least when it was dumped. We can't say if any of that was present before or during the shooting.

edit Wagtail what about people who have their horse insured for medical purposes? They might be able to afford insurance and all the horses base costs whilst letting insurance cover any sudden major health bills. 

Also its not out of the question that people have ups and downs in their income - a down period (eg job loss) could cause someone to be earning less than ideal to keep a horse; but who is otherwise able to meet costs (or arrange for delayed payment etc...). 
Also if the centre offers full livery some might be away on business or other trips; and thus not be on-site to deal with any problems (ergo trusting the livery to do that).


----------



## Wagtail (19 October 2014)

I think what Sheik was trying to say is that the YOers son injured the horse by chasing it around the field with a JCB and dragging it to the gate with baler twine around its neck attached to said JCB. I think he/she was saying that Wilson then was called to end its suffering and had been released without charge.


----------



## cptrayes (19 October 2014)

rowan666 said:



			but from what im gathering, its unlikely that anyone would serve a decent custodial sentence for doing so? (I dont know, just going off what ive read on this thread) fantastic that you are doing something pro active! Completely support you and will definitely be signing 

Click to expand...

That's the point of it really. If we put a proper value on the animal, the penalty for killing our stealing it will be much more serious, as it should be.

It's pretty outrageous to treat killing a five hundred pound worth horse the same way as kicking someone's car door in, which is what the law does now.


----------



## cbmcts (19 October 2014)

Wagtail said:



			I think what Sheik was trying to say is that the YOers son injured the horse by chasing it around the field with a JCB and dragging it to the gate with baler twine around its neck attached to said JCB. I think he/she was saying that Wilson then was called to end its suffering and had been released without charge.
		
Click to expand...

That's what I thought they were saying too

IF that was the case, there has to be potential for animal cruelty charges along with criminal damage? (Moomin?)
THere is no situation I can think of where it is acceptable to use farm machinery to drag a live animal - well, except maybe to remove it from a ditch or river if it was in mortal danger but you've have a vet to supervise wouldn't you?


----------



## diamonddogs (19 October 2014)

Sorry to be picky, Wagtail, but why didn't you quote my whole post? And include the bit where I said this would have been an emergency and what I would be prepared to do to find the money?

Anyhow, I wouldn't have to find a huge amount of money for a vet bill anyway at the moment because all my animals are insured for vet bills (I said at the moment, because none of them have any conditions right now that would mean they weren't covered) and more. Maybe it's just me, but I have a personal rule that if you can insure it, you do insure it.


----------



## diamonddogs (19 October 2014)

Wagtail said:



			I think what Sheik was trying to say is that the YOers son injured the horse *by chasing it around the field with a JCB and dragging it to the gate with baler twine around its neck attached to said JCB*. I think he/she was saying that Wilson then was called to end its suffering and had been released without charge.
		
Click to expand...

Oh god, really?? I missed that bit. I'm actually shaking now. I really really really hope this is just speculation.

That poor, poor mare.


----------



## Moya_999 (19 October 2014)

Moomin1 said:



			The owner would hardly be likely to admit the horse was suffering.
		
Click to expand...

The owner has already stated on this thread that the horse was in good health prior to this incident.  Therefore we have her word on it which to be honest sounds more plausible than disbelieving her.


----------



## Moomin1 (19 October 2014)

Moya_999 said:



			The owner has already stated on this thread that the horse was in good health prior to this incident.  Therefore we have her word on it which to be honest sounds more plausible than disbelieving her.
		
Click to expand...

Must be true then.

To be honest, there's little point in anybody speculating, and causing mass hysteria without knowing any facts. All this thread is doing is exactly that - causing mass hysteria with nothing other than hear say and gossip.  Pointless.


----------



## merrymeasure (19 October 2014)

Wagtail said:



			I think what Sheik was trying to say is that the YOers son injured the horse by chasing it around the field with a JCB and dragging it to the gate with baler twine around its neck attached to said JCB. I think he/she was saying that Wilson then was called to end its suffering and had been released without charge.
		
Click to expand...

 Dear God, the more I read about this, the more distressing it gets. If that is what happened ,then these poor excuses for human beings deserve all they get, and then even that wouldn't be enough. I cannot imagine what the owner of poor, dear Kit is going through right now. I look at my filly, she is so loved and safe where she is,and I honestly just weep for that poor horse. I cannot get my head round where it would be justifiable in any such scenario, to take such awful, callous action like these 'people' did. Sheer vindictive cruelty, no matter how much might have been owing, it was not worth the life of a healthy horse. My deepest sympathy to her owner. My thoughts and love are with you. RIP dear Kit, you have been so badly ket down and did not deserve such an awful end. I hope you are running free x


----------



## Moya_999 (19 October 2014)

Moomin1 said:



			Must be true then.

To be honest, there's little point in anybody speculating, and causing mass hysteria without knowing any facts. All this thread is doing is exactly that - causing mass hysteria with nothing other than hear say and gossip.  Pointless.
		
Click to expand...

Maybe pointless in your mind but the only way we can discuss this and voice our opinions is to continue this thread, and unless a livery chooses to add some info we can only go on what we hear or read.


Well say for arguments sake *and I believe the Owner "Green" *the mare was in perfect health  what would expect her to say?

 No she wasn't?

 From all the photos shown the mare looks good and in normal body condition and unless these were taken months ago its all we can go on.


----------



## Spring Feather (19 October 2014)

Is the poster Green the owner?  Having seen the piece written by the real owner, I think Green is the loaner.  The owner is articulate, the loaner is not.  Not that it makes any difference except that the owner may not have seen the horse for a while so may not actually know what state/condition the horse was in.


----------



## Moya_999 (19 October 2014)

Seeing this thread has a lot of good wishes, maybe it would be nice if someone started a thread with just well wishes and condolences without all this speculation and gossip.  Just like an online card for anyone to sign with nothing more than vibes etc maybe I will start one.
 Please only  send well wishes nothing else


----------



## pixie (19 October 2014)

As far as I know they have been a livery yard for quite a long time.  Perhaps he's just got sick and tired of liveries not bothering to pay their bills/doing midnight flits etc and just finally lost it?

Seriously, in the last year alone I could have shot 4 livery horses for owing money if that was a normal thing to do!  Sadly there are a heck of a lot of people who think that it is not important to keep up to date with their bills and will make excuse after excuse...

I'm in no way condoning what he has done, he is obviously not right in the head.


----------



## diamonddogs (19 October 2014)

Spring Feather said:



			Is the poster Green the owner?  Having seen the piece written by the real owner, I think Green is the loaner.  The owner is articulate, the loaner is not.  Not that it makes any difference except that the owner may not have seen the horse for a while so may not actually know what state/condition the horse was in.
		
Click to expand...

Without giving out personal details here, I believe the poster Green is legit - she posted under her real name on one of the chat groups on FB, as the owner of the horse, and there is a "green" connection.

But then the loaner would know about "green" so could have hijacked.

It's hard to know WHAT's true and what's made up


----------



## Spring Feather (19 October 2014)

diamonddogs said:



			Without giving out personal details here, I believe the poster Green is legit - she posted under her real name on one of the chat groups on FB
		
Click to expand...

Yes I read her piece on there.    ETA thanks for the PM DD.


----------



## Clara Mo 3 (19 October 2014)

thehorsephotographer said:



			As Clare Mo 3 says he is a notoriously evil man.  He has in the past shot several gypsy horses (2 I know for certain since he boasted about them to a very close relative himself, the third was passed on second hand).  Whether Cooper also shot the gypsy horses I don't know but be under no illusions that Cooper would not be fooled about whether a horse was sick or not - he's very astute and clued up.  One would have hoped that his advice would have been to leave the horse to settle until the following morning and then ask the loaner or owner to remove it from the yard.  Just why they were doing any of this at night raises questions as to their motive I think.

There is no justification for this act whatsoever.  What I will say however is that where the loaner lives is literally a stones throw from the GG centre - the horse could have been walked there in under 5 minutes - it's literally round the corner rather than all this herding about trying to get it into a trailer in the dead of night.
		
Click to expand...

Thehorsephotographer - We are probably on nodding terms whilst out riding LOL !

I agree about Cooper, he isn't a fool, I always thought he was OK - certainly my dealings with him have always been wonderful, I am very sorry if I have misjudged him or simply been taken in by him.

I go past the livery and I specifically clocked the mileage from the loaner's house today - not even 1/4 mile by road.  It would have taken more effort and time to do what he did to that horse than to walk it to her house.  Her house pretty much backs onto his land by fields too.


----------



## diamonddogs (19 October 2014)

Have PMed you 

ETA that was meant for Spring Feather!


----------



## Spring Feather (19 October 2014)

Yeah I Google Earthed it and was very surprised at how close the yard and her house were.


----------



## green007 (19 October 2014)

I can confirm that im the partner of the owner and kit was sound and healthy so please stop with all the speculation. The authorities will carry out there duties and we must all remain patience and calm. I honestly share your frustration but dont want anything to jeopardise the case


----------



## diamonddogs (19 October 2014)

Hi Green007 - I'm so so sorry for your loss and I hope you get justice for your mare. The whole of the horse world is rooting for you.

I hope I haven't made anything worse for you by trying to clarify things. I tried not to give any personal details out.


----------



## katherinef (19 October 2014)

you have a lot of support on your side. I can't imagine how you must feel and hope you get some form of justice.


----------



## green007 (19 October 2014)

What I can confirm that ive held a meeting today with a local horse re homing centre. We are in  the process of arranging an public event in honor of Kit and to promote the public awareness that's there are charities out there which offer help and support. This would be held at the Bransbry Horses Rescue and Welfare Lincoln. We would like to hear from anyone who would like to offer there services on this day this may be from equine services to animal services, Photography, crafts anything at all which would help raise awareness. All donation raised on the day will go directly back into the centre to help them to carry on doing there fantastic work. If you would like to start a new thread on is for ideas or attendee that would be greatly appreciated. I want this day to be positive were the equine world comes together.


----------



## Red-1 (19 October 2014)

green007 said:



			What I can confirm that ive held a meeting today with a local horse re homing centre. We are in  the process of arranging an public event in honor of Kit and to promote the public awareness that's there are charities out there which offer help and support. This would be held at the Bransbry Horses Rescue and Welfare Lincoln. We would like to hear from anyone who would like to offer there services on this day this may be from equine services to animal services, Photography, crafts anything at all which would help raise awareness. All donation raised on the day will go directly back into the centre to help them to carry on doing there fantastic work. If you would like to start a new thread on is for ideas or attendee that would be greatly appreciated. I want this day to be positive were the equine world comes together.
		
Click to expand...

That is a lovely, positive idea. I salute you for seeing a positive out of what was a horrific act.


----------



## brucea (19 October 2014)

What a nice way to remember Kit. Putting something back, while raising awareness at the same time.


----------



## Storminateacup (19 October 2014)

Wagtail said:



			I think what Sheik was trying to say is that the YOers son injured the horse by chasing it around the field with a JCB and dragging it to the gate with baler twine around its neck attached to said JCB. I think he/she was saying that Wilson then was called to end its suffering and had been released without charge.
		
Click to expand...

If this was the case then an autopsy could prove it, most likely. If poor Kit suffered any form of strangulation, (by being dragged by a JCB, from baler twine around her neck), there should be a huge amount of evidence to prove this. Petechial hemorrhages in the eyes, and perhaps the swollen tongue mentioned somewhere in the the comments made by the RSPCA office(??!!), there would also be skin abrasions to her side, and possibly other lacerations, maybe even damaged vetebrae and internal neck structures. 
I sincerely hope this was not the case, but I also hope that the "evidence" has not been destroyed and Kit will be able to tell us the truth.

I utterly loathe the way the the RSPCA have commented on the event, just total denial, minimalising and  trying to cover their arses with the pathetic platitudes they have come out with. 

What is needed is a Forensic Scientist/pathologist to discern whether this could, in any way be a humane euthanasia, of this poor girl (Whatever we all feel in our hearts ). 

I am deeply troubled by this gross act of cruelty, I first read the announcement on the Wednesday night in total shock, and I am reading every thread everywhere to try and work out what may have happen. 

I think we may be getting closer to the truth.

My heart goes out to Lizi, her owner, it is just unbearable to think of. You see I too have a horse that went out on loan, he was subsequently moved from yard to yard without my knowledge,  then he disappeared, stolen as far as I am concerned. The incident with Kit just serves to highlight how precarious loaning your precious horse out can be. 
I have launched nationwide searches for my boy,but zilch, so there but for the grace of God, go I.

RIP Kit.


----------



## Wagtail (19 October 2014)

My post was purely an interpretation of Sheik's post based on previous comments about what happened to her in the field on here and on Facebook. It is an absolutely horrible thing and I am really hoping that it is pure speculation. I hope that the PM gives Kit's owners some answers and that she did not suffer too much.


----------



## Moggy in Manolos (19 October 2014)

I have only just seen this post and my thoughts go out to Kits owner/loaner, this is just shocking and I cannot believe what I have read, I cannot bring myself to look at any of the links, I really hope justice is done, debt or not, this is no way to behave, not by any stretch, and frankly it is worrying that someone with such capability is walking the streets, I just do not understand how some one could do this, RIP Kit x


----------



## amandaco2 (19 October 2014)

Storminateacup said:



			If this was the case then an autopsy could prove it, most likely. If poor Kit suffered any form of strangulation, (by being dragged by a JCB, from baler twine around her neck), there should be a huge amount of evidence to prove this. Petechial hemorrhages in the eyes, and perhaps the swollen tongue mentioned somewhere in the the comments made by the RSPCA office(??!!), there would also be skin abrasions to her side, and possibly other lacerations, maybe even damaged vetebrae and internal neck structures. 
I sincerely hope this was not the case, but I also hope that the "evidence" has not been destroyed and Kit will be able to tell us the truth.


RIP Kit.
		
Click to expand...

Oh my goodness, it is just too horrific to think of, that poor mare.......


----------



## teamgossip (19 October 2014)

I don't comment on threads much, more of a reader n digester!
But all I can say is I hope this horrid incident only brings good things!
I own a very small livery, I only have two liveries but I am currently making more spaces, and even though I'm only small I have had two previous ladies who left my yard owing me money, one was nearly £200, the other £120! However I just wrote the debts of because I was happy to have them off my yard! I was sick to death of them not turning up, and asking me to just chuck their horses some hay! I think one horse was left in his stable for 6 days, because the owner was struggling with time, she thought here 30 mins would be better used mucking out and chatting than exercising her horse! 
From reading loads of posts this is not uncommon with or without livery agreements!
In no way am I defending YO but I do not think he has managed to own a multimillion pound property by allowing liveries to owe him large amounts of money! I suspect that over the years he has become harsh to debtors and poor Kit paid the price!
So I hope that this case is an eye opener to EVERY livery in the country, and they realise how lucky they are not to be in Kit's owners shoes!
I also hope that this is an eye opener to horse owners who's horses are out on loan! I hope that every owner goes around to the livery yard that their horses are kept at and make themselves known to the YO's and letting them know that if the loaner is not doing the job properly then the owner is contacted!
I just hope that this situation will serve as a wake up call to others!


----------



## Wagtail (19 October 2014)

teamgossip said:



			I don't comment on threads much, more of a reader n digester!
But all I can say is I hope this horrid incident only brings good things!
I own a very small livery, I only have two liveries but I am currently making more spaces, and even though I'm only small I have had two previous ladies who left my yard owing me money, one was nearly £200, the other £120! However I just wrote the debts of because I was happy to have them off my yard! I was sick to death of them not turning up, and asking me to just chuck their horses some hay! I think one horse was left in his stable for 6 days, because the owner was struggling with time, she thought here 30 mins would be better used mucking out and chatting than exercising her horse! 
From reading loads of posts this is not uncommon with or without livery agreements!
In no way am I defending YO but I do not think he has managed to own a multimillion pound property by allowing liveries to owe him large amounts of money! I suspect that over the years he has become harsh to debtors and poor Kit paid the price!
So I hope that this case is an eye opener to EVERY livery in the country, and they realise how lucky they are not to be in Kit's owners shoes!
I also hope that this is an eye opener to horse owners who's horses are out on loan! I hope that every owner goes around to the livery yard that their horses are kept at and make themselves known to the YO's and letting them know that if the loaner is not doing the job properly then the owner is contacted!
I just hope that this situation will serve as a wake up call to others!
		
Click to expand...

You make some very good points. I think it should be a wake up call to both liveries and owners who have loaned out their horses.


----------



## undergroundoli (19 October 2014)

I'm not surprised that the other liverys are still on the yard, finding places for all their horses will take some doing.


----------



## Tiddlypom (19 October 2014)

Wagtail said:



			You make some very good points. I think it should be a wake up call to both liveries and owners who have loaned out their horses.
		
Click to expand...

Completely agree.

No one is in any way condoning the terrible end which befell this mare, but a worrying number of people seem to think that falling three weeks behind with your livery bill is a piffling matter, which a reputable livery yard should be expected to absorb as a matter of course.


----------



## cronkmooar (19 October 2014)

undergroundoli said:



			I'm not surprised that the other liverys are still on the yard, finding places for all their horses will take some doing.
		
Click to expand...

No it won't - there is a big thread on the York Equestrian page that is inundated with offers of livery for those who wish to move, and that was within hours of this story breaking


----------



## MiJodsR2BlinkinTite (19 October 2014)

Just a word of warning folks.......... I've received an "infraction" for posting on another thread (i.e. the "showjumper/HOYS" incident): Can't think why, coz I didn't say anything that other people didn't say.

This is a similar thread, i.e. legal issues involved etc etc.

So just flagging up a warning to just watch your backs that's all. Either Admin are very twitchy, OR there is a button-pusher watching contentious threads like this one.


----------



## Illusion100 (19 October 2014)

At least one livery has left. They arrived on our yard the next afternoon.


----------



## NeilM (19 October 2014)

Illusion100 said:



			At least one livery has left. They arrived on our yard the next afternoon.
		
Click to expand...

Let's hope they are the first of many.


----------



## minesadouble (19 October 2014)

MiJodsR2BlinkinTite said:



			Just a word of warning folks.......... I've received an "infraction" for posting on another thread (i.e. the "showjumper/HOYS" incident): Can't think why, coz I didn't say anything that other people didn't say.

This is a similar thread, i.e. legal issues involved etc etc.

So just flagging up a warning to just watch your backs that's all. Either Admin are very twitchy, OR there is a button-pusher watching contentious threads like this one. 

Click to expand...

Me too MJR2BT on same thread!


----------



## Wagtail (19 October 2014)

minesadouble said:



			Me too MJR2BT on same thread!
		
Click to expand...

and me...


----------



## Moya_999 (19 October 2014)

Illusion100 said:



			At least one livery has left. They arrived on our yard the next afternoon.
		
Click to expand...

That is one horse that now is safe, lets hope others follow.


----------



## privateeye (19 October 2014)

C+C have been in today removing the RSPCA horses and there will be a new press release tomorrow


----------



## Goldenstar (19 October 2014)

privateeye said:



			C+C have been in today removing the RSPCA horses and there will be a new press release tomorrow
		
Click to expand...

Interesting .


----------



## brucea (19 October 2014)

I note with interest hat there is nothing on their media centre pages about it.


----------



## fankino04 (19 October 2014)

There's a petition on change.organic to push for prosecution incase any one wants to sign it


----------



## Overread (19 October 2014)

brucea said:



			I note with interest hat there is nothing on their media centre pages about it.
		
Click to expand...

It's a Sunday - web-people for the media site might not be in till Monday


----------



## DragonSlayer (19 October 2014)

brucea said:



			I note with interest hat there is nothing on their media centre pages about it.
		
Click to expand...




Overread said:



			It's a Sunday - web-people for the media site might not be in till Monday
		
Click to expand...

...and they might be wanting to keep it quiet to prevent people going to see whats going on...


----------



## Clara Mo 3 (19 October 2014)

There were certainly a lot fewer horses there today when I went past.  Thank God.


----------



## rubyrussell (19 October 2014)

Would you be allowed to take supermarket shopping without paying for it?  So should not take livery without paying for it, but the poor mare is a very innocent victim.two wrongs definitely don't make a right.


----------



## Clara Mo 3 (19 October 2014)

rubyrussell said:



			Would you be allowed to take supermarket shopping without paying for it?  So should not take livery without paying for it, but the poor mare is a very innocent victim.two wrongs definitely don't make a right.
		
Click to expand...

Surely one is wrong and the other is a despicable act of suffering and cruelty ?  Hardly comparable to not paying for supermarket shopping I don't believe.
A supermarket would follow the usual legal remedies available to it to recover the monies owed, it wouldn't shoot your horse/cat/dog/children/you.  D'oh.


----------



## rubyrussell (19 October 2014)

It is all so wrong and and a very innocent victim, 99.9% of livery yard owners would try to dissolve issus but like life always the one very bad apple.


----------



## Moomin1 (19 October 2014)

Clara Mo 3 said:



			Surely one is wrong and the other is a despicable act of suffering and cruelty ?  Hardly comparable to not paying for supermarket shopping I don't believe.
A supermarket would follow the usual legal remedies available to it to recover the monies owed, it wouldn't shoot your horse/cat/dog/children/you.  D'oh.
		
Click to expand...

That would depend on whether it was shot outright or not.


----------



## Clara Mo 3 (19 October 2014)

Moomin1 said:



			That would depend on whether it was shot outright or not.
		
Click to expand...

You obviously haven't read all the posts on here.  But maybe you think its OK to shoot/kill/PTS a horse for no good reason other than an alleged £30 debt ?  Whether or not you have read and/or believe some of the allegations made about what transpired, and whether or not the horse was chased round the field and suffered before being dispatched, the horse was subject to cruelty by being killed for no good reason, it suffered by being scared when they tried to load it into a cattle trailer (for a 2 minute walk round the corner...what a nonsense) and the owner sure as hell is suffering now.

But all of this is OK so long as it was a clean shot, eh ?


----------



## Smurf's Gran (19 October 2014)

Clara Mo 3 said:



			Surely one is wrong and the other is a despicable act of suffering and cruelty ?  Hardly comparable to not paying for supermarket shopping I don't believe.
A supermarket would follow the usual legal remedies available to it to recover the monies owed, it wouldn't shoot your horse/cat/dog/children/you.  D'oh.
		
Click to expand...

Completely agree


----------



## Sheik (19 October 2014)

There was no cattle trailer they did not try to load her at all 
She was in a feild that wasn't on GG centre site 
The 10pound fields are located round the corner


----------



## Sheik (19 October 2014)

Also the horse was terrorised by the yo and was rearing and striking out and was dangerous this is why she was put down


----------



## Clara Mo 3 (19 October 2014)

Sheik said:



			There was no cattle trailer they did not try to load her at all 
She was in a feild that wasn't on GG centre site 
The 10pound fields are located round the corner
		
Click to expand...

I know where the £10 fields are - half a mile away from the centre in the opposite direction to the loaner's house and thus not more than 5 mins leading a horse to her house - and clearly part of the same establishment as per its advertising signs at the entrance to those fields (the same set of fields used by the RSPCA).  I don't understand your point.


----------



## Clara Mo 3 (19 October 2014)

Sheik said:



			Also the horse was terrorised by the yo and was rearing and striking out and was dangerous this is why she was put down
		
Click to expand...

I'd rear and strike out if the YO terrorised me too.  Should I be shot ?


----------



## Clara Mo 3 (19 October 2014)

Sheik said:



			There was no cattle trailer they did not try to load her at all 
She was in a feild that wasn't on GG centre site 
The 10pound fields are located round the corner
		
Click to expand...

As per the man's own version of events - and of course he wouldn't admit to it being a cattle truck rather than a horsebox- it does seem clear that he DID in fact try to load her:
*He said the animal was left without a rug for warmth and he decided to load it into a horsebox and leave it in Ms Warner's garden, but attempts to get the animal safely into a horse box were unsuccessful*


----------



## Sheik (19 October 2014)

Because people are saying she was on the actual yard and she wasn't and are saying that they'd tryed to load her into a box and that's no true just sick of people speculating when they don't know the truth Iam not saying anymore as it will all come out when they do the press release 
And the poor man who actually shot her was misled by the yard owners son 
So he has nothing to do with this as all he was doing is his job it's the yo that is the criminal in all of this


----------



## Moomin1 (19 October 2014)

Clara Mo 3 said:



			You obviously haven't read all the posts on here.  But maybe you think its OK to shoot/kill/PTS a horse for no good reason other than an alleged £30 debt ?  Whether or not you have read and/or believe some of the allegations made about what transpired, and whether or not the horse was chased round the field and suffered before being dispatched, the horse was subject to cruelty by being killed for no good reason, it suffered by being scared when they tried to load it into a cattle trailer (for a 2 minute walk round the corner...what a nonsense) and the owner sure as hell is suffering now.

But all of this is OK so long as it was a clean shot, eh ?
		
Click to expand...

No I haven't read the majority of posts, because quite frankly it's a bit ridiculous how people so readily are willing to listen to gossip and hear say and follow mass hysteria without knowing facts.  We don't know if the horse was killed outright or not.  If an animal is killed instantly, how did it suffer?  It may be wrong morally, yes, but it does not mean that the horse 'suffered'.  If someone took someone else's cat to be pts at the vet without consent, it would be immoral, and wrong, but it wouldn't mean the animal suffered, or was subjected to cruelty.


----------



## Clara Mo 3 (19 October 2014)

Sheik said:



			Because people are saying she was on the actual yard and she wasn't and are saying that they'd tryed to load her into a box and that's no true just sick of people speculating when they don't know the truth Iam not saying anymore as it will all come out when they do the press release 
And the poor man who actually shot her was misled by the yard owners son 
So he has nothing to do with this as all he was doing is his job it's the yo that is the criminal in all of this
		
Click to expand...

Its irrelevant whether she was on the actual yard - the yard includes the yard's fields which are part of the centre and are a similar distance from the loaner's house to the actual yard but in the opposite direction - I am not speculating on this, I know for fact. 

The man himself states they DID try to load her.  Again, I am not speculating on this.

The only part I will potentially agree with you on - and sincerely hope you are right - is your comment about CW being led on.

I'm glad you're not saying any more, I think you've said enough...


----------



## Clara Mo 3 (19 October 2014)

Moomin1 said:



			No I haven't read the majority of posts, because quite frankly it's a bit ridiculous how people so readily are willing to listen to gossip and hear say and follow mass hysteria without knowing facts.  We don't know if the horse was killed outright or not.  If an animal is killed instantly, how did it suffer?  It may be wrong morally, yes, but it does not mean that the horse 'suffered'.  If someone took someone else's cat to be pts at the vet without consent, it would be immoral, and wrong, but it wouldn't mean the animal suffered, or was subjected to cruelty.
		
Click to expand...

No, I just know the man in question and know the type of thing he does...not masss hysteria at all, just first hand knowledge.


----------



## Sheik (19 October 2014)

Like I said i know the truth and it will all come out  and I know for a FACT he didn't try to load her !!!


----------



## Sheik (19 October 2014)

Clara mo3 I have pm you


----------



## Moomin1 (19 October 2014)

Clara Mo 3 said:



			So how do you know what people are saying and that they are speculating if you haven't read through properly ?  I thought you were saying no more anyhow. ;-)
		
Click to expand...

Err, where did I say I was saying no more?  Clearly you are not reading things.

I don't have an interest what people are saying.  Just reading through a few of the posts is enough to tell me that wild speculation is going on, as usual, without anyone knowing facts.


----------



## Clara Mo 3 (19 October 2014)

Sheik said:



			Like I said i know the truth and it will all come out  and I know for a FACT he didn't try to load her !!!
		
Click to expand...

OK, so you were there too.  Enough said I think otherwise there could be more trouble for people couldn't there.


----------



## Clara Mo 3 (19 October 2014)

Moomin1 said:



			Err, where did I say I was saying no more?  Clearly you are not reading things.

I don't have an interest what people are saying.  Just reading through a few of the posts is enough to tell me that wild speculation is going on, as usual, without anyone knowing facts.
		
Click to expand...

No, wasn't reading the author, now edited to correct that. ;-)

Edited once again to say that in my defence you did answer as if I had asked YOU a question...and I hadn't !  Aside from that I am just old and tired and sick of listening to people trying to defend the indefensible !


----------



## diamonddogs (19 October 2014)

Well then, if you know for a FACT he didn't try to load her, then you know he lied then. FACT.

So, if you know the truth, tell it true here and maybe you can ease the hearts and minds of those of us who empathise with what that poor animal went through in the last hour(s) of her life, and in particular, her poor owner, who's going through enough without having to read all this.

And if you can't do that, just sod off with your "I know something you don't know" because, frankly, I don't believe you, because if you DID know, I would hope that you'd have more sense than to be gobbing off on here.


----------



## Clara Mo 3 (19 October 2014)

diamonddogs said:



			Well then, if you know for a FACT he didn't try to load her, then you know he lied then. FACT.

So, if you know the truth, tell it true here and maybe you can ease the hearts and minds of those of us who empathise with what that poor animal went through in the last hour(s) of her life, and in particular, her poor owner, who's going through enough without having to read all this.

And if you can't do that, just sod off with your "I know something you don't know" because, frankly, I don't believe you, because if you DID know, I would hope that you'd have more sense than to be gobbing off on here.
		
Click to expand...

Precisely !


----------



## Moomin1 (19 October 2014)

diamonddogs said:



			Well then, if you know for a FACT he didn't try to load her, then you know he lied then. FACT.

So, if you know the truth, tell it true here and maybe you can ease the hearts and minds of those of us who empathise with what that poor animal went through in the last hour(s) of her life, and in particular, her poor owner, who's going through enough without having to read all this.

And if you can't do that, just sod off with your "I know something you don't know" because, frankly, I don't believe you, because if you DID know, I would hope that you'd have more sense than to be gobbing off on here.
		
Click to expand...

Why doesn't everyone just follow this advice?  This entire thread is ridiculous and nothing more than pointlessly damaging to everyone concerned at this point in time.

WHEN facts come out (or IF), then it would be more appropriate for everyone to make judgement.


----------



## saskiahorsey (19 October 2014)

Having read through this whole thread and the media stuff all i can say is my heart goes out to kits owner ... And i dont care wether there was a fee owing etc under no circumstances should a yo feel hes god and kill someone elses animal .... As far as im concerned he should have gone down the legal route if he really was so upset about mony owed however i feel he has thought he will prove a point ... I cannot fathom how anyone could line his pockets agains wether it be liveries or facility users ! He would not be giving any form press releases had it have been one of my horses thats for sure ! This man has previous and a free pass this time will make him even more convinced hes above the law ... We have enough animal cruelty going on in this country this man needs to be made an example of .... Throw away the key i say !!


----------



## thehorsephotographer (20 October 2014)

The RSPCA horses have all been removed from this establishment today.


----------



## thehorsephotographer (20 October 2014)

The RSPCA horses have all been removed from this establishment today.

Sorry - didn't mean to double post.

There should be a statement from the police tomorrow and or a press release concerning the involvement of various people including the 53 year old person who was arrested and released without charge.  It will be interesting to see if, as I suspect is the case, this person has been used almost as a scapegoat or unwittingly dragged into something over which he was not told the truth.  I think, but don't know for certain, that this person has been instrumental in RSPCA horses and ponies so quickly.


----------



## Froddy (20 October 2014)

thehorsephotographer said:



			The RSPCA horses have all been removed from this establishment today.
		
Click to expand...

Thank god for that.

My thoughts are with Kits owner in all this, I can only hope that anyone who has a horse on livery there manages to move them elsewhere asap


----------



## hackneylass2 (20 October 2014)

I'm not speculating on what went on, all I can say is that  Cooper Wilson states on his animal communicator/Reiki master etc etc website that he was a fellmonger.  Hmmmmm? Would make me run a mile.

RIP Kit and condolences to her owner and loaner.


----------



## Dry Rot (20 October 2014)

If this case ever gets to court, it would not surprise me if it was thrown out for the reasons stated below. Is that what everyone wants? I am all for free speech and open discussion but some of the wild speculation on this thread is irresponsible and defies reason. It is well known that if something is repeated often enough, it becomes accepted as "the truth". Personally, I am reserving judgement until witnesses have been cross examined in court under oath.

http://www.contactlaw.co.uk/what-is-the-law-regarding-media-influence-in-criminal-trials.html

*What is the law regarding media influence in criminal trials?*

Media influence in criminal trials has been a much-debated issue. Many studies have been performed looking at whether press has influenced jurors and caused them to make a different decision to the one they would have made based only on the evidence presented at the trial.

Of course, media influence is not only harmful, and there can be benefits to significant press attention. For example, press coverage can mean that witnesses, who otherwise would not have known of the incident, can come forward and present their evidence.

Visit our criminal law pages for more legal information on this topic.

*The right to a fair trial*

Every person charged with a criminal offence has the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights, as enacted into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998.

In the case of media coverage and *adverse publicity*, if the jury are likely to be swayed by excessive media coverage and this affects the defendants right to a fair trial, then the court must do something to mitigate the unfairness to the defendant or dismiss the case altogether.

*Negative impacts on trial judgements*

There have been many cases in which a conviction has had to be quashed, or a trial stayed on the grounds of abuse of process, because of adverse pre-trial publicity.

In the case of R v Taylor and Taylor the Court of Appeal confirmed the principle created in R v McCann, that if media coverage created a substantial risk of prejudice to the defendants, the convictions should be regarded as unsafe and quashed.

The prejudice may be such that a re-trial is not possible because a fair trial cannot take place.

*Prejudicing juries*

If a court decides that the jury is prejudiced by media coverage there are a number of options. The court may decide to stay or quash proceedings and may or may not decide to order a re-trial. The court may decide that the prejudice caused can be remedied by the judge directing the jury on the issue.

This was seen recently when a judge warned a jury to ignore the Prime Ministers widely reported prejudicial remarks about a case.
The judge may also decide that the risk of prejudice is slight due to time elapsed, or because a jury is not present and the trial may go ahead.

There has recently been a lot of discussion amongst the judiciary regarding the use of the social media site Twitter from the court room. The Lord Chief Justice ruled that journalists can Tweet from the court room as long as it doesnt interfere with the administration of justice.

However, they must apply for permission from the trial judge first, and this is likely to be refused in ongoing criminal trials.

If you would like to obtain legal advice on a criminal trial, we can put you in touch with a local specialist criminal defence solicitor free of charge. Please call us on 0808 149 1841 or complete the web-form above.

Last Updated on 04/08/2014


----------



## Gloi (20 October 2014)

Being punished financially by everybody leaving the yard is a good start.


----------



## Jinnie (20 October 2014)

C & C transport have just issued a statement that all RSPCA horses have been removed from the site.

Not a fan of the RSPCA myself but well done this time for listening to public opinions.


----------



## luckyoldme (20 October 2014)

teamgossip said:



			I don't comment on threads much, more of a reader n digester!
But all I can say is I hope this horrid incident only brings good things!
I own a very small livery, I only have two liveries but I am currently making more spaces, and even though I'm only small I have had two previous ladies who left my yard owing me money, one was nearly £200, the other £120! However I just wrote the debts of because I was happy to have them off my yard! I was sick to death of them not turning up, and asking me to just chuck their horses some hay! I think one horse was left in his stable for 6 days, because the owner was struggling with time, she thought here 30 mins would be better used mucking out and chatting than exercising her horse! 
From reading loads of posts this is not uncommon with or without livery agreements!
In no way am I defending YO but I do not think he has managed to own a multimillion pound property by allowing liveries to owe him large amounts of money! I suspect that over the years he has become harsh to debtors and poor Kit paid the price!
So I hope that this case is an eye opener to EVERY livery in the country, and they realise how lucky they are not to be in Kit's owners shoes!
I also hope that this is an eye opener to horse owners who's horses are out on loan! I hope that every owner goes around to the livery yard that their horses are kept at and make themselves known to the YO's and letting them know that if the loaner is not doing the job properly then the owner is contacted!
I just hope that this situation will serve as a wake up call to others!
		
Click to expand...

I think this is a really sensible answer. I too should imagine that another livery owing money was the straw that broke the camels back...its just that the livery yard owner has obviously gone way beyond acceptable behaviour. 
Anyone owning a small business knows the frustration of bad payers, and like you ive had to write off debts...the one that springs to mind is £195 followed by the posts on fb of money being spent on luxuries ........it really gets your back up. 
My horses livery is due every month on the last day of the month......im usually two or three weeks early...but on one occasion left it to the last minute, evan then I went up there specially just to square up. 
Im glad that the business seems to have suffered from horses being moved by the rspca........and im all for voting with your purse, but in reality for livery owners non payers are a hugely difficult problem to deal with , so maybe along with the outcry about what this horrible person has done there should also be an outcry about people who think its ok not to pay.


----------



## Clara Mo 3 (20 October 2014)

Dry Rot said:



			If this case ever gets to court, it would not surprise me if it was thrown out for the reasons stated below. Is that what everyone wants? I am all for free speech and open discussion but some of the wild speculation on this thread is irresponsible and defies reason. It is well known that if something is repeated often enough, it becomes accepted as "the truth". Personally, I am reserving judgement until witnesses have been cross examined in court under oath.

Whilst I agree to an extent...I do think o this occasion the public freedom of speech will probably have secured more positives than having any negative impact on any trial - that's if there is a trial given that a lot of folks on here seem to understand the law pretty well and believe there is no great legal case to answer, only a moral one.  The police don't put a great deal of effort into horse crime, so I think the public outrage has possibly forced them to take it more seriously than otherwise may have happened.  I also believe the public disgust has forced the RSPCA to remove their horses from the yard - which they possibly would't have done.

As I have also mentioned, this man has been doing various similar evil things for years and has never been forced to be accountable for his actions, this has caused so much public shock Nationwide that there has to be some consequence to his actions this time - even if it is simply that people move their horses or don't go near him in future.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## diamonddogs (20 October 2014)

I had cause to read this article on a completely unconnected matter and so much of it struck home with reference to this case:




_How to Identify a Psychopath_

The Hare Psychopathy Checklist:

*Look for glib and superficial charm.* A psychopath will also put on what professionals refer to as a "mask" of sanity that is likeable and pleasant. For example, the psychopath may do good deeds to gain his or her victims trust.

*Look for a grandiose self-perception*. Psychopaths will often believe they are smarter or more powerful than they actually are. 

*Watch for a constant need for stimulation*. Stillness, quiet and reflection are not things embraced by psychopaths. They need constant entertainment and activity.

*Determine if there is pathological lying*. A psychopath will tell all sorts of lies; little white lies as well as huge stories intended to mislead.

*Evaluate the level of manipulation*. All psychopaths are identified as cunning and able to get people to do things they might not normally do. They can use guilt, force and other methods to manipulate.

*Look for any feelings of guilt*. An absence of any guilt or remorse is a sign of psychopathy.

*Consider the affect or emotional response a person has*. Psychopaths demonstrate shallow emotional reactions to deaths, injuries, trauma or other events that would otherwise cause a deeper response.

*Look for a lack of empathy*. Psychopaths are callous and have no way of relating to non-psychopaths.

*Take a look at the person's lifestyle*. Psychopaths are often parasitic, meaning they live off other people.

*Observe the person's behaviour*. The Hare Checklist includes three behaviour indicators; poor behaviour control, sexual promiscuity and early behaviour problems. 

*Talk about goals. *Psychopaths have unrealistic goals for the long term. Either there are no goals at all, or they are unattainable and based on the exaggerated sense of one's own accomplishments and abilities. 

*Look at whether the person is impulsive or irresponsible*. Both those characteristics are evidence of psychopathy. 

*Consider whether the person can accept responsibility.* A psychopath will never admit to being wrong or owning up to mistakes and errors in judgment. 

*Examine marital relationships*. If there have been many short term marriages, the chances the person is a psychopath increase.

*Look for a history of juvenile delinquency*. Many psychopaths exhibit delinquent behaviours in their youth.

*Check for criminal versatility*. Psychopaths are able to get away with a lot, and while they might sometimes get caught, the ability to be flexible when committing crimes is an indicator. 

*Check out if a person makes constant use of "the poor fellow's imagery". *Psychopaths are experts at manipulating our emotions and insecurities into causing us to view them as "poor injusticed fellows", thus lowering our sentimental guard and rendering us vulnerable for future exploitation. If this psychological resource is continually combined with unacceptable and evil actions, this equals to a powerful alert sign about this person's real nature.

*Pay extreme attention to the person's treatment towards others*. Psychopaths are generally prone to belittle, humiliate, mistreat, mock and even attack physically (or kill, in extreme cases) people who normally would bring no benefits to him/her in any way, such as subordinates, physically frail or lower-ranking people, children, elderly people and even animals - especially the latter ones. Remember Arthur Schopenhauer's famous words: "A person who harms or kills animals cannot be a good person at all". Another relevant saying is Mahatma Gandhi's famous speech, "You know somebody well for their treatment towards their animals".
		
Click to expand...

_Source_


----------



## Smurf's Gran (20 October 2014)

Well Put Clara Mo3.  The power of public opinion is a good thing in this case.


----------



## Dry Rot (20 October 2014)

Smurf's Gran said:



			Well Put Clara Mo3.  The power of public opinion is a good thing in this case.
		
Click to expand...

And, when it is not a good case, who decides? 

"The measure of a country's civilisation are it's laws and how they are administered".

Yeah, let's drag 'em out and string 'em up!


----------



## ester (20 October 2014)

I think there are more internet discussion issues on this case than the hho forum!


----------



## Goldenstar (20 October 2014)

IMO the story hardly making a ripple in the world away from us horsey types ,there would be no problem finding jurors if it's dealt with in the crown court and it may be magistrates court anyway.
A case has to way way more high profile than this and be subject to deluge of mainstream publicity for there to be an issue .


----------



## be positive (20 October 2014)

Goldenstar said:



			IMO the story hardly making a ripple in the world away from us horsey types ,there would be no problem finding jurors if it's dealt with in the crown court and it may be magistrates court anyway.
A case has to way way more high profile than this and be subject to deluge of mainstream publicity for there to be an issue .
		
Click to expand...


Absolutely true, in comparison to some really high profile cases this is hardly going to be noticed by anyone who is not involved with horses in some way, the small amount of publicity it has received will have no impact on the average person who may be on a jury, if it even gets that far.


----------



## Smurf's Gran (20 October 2014)

Dry Rot said:



			And, when it is not a good case, who decides? 

"The measure of a country's civilisation are it's laws and how they are administered".

Yeah, let's drag 'em out and string 'em up!
		
Click to expand...

Dry Rot, I am not suggesting what you imply, bit silly tbh.  As regards the law it has already been stated on here that charges may be limited to criminal damage only ( does that require a Jury?) and that info is provided much further up the thread (and in a much less emotive way I might add) . 

What you are witnessing on here is the power of opinion, and while the absolute facts may not be known about the case, some people feel they know enough to decide if they will use the GG again or boycott etc.  (and I image the sight of a dead horse being delivered via a JCB onto the loaners lawn has been enough information for many - facts already established by the RSPCA inspector at the scene and the police) 

If enough people are outraged by the facts already established as mentioned above (not the speculation, I might add) then in my view you see public media etc at its best.


----------



## cptrayes (20 October 2014)

I think this may never come to court. It seems true that he had a verbal contract that he would shoot any horse where livery fees were not paid. And that the horse was shot humanely. In that case, the dumping aside, no criminal offence has been committed. 

In a civil case, he may owe the owner for the value of her horse, but actually I think the loaner will owe it, because she willingly entered into that contract and it was her lack of payment which resulted in the contract term being applied.

There is a possibility of prosecution by DEFRA for the way the horse's body was disposed of, but even if there are grounds it is doubtful that they would consider it in the public interest to prosecute a one off case like this.

So don't hold your breath folks. He's likely to walk away from this scot free, unless liveries desert him in droves and stay away for good, but people have short memories.


----------



## Sebastian (20 October 2014)

diamonddogs said:



			I had cause to read this article on a completely unconnected matter and so much of it struck home with reference to this case:



_Source_

Click to expand...

And the most important part of diagnosing mental disorders is to not rely on websites.


----------



## diamonddogs (20 October 2014)

Of course. I go around diagnosing mental disorders as part of my daily routine all the time.


----------



## Wagtail (20 October 2014)

diamonddogs said:



			I had cause to read this article on a completely unconnected matter and so much of it struck home with reference to this case:



_Source_

Click to expand...

That's why I said he was a psychopath a couple of times on this thread. Many people assume psychopaths are insane murderers. Not so. Most are 'normal' members of society.


----------



## Wagtail (20 October 2014)

cptrayes said:



			I think this may never come to court. It seems true that he had a verbal contract that he would shoot any horse where livery fees were not paid. And that the horse was shot humanely. In that case, the dumping aside, no criminal offence has been committed. 

In a civil case, he may owe the owner for the value of her horse, but actually I think the loaner will owe it, because she willingly entered into that contract and it was her lack of payment which resulted in the contract term being applied.

There is a possibility of prosecution by DEFRA for the way the horse's body was disposed of, but even if there are grounds it is doubtful that they would consider it in the public interest to prosecute a one off case like this.

So don't hold your breath folks. He's likely to walk away from this scot free, unless liveries desert him in droves and stay away for good, but people have short memories.
		
Click to expand...

Cptrayes, do you have a link to the petition you started?


----------



## Clara Mo 3 (20 October 2014)

cptrayes said:



			I think this may never come to court. It seems true that he had a verbal contract that he would shoot any horse where livery fees were not paid. And that the horse was shot humanely. In that case, the dumping aside, no criminal offence has been committed. 

In a civil case, he may owe the owner for the value of her horse, but actually I think the loaner will owe it, because she willingly entered into that contract and it was her lack of payment which resulted in the contract term being applied.

There is a possibility of prosecution by DEFRA for the way the horse's body was disposed of, but even if there are grounds it is doubtful that they would consider it in the public interest to prosecute a one off case like this.

So don't hold your breath folks. He's likely to walk away from this scot free, unless liveries desert him in droves and stay away for good, but people have short memories.
		
Click to expand...

Sadly I think you may be right.  Which will further his "career" of nastiness.


----------



## fburton (20 October 2014)

cptrayes said:



			In that case, the dumping aside, no criminal offence has been committed.
		
Click to expand...

As a matter of interest... If someone took a horse into the middle of a crowded shopping precinct (say) and proceeded to kill the horse using a captive bolt in front of the crowds, would that be a criminal offence?


----------



## Red-1 (20 October 2014)

I don't know if this petition was started by anyone here, but it is a UK Govt one, and it is not exaggerated, and works towards horse welfare.

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/66742


----------



## cptrayes (20 October 2014)

fburton said:



			As a matter of interest... If someone took a horse into the middle of a crowded shopping precinct (say) and proceeded to kill the horse using a captive bolt in front of the crowds, would that be a criminal offence?
		
Click to expand...

Mmmmmm. You could probably get him on 'behaviour likely to cause harassment alarm or distress', but it still would only be a fairly minor public order offence with not much of a penalty.


----------



## cptrayes (20 October 2014)

Wagtail said:



			Cptrayes, do you have a link to the petition you started?
		
Click to expand...

It's not live yet, they said it would take a week to process it. I'll post a thread when I get it.


----------



## fburton (20 October 2014)

cptrayes said:



			Mmmmmm. You could probably get him on 'behaviour likely to cause harassment alarm or distress', but it still would only be a fairly minor public order offence with not much of a penalty.
		
Click to expand...

Thanks, cpt - that's what I thought it might be. Oh well.

ETA: I wonder how many horses one would have to kill in that way to "outrage public decency". :frown3:


----------



## Overread (20 October 2014)

fburton said:



			As a matter of interest... If someone took a horse into the middle of a crowded shopping precinct (say) and proceeded to kill the horse using a captive bolt in front of the crowds, would that be a criminal offence?
		
Click to expand...

Slaughter/killing in public places would likely get you hit with health and safety from the angle of infection or contamination. At least when you purposefully brought the animal to that location for the purpose of killing. 




Also a big problem in trying to tighten up the laws protecting animals is that on the one count we want to protect pets - but on the other we still want animals for industry (food etc...). The dividing point is often only our relationship with the animal at a personal level - which potentially could be tricky to pin down on paper.


----------



## diamonddogs (20 October 2014)

Wagtail said:



			That's why I said he was a psychopath a couple of times on this thread. Many people assume psychopaths are insane murderers. Not so. Most are 'normal' members of society.
		
Click to expand...

Exactly. Most wouldn't stick out in a crowd unless you were a mental health expert.


----------



## Goldenstar (20 October 2014)

fburton said:



			Thanks, cpt - that's what I thought it might be. Oh well.

ETA: I wonder how many horses one would have to kill in that way to "outrage public decency". :frown3:
		
Click to expand...

Well this public is pretty outraged .


----------



## brucea (20 October 2014)

My horse objects to being considered "property"

After all I do invest years of my life and many thousands of pounds in training, caring for, boarding...... I guess it is the difference between value and worth.


----------



## Goldenstar (20 October 2014)

cptrayes said:



			I think this may never come to court. It seems true that he had a verbal contract that he would shoot any horse where livery fees were not paid. And that the horse was shot humanely. In that case, the dumping aside, no criminal offence has been committed. 

In a civil case, he may owe the owner for the value of her horse, but actually I think the loaner will owe it, because she willingly entered into that contract and it was her lack of payment which resulted in the contract term being applied.

There is a possibility of prosecution by DEFRA for the way the horse's body was disposed of, but even if there are grounds it is doubtful that they would consider it in the public interest to prosecute a one off case like this.

So don't hold your breath folks. He's likely to walk away from this scot free, unless liveries desert him in droves and stay away for good, but people have short memories.
		
Click to expand...

You cannot make a contract outside the law .
The law has a process for non payment of livery and abandonment of animals you could sign a contract in blood and it would mean nothing if it's conditions where outside the constraints of English law .


----------



## ozpoz (20 October 2014)

Psychopaths get away with acts of cruelty because ordinary people waste lots of energy trying to find some justification for their behaviour.  In reality, there is no reason for it, other than the fact that they are psychopaths. 
I hope the other liveries can understand this and leave.


----------



## YorksG (20 October 2014)

diamonddogs said:



			Exactly. Most wouldn't stick out in a crowd unless you were a mental health expert.
		
Click to expand...

Modern psychiatry does not use the classification of 'psychopathy'. It is more usual to use the ICD10 catagory of Personality Disorder, usually with the sub-type 'anti-social'


----------



## rockysmum (20 October 2014)

Just random thoughts, I assume Kit was insured as its usually a standard loan condition.

Will the insurance pay out for this?   If the person responsible is being changed with a criminal offence then I assume they will.

Perhaps they will be prepared to take legal action against those responsible to recover their costs.  They will have the resources to do do so.


----------



## Goldenstar (20 October 2014)

rockysmum said:



			Just random thoughts, I assume Kit was insured as its usually a standard loan condition.

Will the insurance pay out for this?   If the person responsible is being changed with a criminal offence then I assume they will.

Perhaps they will be prepared to take legal action against those responsible to recover their costs.  They will have the resources to do do 

Interesting thought .
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Regandal (20 October 2014)

YorksG said:



			Modern psychiatry does not use the classification of 'psychopathy'. It is more usual to use the ICD10 catagory of Personality Disorder, usually with the sub-type 'anti-social'
		
Click to expand...

  They do in Scotland.  I visited someone who was classed as having a psycopathic personality disorder, by their consultant psychiatrist.  That was less than a year ago.  They are however, not classed as mentally ill.  It's a very grey area, the more outrageous ones tend to get bounced between custody and psychiatry.  No one wants them, strangely enough.


----------



## Clara Mo 3 (20 October 2014)

Goldenstar said:





rockysmum said:



			Just random thoughts, I assume Kit was insured as its usually a standard loan condition.

Will the insurance pay out for this?   If the person responsible is being changed with a criminal offence then I assume they will.

Perhaps they will be prepared to take legal action against those responsible to recover their costs.  They will have the resources to do do 

Interesting thought .
		
Click to expand...

Insurance companies aren't in the business of paying out as a rule, so I guess they will worm their way out of paying - maybe on the basis (if its true, but since when did truth get in the way of a good insurance non-payout) that the YO and loaner had a verbal agreement that if the loaner didn't pay debt the horse would be destroyed.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## YorksG (20 October 2014)

Regandal said:



			They do in Scotland.  I visited someone who was classed as having a psycopathic personality disorder, by their consultant psychiatrist.  That was less than a year ago.  They are however, not classed as mentally ill.  It's a very grey area, the more outrageous ones tend to get bounced between custody and psychiatry.  No one wants them, strangely enough.
		
Click to expand...

Indeed, but Scottish Mental Health Law is not the same as England and Wales, we lost the 'treatability' clause in 2007, still a grey area Mad or Bad? I think the easiest rule of thumb is do they know that the rest of the world would not condone their behaviour, if they know but behave that way anyway, then they are bad.


----------



## Clara Mo 3 (20 October 2014)

It seems crazy in my opinion that the Government of the time (heavily supported by the RSPCA) went to an enormous amount of effort, time and public money spent on changing the law to ban hunting foxes/hares with hounds yet it appears likely that anyone can shoot someone's horse on a whim and get away scot free.  So they appear to be placing a much higher value on the life of a wild fox or hare than someone's treasured (never mind the monetary value of said animal) pet ??


----------



## cptrayes (20 October 2014)

Goldenstar said:



			You cannot make a contract outside the law .
The law has a process for non payment of livery and abandonment of animals you could sign a contract in blood and it would mean nothing if it's conditions where outside the constraints of English law .
		
Click to expand...

Is it outside the law, though?  If he wants his money back then there is a legal process for him to have to go through. I don't see that it's necessarily outside the law for her to agree to a contract where if she does not pay, the horse is shot?  I'm not sure if you are  English law qualified Goldenstar, can you say?  It would obviously make quite a difference if so.  And if so, can you identify what criminal law might he have broken by humanely shooting the horse?


----------



## Goldenstar (20 October 2014)

cptrayes said:



			Is it outside the law, though?  If he wants his money back then there is a legal process for him to have to go through. I don't see that it's necessarily outside the law for her to agree to a contract where if she does not pay, the horse is shot?  I'm not sure if you are  English law qualified Goldenstar, can you say?  It would obviously make quite a difference if so.  And if so, can you identify what criminal law might he have broken by humanely shooting the horse?
		
Click to expand...

I think as I said pages ago it's likely to around the criminal damage of the owners property and behaving in an intimidating way to recover a debt .
I am not legally qualified ( my father was a solicitor until he retired ) but anyone who has been trained to run an equine business ought to know how English law works you can't sign away the rights the law gives you you could get a client to sign in blood a contract saying we shoot horses if you don't pay but if that was outside the procedure laid down by the law ,proper abandonment notices etc it would not matter because the law takes precedence over any agreement made .
In the equine industry this is most commonly seen in disclaimers for injury if a yard is negligent a disclaimer is useless because the injured party can't give up the rights the law gives them you can however as a business use a injury disclaimer to prove the client knew the activity was risky and this protects you against people who might claim they had not been warned injury might be caused by falling off a horse , don't laugh but it has been done people suing because they said they did not know riding could result in a fall and injury .


----------



## Alec Swan (20 October 2014)

cptrayes said:



			Is it outside the law, though?  &#8230;&#8230;.. , can you identify what criminal law might he have broken by humanely shooting the horse?
		
Click to expand...

It would be unlikely that any Law,  enwrapped within the Statutes of our legal system,  has been broken,  but I suspect that the owner,  or the person responsible for the animal,  would have recourse to apply to the Courts for restitution or recompense of their rights.

I'll say it again,  the man who's responsible can thank his lucky stars that I'm not the owner. &#8230;&#8230;.. &#8230;&#8230;.. that said,  there are those who would judge me for sending my horses off to heaven when they can no longer serve a useful purpose.  This frightful man,  and it would seem the loaner and probably the owner too,  should all consider their positions.

Alec.


----------



## Holly Hocks (20 October 2014)

cptrayes said:



			I think this may never come to court. It seems true that he had a verbal contract that he would shoot any horse where livery fees were not paid. And that the horse was shot humanely. In that case, the dumping aside, no criminal offence has been committed. 

In a civil case, he may owe the owner for the value of her horse, but actually I think the loaner will owe it, because she willingly entered into that contract and it was her lack of payment which resulted in the contract term being applied.

There is a possibility of prosecution by DEFRA for the way the horse's body was disposed of, but even if there are grounds it is doubtful that they would consider it in the public interest to prosecute a one off case like this.

So don't hold your breath folks. He's likely to walk away from this scot free, unless liveries desert him in droves and stay away for good, but people have short memories.
		
Click to expand...

I agree with this.  I take it the CPS would be the prosecutor and unless they are pretty sure to get a conviction they are unlikely to take the case any further.


----------



## Goldenstar (20 October 2014)

Holly Hocks said:



			I agree with this.  I take it the CPS would be the prosecutor and unless they are pretty sure to get a conviction they are unlikely to take the case any further.
		
Click to expand...

The horses owner could certainly take action if they had the means and the will .


----------



## Smurf's Gran (20 October 2014)

Clara Mo 3 said:



			It seems crazy in my opinion that the Government of the time (heavily supported by the RSPCA) went to an enormous amount of effort, time and public money spent on changing the law to ban hunting foxes/hares with hounds yet it appears likely that anyone can shoot someone's horse on a whim and get away scot free.  So they appear to be placing a much higher value on the life of a wild fox or hare than someone's treasured (never mind the monetary value of said animal) pet ??
		
Click to expand...

Please don't start a debate on Fox hunting.  People are very polarised in their views, with a solid majority not wanting it back (country folk too)  and my last word on it is that two wrongs don't make a right


----------



## Clara Mo 3 (20 October 2014)

Smurf's Gran said:



			Please don't start a debate on Fox hunting.  People are very polarised in their views, with a solid majority not wanting it back (country folk too)  and my last word on it is that two wrongs don't make a right
		
Click to expand...

Not starting a debate !  Just saying it seems rather unfair on pet owners that their pets are placed as so unimportant and lacking in value in this country.  Wasn't saying whether hunting was right or wrong in my view.


----------



## Smurf's Gran (20 October 2014)

Clara Mo 3 said:



			Not starting a debate !  Just saying it seems rather unfair on pet owners that their pets are placed as so unimportant and lacking in value in this country.  Wasn't saying whether hunting was right or wrong in my view.
		
Click to expand...

Best not to mention then


----------



## Clara Mo 3 (20 October 2014)

Smurf's Gran said:



			Best not to mention then 

Click to expand...

Very sorry indeed.  Thought there was perhaps a freedom of thought/consideration.  clearly not.


----------



## Holly Hocks (20 October 2014)

Goldenstar said:



			The horses owner could certainly take action if they had the means and the will .
		
Click to expand...

Oh I totally agree, but if it were to get recompense for the loss of the animal, then it would only be civil law.  If there were any possibility of getting a criminal conviction and the CPS wouldn't run it, then it's unlikely that the owner would be any more successful at getting a conviction. 
Whatever the full story, Kit has been an innocent victim.


----------



## Smurf's Gran (20 October 2014)

Clara Mo 3 said:



			Very sorry indeed.  Thought there was perhaps a freedom of thought/consideration.  clearly not.
		
Click to expand...

There is,  but hunting is a subject that gets people cross ( whichever side you are on) bit like politics (and religion)


----------



## Clara Mo 3 (20 October 2014)

Smurf's Gran said:



			There is,  but hunting is a subject that gets people cross ( whichever side you are on) bit like politics (and religion)
		
Click to expand...

...And the fact that your horse can simply be shot by some weirdo and there is no law to prevent that makes me cross.  So, you can only express a statement of fact if its not to do with politics, hunting or religion...OK, that's fine.


----------



## Emma_H (20 October 2014)

The RSPCA have made their comment...

R S P C A York and District Branch
3 hrs · 
We have received the following information from the RSPCA Press Office:
"The RSPCA can confirm that it has removed the 12 horses which had been kept at the GG centre.
There are more than 700 horses in the RSPCA's care throughout England and Wales and it is never easy to find new accommodation for them, but these horses were removed as soon as we had new premises for them to go to.
Whilst the horse involved in the dispute was not an RSPCA horse and was put to sleep humanely, meaning no animal cruelty prosecution can be taken, the RSPCA does not condone the euthanasia of a horse for reasons other than to safeguard its welfare."


----------



## Smurf's Gran (20 October 2014)

Clara Mo 3 said:



			...And the fact that your horse can simply be shot by some weirdo and there is no law to prevent that makes me cross.  So, you can only express a statement of fact if its not to do with politics, hunting or religion...OK, that's fine.
		
Click to expand...

Not at all, but I think the picture is more complex than that.  Debate on here has been strong as it is without muddying the waters making comparisons with topics that get people going.


----------



## Smurf's Gran (20 October 2014)

Emma_H said:



			The RSPCA have made their comment...

R S P C A York and District Branch
3 hrs · 
We have received the following information from the RSPCA Press Office:
"The RSPCA can confirm that it has removed the 12 horses which had been kept at the GG centre.
There are more than 700 horses in the RSPCA's care throughout England and Wales and it is never easy to find new accommodation for them, but these horses were removed as soon as we had new premises for them to go to.
Whilst the horse involved in the dispute was not an RSPCA horse and was put to sleep humanely, meaning no animal cruelty prosecution can be taken, the RSPCA does not condone the euthanasia of a horse for reasons other than to safeguard its welfare."
		
Click to expand...

Thanks Emma_ H  that's good info to have


----------



## Emma_H (20 October 2014)

It just makes me so sad. I've been following all weekend and am heartbroken that this happened.


----------



## Swirlymurphy (20 October 2014)

Clara Mo 3 said:



			Very sorry indeed.  Thought there was perhaps a freedom of thought/consideration.  clearly not.
		
Click to expand...

I thought it was an interesting comparison, thank you Clara


----------



## honetpot (20 October 2014)

Swirlymurphy said:



			I thought it was an interesting comparison, thank you Clara
		
Click to expand...

 Me to.


----------



## brucea (20 October 2014)

that said, there are those who would judge me for sending my horses off to heaven when they can no longer serve a useful purpose.
		
Click to expand...

Can't fault you for that if that is what you want to do. We've chosen to tread another path with the ones who can't really work any more, recognising the important supporting role they play in the herd.




			Indeed, but Scottish Mental Health Law is not the same as England and Wales, we lost the 'treatability' clause in 2007, still a grey area Mad or Bad?
		
Click to expand...

Where on earth did this learned discussion on psychopathy/sociopathy emerge? Apart from someone calling a bloke they have never met a psycopath? 

You can't "treat" a personality disorder like that because nothing has gone "wrong" with the person, that is just how they are, like some people are born with six toes. There is no "disorder" as such because they are fully functional. 

I doubt you have met a real social psychopath. I have, and they are extremely charming and delightful people, until you are on he receiving end of what they do. Once the scales fall from your eyes, it is deeply disturbing and shocking to comprehend what they are actually doing. Even more frightening is the complete lack of insight they have into their own behaviour.

Not a set of labels to bandy around lightly


----------



## Smurf's Gran (20 October 2014)

brucea said:



			Can't fault you for that if that is what you want to do. We've chosen to tread another path with the ones who can't really work any more, recognising the important supporting role they play in the herd.



Where on earth did this learned discussion on psychopathy/sociopathy emerge? Apart from someone calling a bloke they have never met a psycopath? 

You can't "treat" a personality disorder like that because nothing has gone "wrong" with the person, that is just how they are, like some people are born with six toes. There is no "disorder" as such because they are fully functional. 

I doubt you have met a real social psychopath. I have, and they are extremely charming and delightful people, until you are on he receiving end of what they do. Once the scales fall from your eyes, it is deeply disturbing and shocking to comprehend what they are actually doing. Even more frightening is the complete lack of insight they have into their own behaviour.

Not a set of labels to bandy around lightly
		
Click to expand...

Agree that PD and disorders is not to be used lightly, and amateur diagnosis is not to be attempted.  Though under the MHA PD is actually classed as a mental disorder now.


----------



## cptrayes (20 October 2014)

Holly Hocks said:



			I agree with this.  I take it the CPS would be the prosecutor and unless they are pretty sure to get a conviction they are unlikely to take the case any further.
		
Click to expand...

CPS would prosecute the harassment/alarm/distress behaviour as a public order offence for which there would be a minor penalty.

DEFRA would prosecute any offence in failing to dispose of waste properly, if there is one and if they think it is worth doing.

RSPCA would prosecute animal cruelty, but they have already made a public statement that there was none.



Goldenstar said:



			The horses owner could certainly take action if they had the means and the will .
		
Click to expand...


Yes but against whom?  It seems to me that her claim for compensation would have to be against the loaner who entered into the agreement , not against the man who carried out his side of the bargain.


----------



## Clara Mo 3 (20 October 2014)

Smurf's Gran said:



			Not at all, but I think the picture is more complex than that.  Debate on here has been strong as it is without muddying the waters making comparisons with topics that get people going.  

Click to expand...

So, here we are on a Horse and HOUND site and we aren't allowed to make a comparison with a legitimate fact simply because it mentions hunting, and you don't like it ??  Its not muddying the waters, its a fact - according to those who seem to know some law on this thread - that our pets are worthless, less value than a wild animal according to the law of our country.


----------



## Smurf's Gran (20 October 2014)

Clara Mo 3 said:



			So, here we are on a Horse and HOUND site and we aren't allowed to make a comparison with a legitimate fact simply because it mentions hunting, and you don't like it ??  Its not muddying the waters, its a fact - according to those who seem to know some law on this thread - that our pets are worthless, less value than a wild animal according to the law of our country.
		
Click to expand...

Have said my last words on this, you know my views


----------



## YorksG (20 October 2014)

Where on earth did this learned discussion on psychopathy/sociopathy emerge? Apart from someone calling a bloke they have never met a psycopath? 

You can't "treat" a personality disorder like that because nothing has gone "wrong" with the person, that is just how they are, like some people are born with six toes. There is no "disorder" as such because they are fully functional. 

I doubt you have met a real social psychopath. I have, and they are extremely charming and delightful people, until you are on he receiving end of what they do. Once the scales fall from your eyes, it is deeply disturbing and shocking to comprehend what they are actually doing. Even more frightening is the complete lack of insight they have into their own behaviour.

Not a set of labels to bandy around lightly[/QUOTE]

The last phrase was rather my point, and as a Mental Health Social Worker of over 30 years, I think I have met a few. The law now dictates that people with a PD can be detained, which they could not previously, as prior to 2007 people could only be detained for treatment, which, as you point out is probably innapropriate


----------



## Smurf's Gran (20 October 2014)

YorksG said:



			Where on earth did this learned discussion on psychopathy/sociopathy emerge? Apart from someone calling a bloke they have never met a psycopath? 

You can't "treat" a personality disorder like that because nothing has gone "wrong" with the person, that is just how they are, like some people are born with six toes. There is no "disorder" as such because they are fully functional. 

I doubt you have met a real social psychopath. I have, and they are extremely charming and delightful people, until you are on he receiving end of what they do. Once the scales fall from your eyes, it is deeply disturbing and shocking to comprehend what they are actually doing. Even more frightening is the complete lack of insight they have into their own behaviour.

Not a set of labels to bandy around lightly
		
Click to expand...

The last phrase was rather my point, and as a Mental Health Social Worker of over 30 years, I think I have met a few. The law now dictates that people with a PD can be detained, which they could not previously, as prior to 2007 people could only be detained for treatment, which, as you point out is probably innapropriate[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the observation,   maybe you could pop up to the GG with the section papers


----------



## Alec Swan (20 October 2014)

brucea said:



			&#8230;&#8230;..

Where on earth did this learned discussion on psychopathy/sociopathy emerge? Apart from someone calling a bloke they have never met a psycopath? 

&#8230;&#8230;..

&#8230;&#8230;.. labels &#8230;&#8230;..
		
Click to expand...

As you say,  'Labels'.  Decanters carry labels,  so's we don't mistake the spirits for the wines.  With people perhaps we shouldn't be so quick to ascribe.

Alec.


----------



## Goldenstar (20 October 2014)

cptrayes said:



			Yes but against whom?  It seems to me that her claim for compensation would have to be against the loaner who entered into the agreement , not against the man who carried out his side of the bargain.
		
Click to expand...

Against whoever ordered the destruction of her property , that's not the loaner .
You can't damage people things willy nilly because you have a dispute with a third party .
You can't sell a loan horse to recover a debt because the loaner has not paid so it follows you can't have it shot either .


----------



## Clara Mo 3 (20 October 2014)

Smurf's Gran said:



			Have said my last words on this, you know my views
		
Click to expand...

We certainly do....since you were accusing me of starting an unhappy debate....and you were the only one debating it LOL. ;-)


----------



## Kathrynn (21 October 2014)

Can't believe what I am hearing on a horse forum,  why speculate.  Get the facts and then form opinions.  There is a huge campaign to parliament and even the royals to make an example of this idiot who shot the horse.  He isn't mentally sick just sick in the head and the gun should have backfired in his face.  Carried out nothing only brutal Unhumane murder of a horse he had no right to even touch. The cps are also petitioned to charge and impose maximum penalties outside of the sentencing guidelines.


----------



## Bestdogdash (21 October 2014)

Huge amounts of hand wringing and angst on this subject. Lot of talk the talk - how about a bit of walk the walk ? I suggest that a peaceful demonstration/picket line is happens outside the gates of GG livery for a long as possible, and this chap is hit in the only place it can hurt him - his pocket. The legal arguments are well rehearsed here, and he will get no more than a fine and slap on the wrist for criminal damage, if that. 

I personally can't get away from, whatever the rights and wrongs of both sides of the arguments, that this person loaded a dead/dying horse in a JCB bucket and dumped it in the front garden of a suburban street. Seriously ? Who on earth does he think he is ? Where are we living ?  

It is entirely legal to demonstrate against this outside his business premises - and let him know directly the consequence of his actions to his business. So, to all of those on this thread with such a lot of chat, how about it ? I personally would turn up (and I am not remotely local) and parade with a placard. You change with things you don't like by using your voice and taking peaceful legal action. Want to make sure it doesn't happen again ? Close his business down. 

Do you hear the people sing ? Walk the walk 


#Rosa Parks / Mahatma Ghandi / Martin Luther King / Nelson Mandela


----------



## cptrayes (21 October 2014)

Goldenstar said:



			Against whoever ordered the destruction of her property , that's not the loaner .
You can't damage people things willy nilly because you have a dispute with a third party .
You can't sell a loan horse to recover a debt because the loaner has not paid so it follows you can't have it shot either .
		
Click to expand...

I wish you were a lawyer and we knew if you were right. Of course you can't sell a horse to recover a debt without following procedure. He wasn't recovering a debt, he was fulfilling his side of a contract with the loaner.


----------



## cptrayes (21 October 2014)

Kathrynn said:



			Can't believe what I am hearing on a horse forum,  why speculate.  Get the facts and then form opinions.  There is a huge campaign to parliament and even the royals to make an example of this idiot who shot the horse.  He isn't mentally sick just sick in the head and the gun should have backfired in his face.  Carried out nothing only brutal Unhumane murder of a horse he had no right to even touch. The cps are also petitioned to charge and impose maximum penalties outside of the sentencing guidelines.
		
Click to expand...

The CPS  do not impose the penalty, Magistrates or a District Judge will, if he is found guilty, and they will, as they should, stick to the sentencing guidelines in order to ensure that we do not go back to the days of mob rule.  That petition is completely pointless.


----------



## NeilM (21 October 2014)

cptrayes said:



			That petition is completely pointless.
		
Click to expand...

Not entirely.

It may be misdirected, but if there is enough of an outpouring of feeling regarding this matter, both for Kit and for any other equine that has suffered a similar fate, then that outpouring alone could be used to raise awareness. Whether any actions ever come of it, and frankly I doubt it, is another (political) matter. But this whole sorry episode does highlight a hole in the existing laws that many kept animals have value to the owner which far exceeds their financial worth.

At the civil level, I would have thought there was a justified claim for compensation, but it needs a solicitor and money in order to pursue a claim, it also requires the person being sued to have money in order to pay any settlement, otherwise you may end up with a victory, but no penalty for the perpetrator.


----------



## cptrayes (21 October 2014)

NeilM said:



			Not entirely.

It may be misdirected, but if there is enough of an outpouring of feeling regarding this matter, both for Kit and for any other equine that has suffered a similar fate, then that outpouring alone could be used to raise awareness. Whether any actions ever come of it, and frankly I doubt it, is another (political) matter. But this whole sorry episode does highlight a hole in the existing laws that many kept animals have value to the owner which far exceeds their financial worth.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, and that is why I have started a proper gov.UK petition which starts after it has been officially approved,  to have the true value of pets and horses recognized in law. That petition will be worth signing, and I will be promoting it as soon as it is live.    I think if it gets 100,000 signatures it has to be presented to 10 Downing Street, so we'll have to work at it.


----------



## NeilM (21 October 2014)

cptrayes said:



			Yes, and that is why I have started a proper gov.UK petition which starts after it has been officially approved to have the true value of pets and horses recognized in law. That petition will be worth signing, and I will be promoting it as soon as it is live.  

Another instant petition to have this man hung drawn and quartered will get us nowhere.
		
Click to expand...

I've seen your other posts about the petition, and I will be signing it as soon as it is live, as I hope will everyone on this forum.

In the meantime, it is good that people feel so angered and outraged by this man's actions, that the are trying any and all means they can to draw it to the attention of the Govt. and it's many departments.


----------



## Smurf's Gran (21 October 2014)

NeilM said:



			I've seen your other posts about the petition, and I will be signing it as soon as it is live, as I hope will everyone on this forum.

In the meantime, it is good that people feel so angered and outraged by this man's actions, that the are trying any and all means they can to draw it to the attention of the Govt. and it's many departments.
		
Click to expand...


I would also be interested in signing - Am I right in thinking that if you post the details (once approved) on this thread all who have posted on here will get an email alert?  Thanks


----------



## cptrayes (21 October 2014)

Smurf's Gran said:



			I would also be interested in signing - Am I right in thinking that if you post the details (once approved) on this thread all who have posted on here will get an email alert?  Thanks
		
Click to expand...

Not unless they have the alert set in their profile. I'll start another thread anyway.  I wish it was quicker, but that's the penalty of using the official one 

This has got to be changed, you can't compare putting a dent in someone car with killing their horse or cat  but that's the law as it stands, money value only.


----------



## Goldenstar (21 October 2014)

cptrayes said:



			I wish you were a lawyer and we knew if you were right. Of course you can't sell a horse to recover a debt without following procedure. He wasn't recovering a debt, he was fulfilling his side of a contract with the loaner.
		
Click to expand...

I say again you cannot make a contract outside the law .
Now we don't know exactly what's happened here but a non payer needs to be served with a eviction notice or a abandonment notice needs to be posted whichever is appropriate.
And it was not the loaners horse the owner of the horse had no contract of any type with the yard owner he had no form of redress for debt using the horse you cannot sell another's property to recover debt from a third party.
People who runs businesses know these things it's part of life having non payers. 
If I was running a yard now I would be very wary of loans and would have a contract that established exactly who the horse belonged to and I would have the contract with them jointly so I could hold them jointly liable for any non payment.


----------



## cptrayes (21 October 2014)

Goldenstar said:



			I say again you cannot make a contract outside the law .
Now we don't know exactly what's happened here but a non payer needs to be served with a eviction notice or a abandonment notice needs to be posted whichever is appropriate.
And it was not the loaners horse the owner of the horse had no contract of any type with the yard owner he had no form of redress for debt using the horse you cannot sell another's property to recover debt from a third party.
People who runs businesses know these things it's part of life having non payers. 
If I was running a yard now I would be very wary of loans and would have a contract that established exactly who the horse belonged to and I would have the contract with them jointly so I could hold them jointly liable for any non payment.
		
Click to expand...

And i say again that i wish you were a lawyer and that he did not shoot the horse in recovery of the debt, so I am not certain that you are right about him having made a contract outside the law. We can go on repeating this discussion all day if you have time GS 

Do we have a lawyer on here who can tell us?


There is a big livery yard near me which will not accept any loan horses on the yard.


----------



## Goldenstar (21 October 2014)

You can think what you like cptrayes it will do me no harm .
You really make me laugh, I disagree with you ,I think you are wrong you can keep posting all you like you think this bloke has broken no laws I can keep saying I don't think you are right .
however I do think it may depend on the resource and energy the owner of the horse has to go after him, however I may be doing the police a disservice there.


----------



## cptrayes (21 October 2014)

Goldenstar said:



			You can think what you like cptrayes it will do me no harm .
You really make me laugh, I disagree with you ,I think you are wrong you can keep posting all you like you think this bloke has broken no laws I can keep saying I don't think you are right .
however I do think it may depend on the resource and energy the owner of the horse has to go after him, however I may be doing the police a disservice there.
		
Click to expand...

I have explicitly stated the laws which I think he has broken, and I am not saying that you are wrong, just that I do not think you are qualified to be as certain as you are about what you are saying.


----------



## Goldenstar (21 October 2014)

cptrayes said:



			I have explicitly stated the laws which I think he has broken, and I am not saying that you are wrong, just that I do not think you are qualified to be as certain as you are about what you are saying.
		
Click to expand...

Thanks very much for telling me what I should think about my opinions .


----------



## cptrayes (21 October 2014)

Goldenstar said:



			Thanks very much for telling me what I should think about my opinions .
		
Click to expand...

You aren't stating them as opinions, you are stating them as fact. That's the problem.


----------



## Goldenstar (21 October 2014)

cptrayes said:



			You aren't stating them as opinions, you are stating them as fact. That's the problem.[/

What's the problem ?
I am not involved in this in any way just a person on a forum stating my view like everybody else 
It's not a problem if people disagree with you you know.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Alec Swan (21 October 2014)

Goldenstar,  you are entirely correct,  everyone is entitled to their opinions,  and strangely,  that will include those who Judge.  'The Law' itself as to what would be clearly black and white,  is a matter of opinion,  and very rarely a matter of fact.  Our opinions are those points which are weighed when judgement is being sort.

What those people did to the owners of that horse was disgraceful. 'To the owners',  you notice.  There is no law to prevent them from shooting a horse.  The shooting of the horse is a civil matter between the Owner or their Agent(the loaner),  and the owner of the livery yard.

It should also be born in mind that though The Law doesn't exist which should prevent the man from doing what he did,  there are most certainly Regulations in place to do with disposal,  (not Law remember,  but Regulations),  and if he's transgressed these,  then THERE may be grounds for the Authorities to act.

My argument certainly isn't in the defence of those who are responsible for the death of the animal,  but rather that a realistic view be taken,  and it is with regret that I say that I would be very surprised if those responsible face any prosecution.  Short of possibly breaching the 'disposal' Regs,  I don't believe that any Law has been broken.  I grant you it's a bummer,  and it would be a travesty of justice if those responsible are charged with nothing,  but it's our tried and tested legal system I'm afraid to say.

Perhaps it's best explained by asking "Is it against the Law,  for one man to kill another"?  Possibly is the answer!

Alec.


----------



## diamonddogs (21 October 2014)

cptrayes said:



			Mmmmmm. You could probably get him on 'behaviour likely to cause harassment alarm or distress', but it still would only be a fairly minor public order offence with not much of a penalty.
		
Click to expand...

And of course, we know her body was still on the lawn the following morning. How many parents taking their children to school had to walk past a dead mare, albeit one concealed by a bloodstained sheet? And just because the penalty would be negligible, is this a reason NOT to prosecute?



Clara Mo 3 said:



			We certainly do....since you were accusing me of starting an unhappy debate....and you were the only one debating it LOL. ;-)
		
Click to expand...

Nobody's having a go at you for raising this issue, it's just that we're on 20 pages now (with my settings, maybe a lot more for other people) and there's several lines of discussion going on, and it's getting a bit confusing to follow all the lines of discussion.



YorksG said:



			Where on earth did this learned discussion on psychopathy/sociopathy emerge? Apart from someone calling a bloke they have never met a psycopath?
		
Click to expand...

That was me, I think, but I didn't call anyone a psychopath (maybe someone else did, but I'm guilty for posting the list), just dropped something into the mix.




			I doubt you have met a real social psychopath...
		
Click to expand...

I wouldn't know, since they don't all go around with machetes down their trousers and a Hannibal Lecter mask on. Most function on the same level as the next person and might never display any violent tendencies whatsoever.



Bestdogdash said:



			I personally can't get away from, whatever the rights and wrongs of both sides of the arguments, that this person loaded a dead/dying horse in a JCB bucket and dumped it in the front garden of a suburban street. Seriously ? Who on earth does he think he is ? Where are we living ?
		
Click to expand...

Agree 100%




			Do you hear the people sing ? Walk the walk
		
Click to expand...

A good idea, but not practical for most people, specially at a point in the year when everyone's horses are starting to take up a lot more of their time, and it's not always possible to take a day off to attend a demo.

And personally, I don't fancy my chances against someone with a cabinet full of guns who's not afraid to use them.

Which brings me back to something I've been banging on about all along - they can surely have him on firearms offences? It's all getting a bit confusing but I'm sure I read that he used a pistol on Kit, not a humane killer, so an offence *must* have been committed?


----------



## Alec Swan (21 October 2014)

diamonddogs said:



			&#8230;&#8230;..

Which brings me back to something I've been banging on about all along - they can surely have him on firearms offences? It's all getting a bit confusing but I'm sure I read that he used a pistol on Kit, not a humane killer, so an offence *must* have been committed?
		
Click to expand...

Not so.  The free bullet is the preferred method of destroying a horse by most of those who are well enough practised,  and the captive bolt pistol carries a set of risks which would prevent most from taking that choice.  Providing that the weapon used was registered to the user,  and they had the authority to hold such a weapon,  then no offence has been committed.

Alec.

ps.  Love the Sig by the way!!


----------



## diamonddogs (21 October 2014)

Alec Swan said:



			Not so.  The free bullet is the preferred method of destroying a horse by most of those who are well enough practised,  and the captive bolt pistol carries a set of risks which would prevent most from taking that choice.  Providing that the weapon used was registered to the user,  and they had the authority to hold such a weapon,  then no offence has been committed.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

****** 




			ps.  Love the Sig by the way!! 

Click to expand...


----------



## Goldenstar (21 October 2014)

I would only allow a free bullet to be used on my horses , I do think it's the 'best' way.


----------



## Clara Mo 3 (21 October 2014)

And of course it wasn't the YO who shot Kit, it was a man licensed (as far as I am aware because I nearly had to call upon him myself) to dispatch horses who was called upon to do the evil deed.  I don't believe anywhere has suggested that the YO is dangerous per se nor has it been suggested that he has a cabinet full of guns - illegally held or not !


----------



## diamonddogs (21 October 2014)

Clara Mo 3 said:



			... nor has it been suggested that he has a cabinet full of guns - illegally held or not !
		
Click to expand...

I'd be more surprised if he *hadn't* actually - most farming people I know have, and I bet there's one or two guns in their cabinets that aren't strictly kosher as well!


----------



## Clara Mo 3 (21 October 2014)

diamonddogs said:



			I'd be more surprised if he *hadn't* actually - most farming people I know have, and I bet there's one or two guns in their cabinets that aren't strictly kosher as well!
		
Click to expand...

That's as maybe, however it wasn't he who shot the horse and it hasn't been reported anywhere that he has a cabinet full of guns - just more speculation.  I know plenty of farming people who don't have guns, so being a (ex) farmer doesn't necessarily equate to having guns.


----------



## diamonddogs (21 October 2014)

More assumption than speculation actually.

Ho hum...


----------



## Clara Mo 3 (21 October 2014)

diamonddogs said:



			More assumption than speculation actually.

Ho hum...
		
Click to expand...

Whatever...if it is legal to shoot a horse in an "emergency" it would have been quicker to have got a gun out of his cabinet half a mile away from the field to do the job rather than ring another man to drive a few miles and do it.  Anyhow, its pretty irrelevant whether he does or does't but I wanted to put right the statement that alluded to him having shot the horse, he didn't physically do it, he or his son ordered it to be done.


----------



## Dry Rot (21 October 2014)

If it was my horse, I would be casting around for a solicitor to handle this one pro bono (that's for free). It is a major public interest case and they will sometimes do it for nothing for the public relations value. 

There are also possible prosecutions under a raft of relatively minor rules and regulations. Did he have a waste carrier's licence (sorry!)? Did he comply with the strict regulations on the transport of animal by products? There's a maximum £5,000 fine under the waste carriers regulations for a start.

Is it possible to sue for "pain and suffering"? The owner/loaner has been deprived of the use of the horse and although it may not have a huge financial value in real terms, it will cost to replace. Courts can impose punitive damages.

I would have thought a smart lawyer with a sharp pen could make things very interesting for the YO.


----------



## Orangehorse (21 October 2014)

Dry Rot said:



			If it was my horse, I would be casting around for a solicitor to handle this one pro bono (that's for free). It is a major public interest case and they will sometimes do it for nothing for the public relations value. 

There are also possible prosecutions under a raft of relatively minor rules and regulations. Did he have a waste carrier's licence (sorry!)? Did he comply with the strict regulations on the transport of animal by products? There's a maximum £5,000 fine under the waste carriers regulations for a start.

Is it possible to sue for "pain and suffering"? The owner/loaner has been deprived of the use of the horse and although it may not have a huge financial value in real terms, it will cost to replace. Courts can impose punitive damages.

I would have thought a smart lawyer with a sharp pen could make things very interesting for the YO.
		
Click to expand...

I hope so.  Surely the only person to allow a horse to be killed in a non emergency is the owner.  
I think the best course of action would be the above rules and regulations - environment department at the local Council, 
DEFRA.
What was he thinking of?


----------



## cptrayes (21 October 2014)

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/71053


Please sign this one and spread it as wide as you can. Will someone also quote this post so that the people who have me on use ignore will see it, we need as many signatures as we can get, to get this officially presented to the government.   THANKS 

....


----------



## NeilM (21 October 2014)

cptrayes said:



http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/71053


Please sign this one and spread it as wide as you can. Will someone also quote this post so that the people who have me on use ignore will see it, we need as many signatures as we can get, to get this officially presented to the government.   THANKS 

....
		
Click to expand...

DONE


----------



## luckyoldme (21 October 2014)

im sure i read that the yo was issuing a statement yesterday..did they do that?


----------



## cobgoblin (21 October 2014)

luckyoldme said:



			im sure i read that the yo was issuing a statement yesterday..did they do that?
		
Click to expand...

I think the police were supposed to issue a statement yesterday but as far as I know it hasn't happened.


----------



## brucea (21 October 2014)

Done

Who would possibly have you on user ignore C!


----------



## Clara Mo 3 (21 October 2014)

cptrayes said:



http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/71053


Please sign this one and spread it as wide as you can. Will someone also quote this post so that the people who have me on use ignore will see it, we need as many signatures as we can get, to get this officially presented to the government.   THANKS 

....
		
Click to expand...

Signed...Can you get it on VANAH facebook page for more signatures ?


----------



## LinzyD (21 October 2014)

This poor horse has been catastrophically let down by humans.  We are all shocked and outraged by the killing and dumping of the horse, and notwithstanding all the ramifications of that, I think the whole episode is a morality tale in the potential outcomes for race horses that leave training and for other horses that can no longer do their job and get moved on to face an uncertain future.  

IMO, the owner let the horse down by loaning it to someone who seems not to have the means, the wherewithal and the capability to look after it.  Watch the video interview and read the posts of the loaner and ask yourself if you would entrust your treasured horse to this person's care?  

Then it seems that the loaner let the horse down by not attending to it sufficiently and not ensuring that the very small sum of £10 a week was properly paid.  I'm not saying that it therefore means the outcome was justified, but simply that if the matter of £10 a week is a problem, whether because you can't afford it, or because you just didn't get round to it, then you are not meeting your responsibilities towards the horse.

Then the YO and his son fatally let the horse down by doing whatever it was that led to the horse being shot.  

Perhaps after all the horse is better off dead than passed off to an unsuitable loaner by owners who don't want it and then left in an unpaid for field at the hands of people who are brutal and unhinged.  There are worse things for a horse to be than dead.  As horse lovers our sensibilities are outraged and offended by the idea, or the sight if we have looked at the photos, of the dead horse in the garden, but really there are far worse situations going on right now for living horses who are unwanted and uncared for.


----------



## Red-1 (21 October 2014)

cptrayes said:



http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/71053


Please sign this one and spread it as wide as you can. Will someone also quote this post so that the people who have me on use ignore will see it, we need as many signatures as we can get, to get this officially presented to the government.   THANKS 

....
		
Click to expand...

Done. Well put


----------



## Alec Swan (21 October 2014)

cpt,  as fond of you as I am,  and equally as fond of my animals,  attaching a tenable value to emotion is never going to happen.  

Will the itinerant and travelling person,  having one of his highly prised and valued horses,  dealt a deathly blow,  be able to have the animals perceived value enhanced via his own claimed attachment?  

OK,  so it won't apply to those who are hardly deserving.  Who's to decide who they are?

Your petition is one of lunacy,  I'm sorry but it is,  and you of all people will realise that Court time can't be taken up with such decisions.

It's madness.

Alec.


----------



## Onward Bound (21 October 2014)

LinzyD said:



			This poor horse has been catastrophically let down by humans.  We are all shocked and outraged by the killing and dumping of the horse, and notwithstanding all the ramifications of that, I think the whole episode is a morality tale in the potential outcomes for race horses that leave training and for other horses that can no longer do their job and get moved on to face an uncertain future.  

IMO, the owner let the horse down by loaning it to someone who seems not to have the means, the wherewithal and the capability to look after it.  Watch the video interview and read the posts of the loaner and ask yourself if you would entrust your treasured horse to this person's care?  

Then it seems that the loaner let the horse down by not attending to it sufficiently and not ensuring that the very small sum of £10 a week was properly paid.  I'm not saying that it therefore means the outcome was justified, but simply that if the matter of £10 a week is a problem, whether because you can't afford it, or because you just didn't get round to it, then you are not meeting your responsibilities towards the horse.

Then the YO and his son fatally let the horse down by doing whatever it was that led to the horse being shot.  

Perhaps after all the horse is better off dead than passed off to an unsuitable loaner by owners who don't want it and then left in an unpaid for field at the hands of people who are brutal and unhinged.  There are worse things for a horse to be than dead.  As horse lovers our sensibilities are outraged and offended by the idea, or the sight if we have looked at the photos, of the dead horse in the garden, but really there are far worse situations going on right now for living horses who are unwanted and uncared for.
		
Click to expand...

I totally agree linzyD the loaner didn't come across very well when TV interviewed her on the day of Kit's death, she showed very little emotion and I have seen pictures posted of her with the blood stained sheet.  Not sure many of us owners would have been able to appear on TV or pose in such circumstances and if she had paid the £30 and stuck to the livery agreement the horse would still be alive.


----------



## teamgossip (21 October 2014)

Originally Posted by LinzyD  
This poor horse has been catastrophically let down by humans. We are all shocked and outraged by the killing and dumping of the horse, and notwithstanding all the ramifications of that, I think the whole episode is a morality tale in the potential outcomes for race horses that leave training and for other horses that can no longer do their job and get moved on to face an uncertain future. 

IMO, the owner let the horse down by loaning it to someone who seems not to have the means, the wherewithal and the capability to look after it. Watch the video interview and read the posts of the loaner and ask yourself if you would entrust your treasured horse to this person's care? 

Then it seems that the loaner let the horse down by not attending to it sufficiently and not ensuring that the very small sum of £10 a week was properly paid. I'm not saying that it therefore means the outcome was justified, but simply that if the matter of £10 a week is a problem, whether because you can't afford it, or because you just didn't get round to it, then you are not meeting your responsibilities towards the horse.

Then the YO and his son fatally let the horse down by doing whatever it was that led to the horse being shot. 

Perhaps after all the horse is better off dead than passed off to an unsuitable loaner by owners who don't want it and then left in an unpaid for field at the hands of people who are brutal and unhinged. There are worse things for a horse to be than dead. As horse lovers our sensibilities are outraged and offended by the idea, or the sight if we have looked at the photos, of the dead horse in the garden, but really there are far worse situations going on right now for living horses who are unwanted and uncared for.

Couldn't agree more with you!!!


----------



## brucea (21 October 2014)

Alec Swan said:



			cpt,  as fond of you as I am,  and equally as fond of my animals,  attaching a tenable value to emotion is never going to happen.  

Will the itinerant and travelling person,  having one of his highly prised and valued horses,  dealt a deathly blow,  be able to have the animals perceived value enhanced via his own claimed attachment?  

OK,  so it won't apply to those who are hardly deserving.  Who's to decide who they are?

Your petition is one of lunacy,  I'm sorry but it is,  and you of all people will realise that Court time can't be taken up with such decisions.

It's madness.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

I signed because I agree with the intent - however I also agree with you Alec that it should have better been worded to include the amount of investment in education and training that has been made in that animal. It may not increase its market worth but it increases it's worth to the owner.

However I don't have an "emotional investment" with my car door, I do with my horse, cats and children. The law fails to recognise this at the moment


----------



## brucea (21 October 2014)

LinzyD said:



			This poor horse has been catastrophically let down by humans.  We are all shocked and outraged by the killing and dumping of the horse, and notwithstanding all the ramifications of that, I think the whole episode is a morality tale in the potential outcomes for race horses that leave training and for other horses that can no longer do their job and get moved on to face an uncertain future.  

IMO, the owner let the horse down by loaning it to someone who seems not to have the means, the wherewithal and the capability to look after it.  Watch the video interview and read the posts of the loaner and ask yourself if you would entrust your treasured horse to this person's care?  

Then it seems that the loaner let the horse down by not attending to it sufficiently and not ensuring that the very small sum of £10 a week was properly paid.  I'm not saying that it therefore means the outcome was justified, but simply that if the matter of £10 a week is a problem, whether because you can't afford it, or because you just didn't get round to it, then you are not meeting your responsibilities towards the horse.

Then the YO and his son fatally let the horse down by doing whatever it was that led to the horse being shot.  

Perhaps after all the horse is better off dead than passed off to an unsuitable loaner by owners who don't want it and then left in an unpaid for field at the hands of people who are brutal and unhinged.  There are worse things for a horse to be than dead.  As horse lovers our sensibilities are outraged and offended by the idea, or the sight if we have looked at the photos, of the dead horse in the garden, but really there are far worse situations going on right now for living horses who are unwanted and uncared for.
		
Click to expand...

It's hard to find much to argue with in this post.


----------



## merrymeasure (21 October 2014)

cptrayes said:



http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/71053


Please sign this one and spread it as wide as you can. Will someone also quote this post so that the people who have me on use ignore will see it, we need as many signatures as we can get, to get this officially presented to the government.   THANKS 

....
		
Click to expand...

  Signed


----------



## cptrayes (21 October 2014)

brucea said:



			I signed because I agree with the intent - however I also agree with you Alec that it should have better been worded to include the amount of investment in education and training that has been made in that animal. It may not increase its market worth but it increases it's worth to the owner.

However I don't have an "emotional investment" with my car door, I do with my horse, cats and children. The law fails to recognise this at the moment
		
Click to expand...



You only have a certain number of words and you have to make a point. I'm beginning to wish I'd never bothered.


----------



## cptrayes (21 October 2014)

Alec Swan said:



			cpt,  as fond of you as I am,  and equally as fond of my animals,  attaching a tenable value to emotion is never going to happen.  

Will the itinerant and travelling person,  having one of his highly prised and valued horses,  dealt a deathly blow,  be able to have the animals perceived value enhanced via his own claimed attachment?  

OK,  so it won't apply to those who are hardly deserving.  Who's to decide who they are?

Your petition is one of lunacy,  I'm sorry but it is,  and you of all people will realise that Court time can't be taken up with such decisions.

It's madness.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

As if courts don't make value judgements all the time about how badly people have been affected by crimes committed against them Alec.  This is no different. It's just asking for criminal damage of a cat worth ten quid to be given a higher penalty than smashing a ten quid vase. Those kind of judgements are made in courts up and down the country every day.


----------



## Dry Rot (21 October 2014)

cptrayes said:



			As if courts don't make value judgements all the time about how badly people have been affected by crimes committed against them Alec.  This is no different. It's just asking for criminal damage of a cat worth ten quid to be given a higher penalty than smashing a ten quid vase. Those kind of judgements are made in courts up and down the country every day.
		
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain_and_suffering

So, mental anguish? I agree, btw!


----------



## Starbuck (21 October 2014)

signed and thanks for setting it up cpt.


----------



## Mrs. Jingle (21 October 2014)

Done and shared on Facebook.


----------



## cptrayes (21 October 2014)

Thank you.


----------



## JCW (21 October 2014)

Signed and shared on facebook.  Thanks for setting this petition up.


----------



## brucea (21 October 2014)

cptrayes said:



			You only have a certain number of words and you have to make a point. I'm beginning to wish I'd never bothered.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry CP - I was trying to make a point about the value reflecting investment, and worded it badly. I didn't mean to criticise.


----------



## cptrayes (21 October 2014)

brucea said:



			Sorry CP - I was trying to make a point about the value reflecting investment, and worded it badly. I didn't mean to criticise.
		
Click to expand...


No problem, thanks Bruce


----------



## Illusion100 (21 October 2014)

Signed and shared on fb.

The wording/spelling/particular point of petitions are not what should be under scrutiny but rather the ability under Law to kill an animal that is not your own in a vindictive manner and suffer no consequence.


----------



## Judgemental (21 October 2014)

I don't recall seeing so many replies or views 112,000 + to a thread on this Forum.

It serves to make all Livery Yard owners clearly aware of their responsibilities and that the owner/lessee of the horse is the CUSTOMER and under all trading standards the number of Statutes that have been breached are astonishing.

In my opinion the owner/lessee of the horse may be successful in a Civil Action for mega damages.

I hear you say, "how much" depends on the stress, distress, humiliation and mental anguish that can be proved and evidenced but a Civil Court might want to make an example of the Livery Yard owner.

I dare say a whole posse of lawyers are lining up to do a 'no win no fee' piece of litigation.


----------



## Liz H (21 October 2014)

Judgemental said:



			I don't recall seeing so many replies or views 112,000 + to a thread on this Forum.

It serves to make all Livery Yard owners clearly aware of their responsibilities and that the owner/lessee of the horse is the CUSTOMER and under all trading standards the number of Statutes that have been breached are astonishing.

In my opinion the owner/lessee of the horse may be successful in a Civil Action for mega damages.

I hear you say, "how much" depends on the stress, distress, humiliation and mental anguish that can be proved and evidenced but a Civil Court might want to make an example of the Livery Yard owner.

I dare say a whole posse of lawyers are lining up to do a 'no win no fee' piece of litigation.
		
Click to expand...

As much as I dislike the ambulance chasing sue them nation we appear to have become , in this instance I hope so!


----------



## Clara Mo 3 (21 October 2014)

Judgemental said:



			I don't recall seeing so many replies or views 112,000 + to a thread on this Forum.

It serves to make all Livery Yard owners clearly aware of their responsibilities and that the owner/lessee of the horse is the CUSTOMER and under all trading standards the number of Statutes that have been breached are astonishing.

In my opinion the owner/lessee of the horse may be successful in a Civil Action for mega damages.

I hear you say, "how much" depends on the stress, distress, humiliation and mental anguish that can be proved and evidenced but a Civil Court might want to make an example of the Livery Yard owner.

I dare say a whole posse of lawyers are lining up to do a 'no win no fee' piece of litigation.
		
Click to expand...

Oh I truly hope so !


----------



## brucea (22 October 2014)

The words "customer" and "livery yard" in my experience are often mutually exclusive.


----------



## Dry Rot (22 October 2014)

Just found this with Google. The case, although in the USA, was also cited in the UK's Daily Mail as being a landmark case and is definitely relevant to this thread. Some interesting observations by the court and the experts.

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/stat...wners-cant-sue-for-pets-sentimental-value.ece


----------



## MerrySherryRider (22 October 2014)

If the law regards animals (pets) as property and having little or no monetary value, I wonder if an owner could bring a case for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.


----------



## fburton (22 October 2014)

I did suggest something like that earlier, MSR, but there weren't any takers.


----------



## Dry Rot (22 October 2014)

MerrySherryRider said:



			If the law regards animals (pets) as property and having little or no monetary value, I wonder if an owner could bring a case for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, I like that one. For those interested in a further explanation, try here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intent...motional_distress#Intentional_or_reckless_act


----------



## catembi (22 October 2014)

I signed too.   I laid awake for a bit last night thinking about this poor, poor horse & feeling so sorry for her.  Such a shame that there is absolutely nothing that any of us can do to bring her back :-((  But maybe this whole thing will stop it happening to another horse.

T x


----------



## MerrySherryRider (22 October 2014)

fburton said:



			I did suggest something like that earlier, MSR, but there weren't any takers.
		
Click to expand...

Ooops, sorry, missed that,fb.


----------



## fburton (22 October 2014)

MerrySherryRider said:



			Ooops, sorry, missed that,fb.
		
Click to expand...

Just as well you brought it up again, MSR.


----------



## candyflosspot (22 October 2014)

cptrayes said:



http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/71053


Please sign this one and spread it as wide as you can. Will someone also quote this post so that the people who have me on use ignore will see it, we need as many signatures as we can get, to get this officially presented to the government.   THANKS 

....
		
Click to expand...

i have signed, and also shared.


----------



## LinzyD (22 October 2014)

Is someone who uses services that they haven't paid for technically a customer though, or are they something other than a customer???  And if the provider of those services has voided the contract, whether verbally or in writing, by requesting the former customer to desist from using those services, does the 'customer' have any recourse to TS legislation....?

I suspect the YO is going to cite Health and Safety legislation, judging by what he has said to the press, and as we all know, that seems to trump absolutely everything.


----------



## brucea (25 October 2014)

Is it known if the other liveries have left this centre or not yet?


----------



## Overread (25 October 2014)

brucea said:



			Is it known if the other liveries have left this centre or not yet?
		
Click to expand...

I think its been mentioned that some other Liveries have left the site and that the RSPCA has left as well - or was planning too. Understandably there was some lag-time between the event and people moving out (since we assume the horses were relatively safe so long as they didn't have any debt owed).
I think some in the thread reported that as they went by the site there were distinctly less horses present.


----------



## Clara Mo 3 (25 October 2014)

Overread said:



			I think its been mentioned that some other Liveries have left the site and that the RSPCA has left as well - or was planning too. Understandably there was some lag-time between the event and people moving out (since we assume the horses were relatively safe so long as they didn't have any debt owed).
I think some in the thread reported that as they went by the site there were distinctly less horses present.
		
Click to expand...

That was me, there were fewer in the fields - but I think the RSPCA horses had gone by then.  My understanding from another source is that only one or two liveries (rather than field dwelling horses) have left - I wouldn't want mine to remain there, debt or no debt !  There were lots of offers of help, and I could do with someone coming to where my pony is kept too but it seems like not many folk have taken up these offers.


----------



## Smurf's Gran (25 October 2014)

candyflosspot said:



			i have signed, and also shared.
		
Click to expand...

signed


----------



## Goldenstar (25 October 2014)

Judgemental said:



			I don't recall seeing so many replies or views 112,000 + to a thread on this Forum.

It serves to make all Livery Yard owners clearly aware of their responsibilities and that the owner/lessee of the horse is the CUSTOMER and under all trading standards the number of Statutes that have been breached are astonishing.

In my opinion the owner/lessee of the horse may be successful in a Civil Action for mega damages.

I hear you say, "how much" depends on the stress, distress, humiliation and mental anguish that can be proved and evidenced but a Civil Court might want to make an example of the Livery Yard owner.

I dare say a whole posse of lawyers are lining up to do a 'no win no fee' piece of litigation.
		
Click to expand...

I have no doult  that that owner of the horse will have no difficulty in getting a good high profile equine lawyer to help them .


----------



## cptrayes (25 October 2014)

Goldenstar said:



			I have no doult  that that owner of the horse will have no difficulty in getting a good high profile equine lawyer to help them .
		
Click to expand...

I doubt they'll do it for free. We don't have punitive damages in this country, I don't think, and the value of the horse is pretty low.  There just won't be enough money to justify no win no fee. That's why I did the petition.


----------



## Alec Swan (25 October 2014)

cptrayes said:



			I doubt they'll do it for free. We don't have punitive damages in this country, I don't think, and the value of the horse is pretty low.  There just won't be enough money to justify no win no fee. That's why I did the petition.
		
Click to expand...

I'd need convincing of that.  Your suggestion was that there was an apparent 'enhanced' value to be had from the supposed emotional value of the animal and that those who reach a decision as to value,  could be persuaded.  

I'm very fond of my car,  in fact I love the bloody thing,  but would any claim accept my point whilst I asked for yet more money,  money I would add which would help me cope with the distress of a wrecked car or a 'murdered' horse?

Is there a value to be attached (fiscally that is),  to the fact we've been deprived of an item,  and its use?  Consider this;

My horse is killed by another,  and at a public auction,  the animal would be considered to be worth £10k.  The horse concerned is a valuable broodmare,  I've never set eyes on it and it's in the care of others.

Add to the last sentence the fact that my £10k horse was the apple of my eye and I adored it and 'Not even £20k will pacify my distress and broken heart'.  

Do you honestly expect,  cpt,  a Court to be able to attache an 'emotional' value to a horse,  or anything else for that matter?  Should the above and claimed £20k not be elevated to £200k  or £2 Million,  and that being dependent upon the tears that are shed?

Who would you have as an 'adjuster'? 

Alec.


----------



## Illusion100 (26 October 2014)

Alec Swan said:



			I'd need convincing of that.  Your suggestion was that there was an apparent 'enhanced' value to be had from the supposed emotional value of the animal and that those who reach a decision as to value,  could be persuaded.  

I'm very fond of my car,  in fact I love the bloody thing,  but would any claim accept my point whilst I asked for yet more money,  money I would add which would help me cope with the distress of a wrecked car or a 'murdered' horse?

Is there a value to be attached (fiscally that is),  to the fact we've been deprived of an item,  and its use?  Consider this;

My horse is killed by another,  and at a public auction,  the animal would be considered to be worth £10k.  The horse concerned is a valuable broodmare,  I've never set eyes on it and it's in the care of others.

Add to the last sentence the fact that my £10k horse was the apple of my eye and I adored it and 'Not even £20k will pacify my distress and broken heart'.  

Do you honestly expect,  cpt,  a Court to be able to attache an 'emotional' value to a horse,  or anything else for that matter?  Should the above and claimed £20k not be elevated to £200k  or £2 Million,  and that being dependent upon the tears that are shed?

Who would you have as an 'adjuster'? 

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

I think what cpt 'expects' is for people to be subjected to punishment when they kill other peoples animals in an unjustified manner.

This horse was on a property housing over 100 RSPCA horses. It was claimed this horse was neglected by being unrugged, nobody paying for upkeep, blah blah. Instead of using the RSPCA officer on site to take the horse under their care and lead it from one end of the property to another, they shot it and dumped its carcass in a garden. 

The owner should be compensated the estimated current market value. The 'murderers' should be punished for this horrific act and if a Judge decided to award 'emotional' compensation to the owner/loaner/both, well that's up to the Judge isn't it?


----------



## cptrayes (26 October 2014)

Alec Swan said:



			Do you honestly expect,  cpt,  a Court to be able to attache an 'emotional' value to a horse,  or anything else for that matter?

Alec.
		
Click to expand...


Would you like to explain why you think this is so impossible when courts happily put a value on libel?

Honestly Alec, you'd think I was suggesting the impossible.  All I'm asking for is for someone who criminally shoots a horse or steals your dog to be given a higher penalty, and pays higher compensation, than someone who steals your bike or breaks your window. It really isn't rocket science!


----------



## NeilM (26 October 2014)

This idea is really not so different from courts deciding levels of compensation for 'pain and suffering'. Someone with a broken finger will receive less than someone (like me) who had a leg broken and and is left with a permanent disability.

So, someone who has had a dog a week or two would receive a different level of compensation to someone who has invested five years work, into a working or show dog.


----------



## Froddy (26 October 2014)

cptrayes said:



			Would you like to explain why you think this is so impossible when courts happily put a value on libel?

Honestly Alec, you'd think I was suggesting the impossible.  All I'm asking for is for someone who criminally shoots a horse or steals your dog to be given a higher penalty, and pays higher compensation, than someone who steals your bike or breaks your window. It really isn't rocket science!
		
Click to expand...

If there was a "like" button on here this post would get a click from me.


----------



## Goldenstar (26 October 2014)

cptrayes said:



			I doubt they'll do it for free. We don't have punitive damages in this country, I don't think, and the value of the horse is pretty low.  There just won't be enough money to justify no win no fee. That's why I did the petition.
		
Click to expand...

Some lawyers love a high profile case the owner just has to find one .
If that's the route the owner wants to take it's not going to expensive to prosecute the facts from the owners side are simple not a lot of work for someone who knows their way round this sort of law .
Of the course the owner may decide the horse is dead there's nothing can be done about that and they want to move on and forget the whole sorry affair I could understand that .


----------



## cptrayes (26 October 2014)

Goldenstar said:



			Some lawyers love a high profile case the owner just has to find one .
		
Click to expand...


How high profile would it be to win 500 compensation, if that since that's not a popular size and more marketable ones are being given away for free,  for the loss of a 16.3 ex chaser used for light hacking?

That's why I think we need new law. It SHOULD be high profile, but I don't think it will


----------



## Dry Rot (26 October 2014)

cptrayes said:



			Would you like to explain why you think this is so impossible when courts happily put a value on libel?

Honestly Alec, you'd think I was suggesting the impossible.  All I'm asking for is for someone who criminally shoots a horse or steals your dog to be given a higher penalty, and pays higher compensation, than someone who steals your bike or breaks your window. It really isn't rocket science!
		
Click to expand...

I do not understand why the owner of the horse that is criminally killed does not simply wait until the criminal action is over and then brings an action in the civil courts to recover (a) the value of the animal, and (b) further compensation for their pain/suffering/loss of use/emotional distress/etc.? Are you saying that, as the law stands, this cannot be done?


----------



## cptrayes (26 October 2014)

Dry Rot said:



			I do not understand why the owner of the horse that is criminally killed does not simply wait until the criminal action is over and then brings an action in the civil courts to recover (a) the value of the animal, and (b) further compensation for their pain/suffering/loss of use/emotional distress/etc.? Are you saying that, as the law stands, this cannot be done?
		
Click to expand...

There are two issues here DR.  The first is that the penalty for criminal damage of a low value horse is pathetic.

The second is that I don't think we have punitive damages in this country, though that could have changed since 1985 when I was told I could not sue someone for the upset they caused me by failing to spot a problem on a vetting , and the compensation she would be able to claim would be only the value of the horse.


----------



## Dry Rot (26 October 2014)

cptrayes said:



			There are two issues here DR.  The first is that the penalty for criminal damage of a low value horse is pathetic.

The second is that I don't think we have punitive damages in this country, though that could have changed since 1985 when I was told I could not sue someone for the upset they caused me by failing to spot a problem on a vetting , and the compensation she would be able to claim would be only the value of the horse.
		
Click to expand...

It's been a long time but I seem to remember that there is a law of torts and it is possible to sue in the civil courts for just the damages you suggest. 

But why the insistence that there should be punitive damages under criminal law? Is Mr Bloggs going to be punished any more severely in the criminal courts for hitting my uncle Percy over the head with a shovel because I happened to be rather fond of uncle Percy and will the punitive damages be reduced if I can't stand the sight of him? Of course not! And what is the situation if I like my uncle but my sister does not? Percy, bless his heart, is uncle to us both!

Why should it be any different for a horse? It is quite possible to have joint ownership of a horse. Are you seriously suggesting that a horse is more valuable, in emotional terms, than my uncle Percy? I am shocked to the core!

I'm afraid I am not following your logic.

The problem with the vet is that you pay for an opinion. If you ask the wrong person for an opinion and you don't like what you hear, the solution is obvious. Don't ask them again! Your judgement has played a major part and you must accept responsibility for that. But, I hear you say, you expect certain standards from a qualified veterinary surgeon. True, but it is still an opinion. On the other hand, if you can prove negligence, you can surely sue under the law of tort for your pain and suffering and the loss of use of your horse, it's commercial value, plus all reasonable costs in purchasing the replacement. Is it possible the legal advice you got was not factually correct, but possibly correct in practice? In other words, you can indeed sue, but don't bother because it isn't going to be worth it?


----------



## cptrayes (26 October 2014)

I don't know how many times I'm going to have to repeat this, but here we go again 


The law latest covers death of a human and I'll treatment of an animal.

What it does not adequately cover is illegally but humanely killing an animal or stealing an animal, both of which are punished and compensated as if they are property with nothing but a monetary value.

And since a dog or horse can easily have nil monetary value, I believe that the law needs changing in order for justice to be done.


----------



## Dry Rot (26 October 2014)

cptrayes said:



			I don't know how many times I'm going to have to repeat this, but here we go again 


The law latest covers death of a human and I'll treatment of an animal.

What it does not adequately cover is illegally but humanely killing an animal or stealing an animal, both of which are punished and compensated as if they are property with nothing but a monetary value.

And since a dog or horse can easily have nil monetary value, I believe that the law needs changing in order for justice to be done.
		
Click to expand...

I don't know how many times I have to repeat this question either, but why cannot the owner simply raise a civil suit after the law has prosecuted for the criminal act? Surely, the question is not that difficult to understand?

Would uncle Percy in my example above have a monetary value??


----------



## cptrayes (26 October 2014)

Dry Rot said:



			I don't know how many times I have to repeat this question either, but why cannot the owner simply raise a civil suit after the law has prosecuted for the criminal act? Surely, the question is not that difficult to understand?

Would uncle Percy in my example above have a monetary value??
		
Click to expand...

DR, my petition is about animals.

If you want to be able to claim punitive damages if someone kills your Uncle Percy, then you can campaign to have that made legal.

Meanwhile, a more relevant question, I think, is to ask whether, if someone kills your Uncle Percy,  you would be happy to see his killer charged with Criminal Damage of low value and given a small  fine. Because that's what is happening with killed and stolen animals.


----------



## Clara Mo 3 (26 October 2014)

Just seen this:

Statement by GG centre 26/10/14 
About Us
The GG Centre opened 11 years ago and operates as an equestrian centre offering DIY livery, horse grazing and riding.
It is not the policy of the GG Centre to put down a horse unless there is a requirement to do so. In the event that there is a requirement for a horse to be put down, a licensed operator is used in order to do so in a humane way.
The GG Centre does not own any guns, nor does it hold a licence for any guns.
The GG Centre does not engage in, or approve of, blood sports. We do control vermin ie rats and mice.
Statement of Fact
On 27th September 2014 a horse was left in a horse grazing paddock at the GG Centre by its keeper. For the following few weeks the keeper did not attend to the horse and ignored all attempts to contact her. Therefore, the horse had been abandoned by its keeper.
On 15th October 2014 the GG Centre decided to return the horse to its keeper and tie it up in the keeper&#8217;s garden.
On approaching the horse it became uncontrollable and dangerous. Therefore, in order to ensure the safety of the general public, after careful consideration the difficult decision was made to arrange for the horse to be put down humanely. The GG Centre contacted the licensed operator, who attended the paddock and put down the horse.
The horse was then returned to its keeper:
a. so that she could choose how to dispose of it, as is her right and;
b. to comply with the Animal By Products (Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2013 by avoiding any wildlife, ie foxes, having access to it.

Personal Statement of the GG Centre
This unfortunate event has been deeply upsetting and distressing for all concerned. We want to concentrate on what we do best, which is providing equestrian facilities to people to come and enjoy themselves.


----------



## Amymay (26 October 2014)

Well, that's a crock!


----------



## bonny (26 October 2014)

I wonder if they read through their statement and thought it sounded reasonable ?


----------



## be positive (26 October 2014)

So they are now claiming it was abandoned, not pts due to unpaid debt, I cannot believe they went about issuing an abandonment notice legally before trying to remove it from the field.
It was supposedly dangerous when approached, therefore considered a danger to the "general public" who presumably have no reason the enter a private field.
This dangerous horse was then caught and shot, in the field where it was considered uncontrollable earlier.

It was then returned to its keeper, why could they not have gone round to the house before shooting it, it was easy enough to take the body round there, it would have been simple enough to go round first with the abandonment notice rather than take the body.

I hope people remember this when they are looking for livery in the area, I would not want to give any of my hard earned money to someone who can treat a horse in this way, however they try and justify it, being left unattended for 3 weeks is not ideal but the loaner may have been going up at odd times and not seen if she knew she owed money it would make sense that she went in quietly an possibly unseen.


----------



## Sandstone1 (26 October 2014)

If it was dangerous and uncontrollable, how on earth did they manage to put it down humanely?


----------



## Clara Mo 3 (26 October 2014)

Liars need to have good, nay, fantastic, memories.  Let's hope he has an amazing memory.  I wouldn't have put this in the public if I was him, there are too many inaccuracies in the "statement" and its difficult to back out of now and change his story.  And what on earth have blood sports got to do with the event ???  And vermin control ??  And guns ??

And since his house is 3/4 mile away and round a couple of corners how does he know she wasn't going to see the horse ??  I have heard some drivel in my time but this beats it all....


----------



## cobgoblin (26 October 2014)

If the horse was abandoned how did they know who owned it and where she lived?
If the horse was abandoned why didn't they serve an abandonment notice?
If the horse was abandoned, what's all this about an unpaid livery bill?

I hope his pants are on fire!


----------



## Spring Feather (26 October 2014)

Ooh what a silly thing for them to do.  But then they do sound like silly people.


----------



## Dry Rot (26 October 2014)

cptrayes said:



			DR, my petition is about animals.

If you want to be able to claim punitive damages if someone kills your Uncle Percy, then you can campaign to have that made legal.

Meanwhile, a more relevant question, I think, is to ask whether, if someone kills your Uncle Percy,  you would be happy to see his killer charged with Criminal Damage of low value and given a small  fine. Because that's what is happening with killed and stolen animals.
		
Click to expand...

Thanks for making up my mind for me. I will be joining the majority who won't be signing. Good luck with your cause.


----------



## Moya_999 (26 October 2014)

cptrayes said:



			DR, my petition is about animals.

If you want to be able to claim punitive damages if someone kills your Uncle Percy, then you can campaign to have that made legal.

Meanwhile, a more relevant question, I think, is to ask whether, if someone kills your Uncle Percy,  you would be happy to see his killer charged with Criminal Damage of low value and given a small  fine. Because that's what is happening with killed and stolen animals.
		
Click to expand...

well CPT not all people around take the view that trying to change things is a waste of time.  Whether your petition has an impact or not at least you can say you tried which is more than some can say.


----------



## Overread (26 October 2014)

Upon reading the statement my first thought is why a livery centre left the horse in the field unattended for that long. Surely if the horse is in livery there it has a stall to be put into and even if the horse wasn't under full livery they would have had cause to bring the horse in after a shorter period of time just for the horses's own health and well being. 

Also, this is a question more than a statement, if a horse is loaned would the livery be aware of this. If so why not contact the owner? If not perhaps this shows a potential area where other liveries and owners could improve upon in general? 


Statements as to bloodsports etc... is a smokescreen generally thrown into distract or cause sub-discussions that muddy the water. If they'd killed a fox or otter or any other animal currently or formerly a target of hunts then it would have some validity - but last I checked we don't hunt horses in the UK.


----------



## cptrayes (27 October 2014)

Dry Rot said:



			Thanks for making up my mind for me. I will be joining the majority who won't be signing. Good luck with your cause.
		
Click to expand...

Explain to me DR. What problem do you have with someone who kills a six year old healthy minimal value horse out of spite receiving a higher penalty than someone who broke a window?

Or someone who steals a family pet dog receiving a higher penalty than someone who stole a bike?


----------



## Wagtail (27 October 2014)

cptrayes said:



			Explain to me DR. What problem do you have with someone who kills a six year old healthy minimal value horse out of spite receiving a higher penalty than someone who broke a window?

Or someone who steals a family pet dog receiving a higher penalty than someone who stole a bike?
		
Click to expand...

Waste of time trying to reason, Cptrayes.


----------



## Dry Rot (27 October 2014)

cptrayes said:



			Explain to me DR. What problem do you have with someone who kills a six year old healthy minimal value horse out of spite receiving a higher penalty than someone who broke a window?

Or someone who steals a family pet dog receiving a higher penalty than someone who stole a bike?
		
Click to expand...

My problem is with someone who asks for my support to promote a discussion and then won't answer perfectly reasonable questions in a calm and logical way. I just don't think changes to the law should be initiated by a single emotionally charged incident that has not yet been discussed in court. It is only in court that all the questions on this thread will be answered, not by wild speculation from people who don't know or others who have a vested interest. The facts will be drawn out by the court cross examining witnesses under oath to establish the truth. Then you can legitimately come back here and ask for signatures.

You start a petition because you want a discussion in Parliament -- but you don't seem to want one here nor do you seem to want the courts to come to any conclusion first. Isn't that a bit odd?


----------



## Goldenstar (27 October 2014)

amymay said:



			Well, that's a crock!
		
Click to expand...

Yup a good yard would have had the passport and would have known the horse did not belong to the keeper and would have contacted the owner .
It's a legal statement designed to cover their backs in event of any action .


----------



## Equi (27 October 2014)

At the end of the day no matter what the circumstances were, both parties have agree that a HEALTHY animal was pts because of a £30 bill, without the consent of the owner who would have paid and taken her horse back home. Thats all that matters. I have signed.


----------



## fburton (27 October 2014)

Dry Rot said:



			I just don't think changes to the law should be initiated by a single emotionally charged incident that has not yet been discussed in court.
		
Click to expand...

Neither do I, but I believe there is a general principle here (which this case may or may not exemplify) that is worth debating, including at a high level.


----------



## Emma_H (27 October 2014)

The main part of this that is truly horrifying is the dumping of the horse on the loaners lawn and trying to justify it by...

The horse was then returned to its keeper:
a. so that she could choose how to dispose of it, as is her right and;
b. to comply with the Animal By Products (Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2013 by avoiding any wildlife, ie foxes, having access to it.

This is not the way to dispose of a horse in any way shape or form surely! 

He should have complied with this...

https://www.gov.uk/fallen-stock#fallen-stock-information-for-horse-owners


----------



## cptrayes (27 October 2014)

Dry Rot said:



			My problem is with someone who asks for my support to promote a discussion and then won't answer perfectly reasonable questions in a calm and logical way. I just don't think changes to the law should be initiated by a single emotionally charged incident that has not yet been discussed in court. It is only in court that all the questions on this thread will be answered, not by wild speculation from people who don't know or others who have a vested interest. The facts will be drawn out by the court cross examining witnesses under oath to establish the truth. Then you can legitimately come back here and ask for signatures.

You start a petition because you want a discussion in Parliament -- but you don't seem to want one here nor do you seem to want the courts to come to any conclusion first. Isn't that a bit odd?
		
Click to expand...

I wasn't motivated by one incident DR, this has bothered me for a long time, since I became aware of it.

And I have answered all your questions which are relevant, which your uncle Percy was not.

You are the one not answering questions, so I'll ask it again:.   




Explain to me DR. What problem do you have with someone who kills a six year old healthy minimal value horse out of spite receiving a higher penalty than someone who broke a window?

Or someone who steals a family pet dog receiving a higher penalty than someone who stole a bike?


----------



## Goldenstar (27 October 2014)

fburton said:



			Neither do I, but I believe there is a general principle here (which this case may or may not exemplify) that is worth debating, including at a high level.
		
Click to expand...

Me neither and I am particularly reminded of one of my fathers favourite sayings " hard cases make for bad law "  .


----------



## Dry Rot (27 October 2014)

cptrayes said:



			I wasn't motivated by one incident DR, this has bothered me for a long time, since I became aware of it.

And I have answered all your questions which are relevant, which your uncle Percy was not.

You are the one not answering questions, so I'll ask it again:.   




Explain to me DR. What problem do you have with someone who kills a six year old healthy minimal value horse out of spite receiving a higher penalty than someone who broke a window?

Or someone who steals a family pet dog receiving a higher penalty than someone who stole a bike?
		
Click to expand...

I am not a lawyer but as I understand it, there is already a remedy under civil law (tort) to sue for emotional distress as I have stated earlier. 

Also, there is apparently no higher penalty under criminal law for injuring a human simply because someone is fond of that person. So why should there be for an animal?

I am again assuming that you are wanting a higher penalty for the thief who steals "a family pet dog" compared with the thief who steals (for example) a rescue from the local dogs' home that would otherwise have been destroyed. Or are you proposing higher penalties for everyone who steals a dog regardless of its value or just whether it is a pet? 

My objection is that what you are proposing is not (to me at any rate) logical. Criminal law has to be applied equally to everyone. That is why Justice is depicted blind folded. I think you are wanting the blindfold to be removed.

So what is wrong with letting the civil law sort out these cases as I have already suggested?

You say, "Explain to me DR. What problem do you have with someone who kills a six year old healthy minimal value horse out of spite receiving a higher penalty than someone who broke a window?"

How do you get into the mindset of the defendant and decide their motives at the time the deed was done? That would seem to put an impossible burden on a judge. Are you proposing to supply a qualified psychologist for every case that involves the killing or theft of a pet hamster? I can assure you, the hamster has no lesser value in the eyes of the child owner than the horse does to another!


----------



## Goldenstar (27 October 2014)

Tbh someone who maliciously stole a family pet and was caught would probably receive a stiffer sentence than some who wheeled off someone's bike .
I have been a witness in court many times and I have a great faith in the intelligence of the magistrates based on my experience.


----------



## honetpot (27 October 2014)

Dry Rot said:



			I am not a lawyer but as I understand it, there is already a remedy under civil law (tort) to sue for emotional distress as I have stated earlier. 

Also, there is apparently no higher penalty under criminal law for injuring a human simply because someone is fond of that person. So why should there be for an animal?

I am again assuming that you are wanting a higher penalty for the thief who steals "a family pet dog" compared with the thief who steals (for example) a rescue from the local dogs' home that would otherwise have been destroyed. Or are you proposing higher penalties for everyone who steals a dog regardless of its value or just whether it is a pet? 

My objection is that what you are proposing is not (to me at any rate) logical. Criminal law has to be applied equally to everyone. That is why Justice is depicted blind folded. I think you are wanting the blindfold to be removed.

So what is wrong with letting the civil law sort out these cases as I have already suggested?

You say, "Explain to me DR. What problem do you have with someone who kills a six year old healthy minimal value horse out of spite receiving a higher penalty than someone who broke a window?"

How do you get into the mindset of the defendant and decide their motives at the time the deed was done? That would seem to put an impossible burden on a judge. Are you proposing to supply a qualified psychologist for every case that involves the killing or theft of a pet hamster? I can assure you, the hamster has no lesser value in the eyes of the child owner than the horse does to another!
		
Click to expand...

 But there is already an acknowledgement that some animals are of more value than others to the people that own them,
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...x-penalties-dog-attacks-sum-resp-20131029.pdf

''3 years&#8217; imprisonment if an assistance dog either dies or is injured by a
dog attack
5. The increase in maximum penalty for a dog attack on an assistance dog, such as
a guide dog for the blind, reflects the devastating effect such an attack has on the
assisted person. As now, each of these offences could also be punishable by an
unlimited fine instead of or in addition to imprisonment. An amendment to the
1991 Act to effect these changes will be tabled for consideration during Lords
Committee Stage of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill.''


----------



## cptrayes (27 October 2014)

Goldenstar said:



			Tbh someone who maliciously stole a family pet and was caught would probably receive a stiffer sentence than some who wheeled off someone's bike .
I have been a witness in court many times and I have a great faith in the intelligence of the magistrates based on my experience.
		
Click to expand...

Magistrates are bound by sentencing guidelines and the sentencing guidelines for theft and criminal damage are set by the value of the property. That's the whole point of my petition!


----------



## cptrayes (27 October 2014)

Dry Rot said:



			I am not a lawyer but as I understand it, there is already a remedy under civil law (tort) to sue for emotional distress as I have stated earlier. 

Also, there is apparently no higher penalty under criminal law for injuring a human simply because someone is fond of that person. So why should there be for an animal?

I am again assuming that you are wanting a higher penalty for the thief who steals "a family pet dog" compared with the thief who steals (for example) a rescue from the local dogs' home that would otherwise have been destroyed. Or are you proposing higher penalties for everyone wfho steals a dog regardless of its value or just whether it is a pet? 

My objection is that what you are proposing is not (to me at any rate) logical. Criminal law has to be applied equally to everyone. That is why Justice is depicted blind folded. I think you are wanting the blindfold to be removed.

So what is wrong with letting the civil law sort out these cases as I have already suggested?

You say, "Explain to me DR. What problem do you have with someone who kills a six year old healthy minimal value horse out of spite receiving a higher penalty than someone who broke a window?"

How do you get into the mindset of the defendant and decide their motives at the time the deed was done? That would seem to put an impossible burden on a judge. Are you proposing to supply a qualified psychologist for every case that involves the killing or theft of a pet hamster? I can assure you, the hamster has no lesser value in the eyes of the child owner than the horse does to another!
		
Click to expand...


Every sentencing exercise by Magistrates requires a judgement of the mindset of the offender. This is no different.  Someone who does something recklessly, not caring what the result might be, receives a lesser sentence than someone who did the same thing completely intending the result which ensued.  There is a multi point scale from intentional downwards to careless.


----------



## YorksG (27 October 2014)

I am having some problem with the way some people seem to be interpreting the petition. My understanding is that this is to try and increase the penalty for humanely killing or stealing someone elses animal, which currently is the same, in law, as the penalty for stealing their tack, or breaking their fence. I have I understood this correctly?


----------



## *hic* (27 October 2014)

YorksG said:



			I am having some problem with the way some people seem to be interpreting the petition. My understanding is that this is to try and increase the penalty for humanely killing or stealing someone elses animal, which currently is the same, in law, as the penalty for stealing their tack, or breaking their fence. I have I understood this correctly?
		
Click to expand...

Goodness knows, I tried asking for that clarification days ago and got accused of trying to cause an argument! So I'm as much in the dark as you


----------



## Goldenstar (27 October 2014)

cptrayes said:



			Magistrates are bound by sentencing guidelines and the sentencing guidelines for theft and criminal damage are set by the value of the property. That's the whole point of my petition!
		
Click to expand...

Not only the value of the property but the ongoing loss the owner suffers .
I am not interested in your petition .


----------



## Red-1 (27 October 2014)

YorksG said:



			I am having some problem with the way some people seem to be interpreting the petition. My understanding is that this is to try and increase the penalty for humanely killing or stealing someone elses animal, which currently is the same, in law, as the penalty for stealing their tack, or breaking their fence. I have I understood this correctly?
		
Click to expand...

That is certainly what I took it to mean.


----------



## Overread (27 October 2014)

Typically it takes major singular events to change many laws - or at least to set the wheels in motion. Many times laws can get left behind the changes in society so its not unsurprising that we can end up with a mish-mash of laws that don't all support current popular/common thinking in the country.

So events like this can bring to light these lapses or gaps in the laws (at least as seen by those affected by the law or potentially affected by it). Sometimes the result will be niche, only one sub-community picks it up - and within that only a select group. Where this happens enough times you get a wider spread social movement though it can take quite some time for individual events to spark off for different niche groups. 

This might just be an niche group event; or it could spread out into other groups and influence them. The net result is that whilst this is an emotionally charged event; it will in turn have the potential to start serious debate and consideration. 

I say niche because thus far this event hasn't really sent any ripples outside of the horse world. So the petition might not garner enough steam behind it. Social media might change that but we can't tell the future.


----------



## Alec Swan (27 October 2014)

Overread said:



			Typically it takes major singular events to change many laws - or at least to set the wheels in motion. Many times laws can get left behind the changes in society so its not unsurprising that we can end up with a mish-mash of laws that don't all support current popular/common thinking in the country.

So events like this can bring to light these lapses or gaps in the laws (at least as seen by those affected by the law or potentially affected by it). Sometimes the result will be niche, only one sub-community picks it up - and within that only a select group. Where this happens enough times you get a wider spread social movement though it can take quite some time for individual events to spark off for different niche groups. 

This might just be an niche group event; or it could spread out into other groups and influence them. The net result is that whilst this is an emotionally charged event; it will in turn have the potential to start serious debate and consideration. 

I say niche because thus far this event hasn't really sent any ripples outside of the horse world. So the petition might not garner enough steam behind it. Social media might change that but we can't tell the future.
		
Click to expand...

The argument doesn't actually include the 'change' in Law,  but it's interpretation.  Those who would 'judge' need to remain impartial.  Can you imagine if someone swore at a horse,  and then appeared in front of cpt?  Were deportation still an option,  they'd be gone quicker than abu Hamsa! 

Alec.


----------



## jools68 (27 October 2014)

I notice the GG Centre issued a 'statement ' on their website yesterday regarding recent events. Seems a little contradictory. The horse was shot in the interest of 'ensuring the safety of the public' . Surely, the original plan of taking and tying the horse in the loaners garden would have also created an issue of 'safety of the public' had the poor horse broken its tether and ended up loose on the road.!!


----------



## cptrayes (27 October 2014)

Goldenstar said:



			Not only the value of the property but the ongoing loss the owner suffers .
I am not interested in your petition .
		
Click to expand...

You are *WRONG* GS.  The sentencing guidelines do NOT allow for an animal to be treated as anything but a piece of property with a monetary value. 'Ongoing loss' is not included.  

 Of course you aren't interested in the petition if you won't even accept the basic law.  If you don't believe me Google 'sentencing guidelines criminIal damage' and pick up the pdf file that shows you exactly how magistrates and district judges must judge criminal damage, which is what death of an animal would come under if it was humanely (which only means quickly, not nicely) killed.

The only thing which can increase the penalty from damaging something inanimate of equal valIue is if the animal is an aid dog, which would slightly increase the sentence.

If your neighbour takes against you and hacks the head off your dog with one blow of an axe, he will be charged only with criminal damage to the monetary value of the dog.

It's up to you if you don't want to sign the petition. But I can't understand why you wouldn't.


----------



## cptrayes (27 October 2014)

jemima*askin said:



			Goodness knows, I tried asking for that clarification days ago and got accused of trying to cause an argument! So I'm as much in the dark as you 

Click to expand...

She's not in the dark, she understands it correctly.  If you read her post again, is a very simple concept and she has it right.


----------



## cptrayes (27 October 2014)

YorksG said:



			I am having some problem with the way some people seem to be interpreting the petition. My understanding is that this is to try and increase the penalty for humanely killing or stealing someone elses animal, which currently is the same, in law, as the penalty for stealing their tack, or breaking their fence. I have I understood this correctly?
		
Click to expand...

Absolutely right, YG.   I'm at a total loss to understand why people are having trouble understanding it.  I think maybe they can't quite believe that the law is such an ass!


----------



## Goldenstar (28 October 2014)

cptrayes said:



			You are *WRONG* GS.  The sentencing guidelines do NOT allow for an animal to be treated as anything but a piece of property with a monetary value. 'Ongoing loss' is not included.  

 Of course you aren't interested in the petition if you won't even accept the basic law.  If you don't believe me Google 'sentencing guidelines criminIal damage' and pick up the pdf file that shows you exactly how magistrates and district judges must judge criminal damage, which is what death of an animal would come under if it was humanely (which only means quickly, not nicely) killed.

The only thing which can increase the penalty from damaging something inanimate of equal valIue is if the animal is an aid dog, which would slightly increase the sentence.

If your neighbour takes against you and hacks the head off your dog with one blow of an axe, he will be charged only with criminal damage to the monetary value of the dog.

It's up to you if you don't want to sign the petition. But I can't understand why you wouldn't.
		
Click to expand...

I fail to understand why you think I should agree with you we have enough damn fool laws in this country made in the wake of hard cases already they cost money and time to pass .
I do think there is recourse in current law to cover this case .
I think pets are property and that's how the law judges them, in most cases where a malicious person kills someone's pet it's would be easy to use welfare legislation the circunmtances of this case are unusual as the person who killed the poor horse was trained to do in a professional capacity that's what I mean when I say it's a perfect example of hard cases make bad law .
How often have you heard of livery owners putting horses to sleep in such circumstances , it's not a widespread issue so IMO it's OTT to want laws changed .
The horse is dead that sad and wrong do I think the loaner deserves compensation no I don't do I think the owner has suffered loss yes I do .
Everything in this case will hinge I feel on if an abdandoment notice was correctly posted and on what view is taken on the fact the loaner was round the corner so the yard owner can hardly say he could not find her .
If you really think it legal in this country to chop off dogs heads you are not in a good place, you are expressing your view that's fine ,I don't agree with you .
And as for proving suffering in this you know we only have the RSPCAS view on that it does not mean someone else would not take another view of what happened .
If I was the owner of this horses I can think of loads of avenues to get redress if I felt so inclined but the owner of this horse may well wish not to approach the issue like this and I completely understand they may feel it best got over with no fuss.


----------



## cptrayes (28 October 2014)

Goldenstar said:



			I fail to understand why you think I should agree with you we have enough damn fool laws in this country made in the wake of hard cases already they cost money and time to pass .
I do think there is recourse in current law to cover this case .
I think pets are property and that's how the law judges them, in most cases where a malicious person kills someone's pet it's would be easy to use welfare legislation the circunmtances of this case are unusual as the person who killed the poor horse was trained to do in a professional capacity that's what I mean when I say it's a perfect example of hard cases make bad law .
How often have you heard of livery owners putting horses to sleep in such circumstances , it's not a widespread issue so IMO it's OTT to want laws changed .r
The horse is dead that sad and wrong do I think the loaner deserves compensation no I don't do I think the owner has suffered loss yes I do .
Everything in this case will hinge I feel on if an abdandoment notice was correctly posted and on what view is taken on the fact the loaner was round the corner so the yard owner can hardly say he could not find her .
If you really think it legal in this country to chop off dogs heads you are not in a good place, you are expressing your view that's fine ,I don't agree with you .
And as for proving suffering in this you know we only have the RSPCAS view on that it does not mean someone else would not take another view of what happened .
If I was the owner of this horses I can think of loads of avenues to get redress if I felt so inclined but the owner of this horse may well wish not to approach the issue like this and I completely understand they may feel it best got over with no fuss.
		
Click to expand...

It's not about this case. This case was just my trigger for finally doing something.

I do not think you have to agree with me. You are perfectly entitled to your opinion. I just don't understand how anyone could not want a higher penalty for maliciously killing a family dog than breaking a window.  But if that's how you feel, is how you feel. It's not how I feel.


----------



## cptrayes (28 October 2014)

GS, again you are wrong about the law. It is perfectly legal to chop off a dog's head if you own the dog or have the permission of the owner and the death is instant.  Anyone can kill any animal they own or have permission to kill if it is done humanely.  (Protected species are probably excluded from that!)


----------



## Goldenstar (28 October 2014)

cptrayes said:



			GS, again you are wrong about the law. It is perfectly legal to chop off a dog's head if you own the dog or have the permission of the owner and the death is instant.  Anyone can kill any animal they own or have permission to kill if it is done humanely.  (Protected species are probably excluded from that!)
		
Click to expand...

Of course you can kill your own dog , it would be appalling if you could not .
I thought you where referring to a third party killing your dog without your permission .


----------



## cptrayes (28 October 2014)

Goldenstar said:



			Of course you can kill your own dog , it would be appalling if you could not .
I thought you where referring to a third party killing your dog without your permission .
		
Click to expand...

No, it's been clear in the thread all along that you commit a civil offence if you kill a dog without someone's permission, and if you did that then you could be sued by the owner for the value of the dog. Which would be zero in the case of a lovely old family friend who the victim has  shared his house with for fifteen years, and therefore you would get away with it scot free 

If you were unlucky and  the Police had the time and the CPS thought it in the public interest, you might be charged with a minor public order offence of 'behaviour likely to cause harassment alarm or distress' and get a slap on the wrist for that.


----------



## Goldenstar (28 October 2014)

cptrayes said:



			No, isw been clear in the thread all along that you commit a civil offence if you kill a dog without someone's permission, and if you did that then you could be sued by the owner for the value of the dog. Which would be zero in the case of a lovely old family friend who you have shared your house with for fifteen years, and therefore you would get away with it scot free 

Click to expand...

You don't get do you I disagree with you , I think you could make a case in the example you give that some stranger getting your dog holding it still and chopping off it's head caused the dog unnecessary suffering verses the death a pet of would expect .
Any half decent solicitor could get the magistrates squirming in their seats telling that story .


----------



## cptrayes (28 October 2014)

Goldenstar said:



			You don't get do you I disagree with you , I think you could make a case in the example you give that some stranger getting your dog holding it still and chopping off it's head caused the dog unnecessary suffering verses the death a pet of would expect .
Any half decent solicitor could get the magistrates squirming in their seats telling that story .
		
Click to expand...


I completely get you don't agree with me. I've told you so already.  

But i have to keep responding because you keep saying things that aren't true about the law and how courts work.

There would be no offence for the solicitor to present in court if the dog was humanely killed GS. 

You don't seem to understand about sentencing guidelines. If it did get to court, which would be as harassment/alarm/distress or as criminal damage, it matters not one jot how much the magistrates are squirming. They are limited to what the guidelines say, and the guidelines say it's property worth nothing and the penalty minimal.

Ditto theft.

Ditto divorce, the animal goes to the owner even if they intend to have it put down to spite the person who actually loved it and looked after it.


----------



## Dry Rot (28 October 2014)

cptrayes said:



			No, it's been clear in the thread all along that you commit a civil offence if you kill a dog without someone's permission, and* if you did that then you could be sued by the owner for the value of the dog.* Which would be zero in the case of a lovely old family friend who the victim has  shared his house with for fifteen years, and therefore you would get away with it scot free 

If you were unlucky and  the Police had the time and the CPS thought it in the public interest, you might be charged with a minor public order offence of 'behaviour likely to cause harassment alarm or distress' and get a slap on the wrist for that.
		
Click to expand...

What is stopping the owner suing the person who destroyed the dog for the emotional pain and suffering under the law of torts? If he has already been successfully prosecuted under criminal law, the civil suit should be a dawdle.

I am not a lawyer and it is over fifty years since I studied law, so perhaps someone can remind me?

I think I've asked this before and the fact that my question has been ignored does increase my reluctance to sign anything!


----------



## Goldenstar (28 October 2014)

I am saying that cutting a dogs head off would cause unnecessary suffering and you would use the welfare laws and you could prove that I was a witness in a case where someone was banned for life was having a horse with lice it is about how you present your evidence .
It would not be necessary to cut off your neighbours dogs head and it would be very easy to say it caused suffering verses say putting the dog to sleep at the vets or at home  
When people where executed it was extremely difficult to do in one go and the executions where specially training and person is a much better shape to execute in this way . 
Of course someone who has 'custody 'of the dog after a divorce can put it down I am alarmed you think it wrong that they can.


----------



## cptrayes (28 October 2014)

Dry Rot said:



			What is stopping the owner suing the person who destroyed the dog for the emotional pain and suffering under the law of torts? If he has already been successfully prosecuted under criminal law, the civil suit should be a dawdle.

I am not a lawyer and it is over fifty years since I studied law, so perhaps someone can remind me?

I think I've asked this before and the fact that my question has been ignored does increase my reluctance to sign anything!
		
Click to expand...


I didn't ignore you DR, I told you that as far as I am aware, the law in this country doesn't allow for punitive damages of that sort, but I don't know civil law and the advice I was given was thirty years ago.  Perhaps a lawyer will come on and tell us.

But even if you can, I personally would still like the criminal law changed to reflect the fact that pets and horses are more akin to family members than they are to inanimate property of the same value.  The law was made when horses and dogs had jobs. Society has moved on but the law has not moved with it.


----------



## cptrayes (28 October 2014)

Goldenstar said:



			I am saying that cutting a dogs head off would cause unnecessary suffering and you would use the welfare laws and you could prove that I was a witness in a case where someone was banned for life was having a horse with lice it is about how you present your evidence .
It would not be necessary to cut off your neighbours dogs head and it would be very easy to say it caused suffering verses say putting the dog to sleep at the vets or at home  
When people where executed it was extremely difficult to do in one go and the executions where specially training and person is a much better shape to execute in this way . 
Of course someone who has 'custody 'of the dog after a divorce can put it down I am alarmed you think it wrong that they can.
		
Click to expand...

How many more times?


Welfare issues are well covered.

Theft and humane but malicious death aren't.

I'm not sure if you are being deliberately obtuse GS,  But the issue with divorce is that the dog is treated solely as property and goes with whoever owns it, not with the person who cares for it and has the relationship with it.


----------



## Goldenstar (28 October 2014)

Cutting off a dogs head in practice cannot be done inIMV without causing unnecessary suffering I think this could be easy to prove and you would use the welfare laws to prosecute .


----------



## Goldenstar (28 October 2014)

And again cutting off your neighbours dogs head would be a welfare case .


----------



## cptrayes (28 October 2014)

Goldenstar said:



			Cutting off a dogs head in practice cannot be done inIMV without causing unnecessary suffering I think this could be easy to prove and you would use the welfare laws to prosecute .
		
Click to expand...


OK GS, if your imagination is not as vivid as mine and you are completely unable to envisage killing a small dog with one blow of a machete, then let's imagine the dog is shut cleanly with a legally held gun instead.  The method of killing is irrelevant.  The penalty is derisory.



Now as much fun as this discussion has been, I need to go out and ride horse in the sunshine. I'm sure you will have had more to say when I get back in


----------



## cptrayes (28 October 2014)

Goldenstar said:



			And again cutting off your neighbours dogs head would be a welfare case .
		
Click to expand...

Not if it was killed with a single blow from a sharp blade.

You are focusing on such minutiae!

The point is, should an animal you have owned loved and cared for for many years really be worth nothing in the eye of the law?


----------



## Goldenstar (28 October 2014)

cptrayes said:



			Not if it was killed with a single blow from a sharp blade.

You focusing on such minutiae!

The point is, should an animal you have owned loved and cared for for many years really be worth nothing in the eye of the law?
		
Click to expand...

I am not interested in the value of my pets to others only to me .
I am very interested to hear how you think you might prove the neighbours dog did not suffer unnecessarily when you cut off it's head on a whim.


----------



## cptrayes (28 October 2014)

Goldenstar said:



			I am not interested in the value of my pets to others only to me .
I am very interested to hear how you think you might prove the neighbours dog did not suffer unnecessarily when you cut off it's head on a whim.
		
Click to expand...



Actually it would be up to the RSPCA to prove that cruelty took place, not the perpetrator to prove that it did not. And with any single shot, blow, stab, cut that caused instant death with no other marks they'd have a devil of a job doing that. 

If you would be happy to have one of your dogs stolen, see the police put no effort into finding it because is only a low value piece of property, catch the person who took it yourself and then see them given a caution,  conditional discharge or a low fine because of the low value of the property stolen, then you feel very differently from me.

There's no problem with that, but I am puzzled why you seem to be hell bent on putting other people off signing a petition that can do little harm and might just do some good.  I keep replying to you because I don't want you to succeed in putting off others, not because I want you to change your mind.


----------



## merrymeasure (28 October 2014)

Hasn't put me off signing cpt. And if it can do a bit of good, so much the better.  Hope it does!


----------



## ann-jen (28 October 2014)

I signed the petition and do think it raises some issues. Slightly at a tangent I know..... but I was hit by a car out hacking 13 years ago to the day. I suffered mild injuries but my beautiful mare was PTS at the roadside due to her injuries. The horse was impeccably mannered on the roads and the driver drove into the back of us because the sun was in her eyes and she didn't see us. No prosecution was brought towards the driver and I had to pursue the matter privately in order get any financial recompense..... not that the money was the issue..... it was more my way of feeling some justice was done for my poor mare. If the lady had hit a parked vehicle or god forbid a pedestrian I'm sure the police would have treated the situation differently. Although she would have been driving equally recklessly no matter whether she hit another car, person, animal whatever.... I have much more emotional attachment to my horses than my car.... even though my car is more valuable in the eyes of the law.... 
I know this is a slightly different context but I do think living animals should be treated with more respect/value than other property..... how you quantify that though I do not know!!!


----------



## fburton (28 October 2014)

So sorry for your loss, ann-jen.


----------



## ann-jen (28 October 2014)

Thanks. She was a lovely horse and didn't deserve what happened to her. :-(


----------



## bakewell (28 October 2014)

I think the rather graphic and distasteful dog's head argument may be distracting to the point of the petition. I understand it's an emotive issue but a petition would do better to reflect public interest rather than personal points of view or to be associated with the need to have everyone agree with you personally.

I'd also caution that arguing the finer points of tort law without legal education is pointless and further detracts from the petition or from mobilising public outrage into action.


----------



## cptrayes (28 October 2014)

bakewell said:



			I think the rather graphic and distasteful dog's head argument may be distracting to the point of the petition. I understand it's an emotive issue but a petition would do better to reflect public interest rather than personal points of view or to be associated with the need to have everyone agree with you personally.
		
Click to expand...

I will assume that you are referring to me. 

I do not need to have everyone agree with me. I have explicitly stated this. Your suggestion that I do is mildly offensive. 

I continue to reply only to correct inaccuracies in what other people are posting about criminal law.





			I'd also caution that arguing the finer points of tort law without legal education is pointless and further detracts from the petition or from mobilising public outrage into action.
		
Click to expand...

I absolutely agree with you on this which is why I am correcting Goldenstar when she is getting the law wrong. 

I haven't said a thing about tort law except to explain that I don't know it to Dry Rot.   I have argued the points of criminal law where I am sure of my ground and have been trained and have double checked with government published information freely available online.


----------



## cptrayes (28 October 2014)

merrymeasure said:



			Hasn't put me off signing cpt. And if it can do a bit of good, so much the better.  Hope it does!
		
Click to expand...

Great.  Have you got a Christmas name already ?


----------



## cptrayes (28 October 2014)

Ann-Jen, so sorry about your terrible experience.


----------



## Moya_999 (28 October 2014)

Did not put me off signing either and I don't think it will -  I think most will look past a few minorities opposing to sign and use their own feelings and thoughts about signing a petition that may or may not help but feel its worth a go to sign as it cost nothing to sign but could potentiality cost the lives of others if they don't.

  I think certain aspects of the law need bringing into the 21st century and changing - this is one instant when some poor creature lost her life because some **** took the law into his hands to kill someones animal instead of getting legal advice how to deal with this situation. A life is a life no matter how big or small and when its known this was someones pet, then this fool acted like one and for this  things should be changed. 

 In other countries I have seen people fined / jailed for doing this, one particular instant the YO chose to dispose of someones mare and foal to the local zoo without the owners knowledge.  The courts awarded the owner all that she sued for

Another was :   http://equinelaw.alisonrowe.com/201...udy-awards-zero-damages-in-horse-injury-case/.

IMO CPT  took it upon herself to do something which may or may not help with this situation, I fail to see why some are criticizing her for trying to do the right thing.

  Well done CPT for sticking by your guns.  

 Animals should be given more respect than they are in particular peoples own pets.  


 Alex's comment *there is no meat left on the bone* comes to mind


**Sorry for your loss  Ann**

 CPT did you ever get to go on your hack in the sunshine?? LOL


----------



## Merrymoles (28 October 2014)

Oh lord I am beginning to lose the will to live and to see why some people whose opinions I respected seem to have left the forum in recent years.

I will continue to believe that someone taking the life of or harming an animal with malicious intent deserves a greater penalty than those available for low-value criminal damage.

I am not sure why we have to debate a hundred different scenarios.

There will always be different circumstances in every case and the charge and penalty will depend on those circumstances. In the case of ann-jen's horse, for which I offer my sympathy, had she been a human, the driver would probably have been charged with causing death by careless driving or manslaughter, due to the lack of intent. However, if they had mown someone down on purpose, there would have been a charge carrying a heavier penalty.

In terms of civil law, in the case that someone shot my horse maliciously, I probably could not afford to pursue a case for damages and, in any case, money would not be the issue.

That's my tuppenceworth and I will bow out now.


----------



## Wagtail (28 October 2014)

cptrayes said:



			There's no problem with that, but I am puzzled why you seem to be hell bent on putting other people off signing a petition that can do little harm and might just do some good.  I keep replying to you because I don't want you to succeed in putting off others, not because I want you to change your mind.
		
Click to expand...

I am puzzled too, cptrayes. There seems to have been a huge amount of time and effort spent by those opposing your petition when it is not something that would in anyway affect them, unless they were intent on humanely killing the animals of others without their permission. And I am sure that they are not, so I am puzzled.


----------



## cptrayes (28 October 2014)

Moya_999 said:



			CPT did you ever get to go on your hack in the sunshine?? LOL
		
Click to expand...


I did thank you      I took out my planter, who has in the past made me wait him out for a record one hour and eight minutes before he would move. Today his worst was one minute ten seconds, so we are getting there 

I also clipped my cob, who was such a brave boy and stood rock still even though he was frightened. 

And it is so ridiculously warm here that he is now turned out without a rug on. The weather is crazy!


----------



## bakewell (28 October 2014)

cptrayes said:



			I will assume that you are referring to me. 

I do not need to have everyone agree with me. I have explicitly stated this. Your suggestion that I do is mildly offensive. 

I continue to reply only to correct inaccuracies in what other people are posting about criminal law.
		
Click to expand...

I think the petition is very worthwhile and I am glad you have done it. I think you are clearly very passionate about this. 

However, sometimes context and tone get misconstrued on the internet, and it is better to let things go. The extended debates about minutiae could be seen to detract from the point of the petition. It veers into strawman territory. If you note my phrasing "may" etc. There is no definite reading one way or another. However why risk alienating anyone from a worthwhile cause; petitions thrive on weight of numbers. 

The enemy here is not other forum members: it is the perpetrator of the original offense; the lack of legislation he can hide behind and the possibility of a cover up investigation.


----------



## cptrayes (28 October 2014)

bakewell said:



			I think the petition is very worthwhile and I am glad you have do it. I think you are clearly very passionate about this. 

However, sometimes context and tone get misconstrued on the internet, and it is better to let things go. The extended debates about minutiae could be seen to detract from the point of the petition. It veers into strawman territory. If you note my phrasing "may" etc. There is no definite reading one way or another. However why risk alienating anyone from a worthwhile cause; petitions thrive on weight of numbers. 

The enemy here is not other forum members: it is the perpetrator of the original offense; the lack of legislation he can hide behind and the possibility of a cover up investigation.
		
Click to expand...


So was your post really to Goldenstar?  Or if not,  why did you think it was me who should stop when what  I was doing was correcting errors in what she was writing so that other people would not be misinformed?  Check back, I was correcting errors of fact, not trying to shove my personalopinion down anyone's throat, which is pretty much how I interpret what you wrote.


----------



## cptrayes (28 October 2014)

Wagtail said:



			I am puzzled too, cptrayes. There seems to have been a huge amount of time and effort spent by those opposing your petition when it is not something that would in anyway affect them, unless they were intent on humanely killing the animals of others without their permission. And I am sure that they are not, so I am puzzled.
		
Click to expand...

It's very odd, isn't it Wagtail.  

I really must go to Tesco now, got no loo rolls


----------



## Goldenstar (28 October 2014)

cptrayes said:



			Actually it would be up to the RSPCA to prove that cruelty took place, not the perpetrator to prove that it did not. And with any single shot, blow, stab, cut that caused instant death with no other marks they'd have a devil of a job doing that. 

If you would be happy to have one of your dogs stolen, see the police put no effort into finding it because is only a low value piece of property, catch the person who took it yourself and then see them given a caution,  conditional discharge or a low fine because of the low value of the property stolen, then you feel very differently from me.

There's no problem with that, but I am puzzled why you seem to be hell bent on putting other people off signing a petition that can do little harm and might just do some good.  I keep replying to you because I don't want you to succeed in putting off others, not because I want you to change your mind.
		
Click to expand...

I am not hell bent on anything.
I simply don't mind what others chose to do you don't own this thread I think this a hard case and hard cases make bad law and have right to keep saying it 
Going back to your distasteful example ,
If you cut off my dogs head I would pursue you with ever ounce of energy I had and all the resources at my disposal .
It would have diddly squat to do with the RSPCA I have as much right to bring a case as they do .


----------



## Spring Feather (28 October 2014)

bakewell said:



			However, sometimes context and tone get misconstrued on the internet, and it is better to let things go. The extended debates about minutiae could be seen to detract from the point of the petition. It veers into strawman territory. If you note my phrasing "may" etc. There is no definite reading one way or another. However why risk alienating anyone from a worthwhile cause; petitions thrive on weight of numbers.
		
Click to expand...

Very well put.


----------



## Goldenstar (28 October 2014)

Wagtail said:



			I am puzzled too, cptrayes. There seems to have been a huge amount of time and effort spent by those opposing your petition when it is not something that would in anyway affect them, unless they were intent on humanely killing the animals of others without their permission. And I am sure that they are not, so I am puzzled.
		
Click to expand...

I have said exactly why I do not support this petition .
But will post it again ,
hard cases make for bad law .
It really simple I disagree that more law will help us .


----------



## Spring Feather (28 October 2014)

Wagtail said:



			I am puzzled too, cptrayes. There seems to have been a huge amount of time and effort spent by those opposing your petition when it is not something that would in anyway affect them, unless they were intent on humanely killing the animals of others without their permission. And I am sure that they are not, so I am puzzled.
		
Click to expand...

There's been no time and effort spent by me, let alone a huge amount.  I gave my reasons as to why I wouldn't sign, on the other thread.  The potential legal implications affecting others, on a broader scale, could be wholly unjust.


----------



## Optimissteeq (28 October 2014)

Spring Feather said:



			There's been no time and effort spent by me, let alone a huge amount.  I gave my reasons as to why I wouldn't sign, on the other thread.  The potential legal implications affecting others, on a broader scale, could be wholly unjust.
		
Click to expand...

Hi SP,
           I wanted to ask a question about your post and will try to avoid being confrontational as i want to understand your reasoning - I agree wholeheartedly that hard cases make for bad law, and that the law is an ass sometimes BUT wouldn't this petition just trigger the debate rather than actually setting the law? 
I think (FWIW), the idea behind it is a good, well intentioned one, and if there are issues around legalities and implications then wouldn't that be ironed out during the debate?
My final question would be - what's the alternative? leave as is?

as I said - not wanting to be confrontational, just asking a question or two...


----------



## Optimissteeq (28 October 2014)

Optimissteeq said:



			Hi SP,
           I wanted to ask a question about your post and will try to avoid being confrontational as i want to understand your reasoning - I agree wholeheartedly that hard cases make for bad law, and that the law is an ass sometimes BUT wouldn't this petition just trigger the debate rather than actually setting the law? 
I think (FWIW), the idea behind it is a good, well intentioned one, and if there are issues around legalities and implications then wouldn't that be ironed out during the debate?
My final question would be - what's the alternative? leave as is?

as I said - not wanting to be confrontational, just asking a question or two...

Click to expand...

oops - meant to say SF not SP...sorry!


----------



## merrymeasure (28 October 2014)

cptrayes said:



			Great.  Have you got a Christmas name already ?
		
Click to expand...

 Lol! No. Merry Measure was the racing name of my dear old racehorse, now no longer with us. But it would make a good Christmas name! 

Ann-Jen, I am so sorry about your  mare xx


----------



## Spring Feather (28 October 2014)

Optimissteeq said:



			Hi SP,
           I wanted to ask a question about your post and will try to avoid being confrontational as i want to understand your reasoning - I agree wholeheartedly that hard cases make for bad law, and that the law is an ass sometimes BUT wouldn't this petition just trigger the debate rather than actually setting the law? 
I think (FWIW), the idea behind it is a good, well intentioned one, and if there are issues around legalities and implications then wouldn't that be ironed out during the debate?
My final question would be - what's the alternative? leave as is?

as I said - not wanting to be confrontational, just asking a question or two...

Click to expand...

Sorry I'm in the middle of fencing a new field, just stopped briefly for lunch so my answer may not be as indepth as it could be.  I honestly don't think any politicians are going to debate this.  Many (judging by the lack of signatures on the petition) may feel that yes the law, the way it stands right now, is workable.  I believe it is too.


----------



## Holly Hocks (28 October 2014)

CPT. I understand that the animal is currently treated as property and therefore the offence would be criminal damage, but would this not be a sort of case where sentencing could potentially take place outside the guidelines? (I only found out that sentences could be given outside of the guidelines when I was in court last week and the court clerk was giving the various options of sentencing to the Bench and said that if they wished to sentence outside of the guidelines then they must give their reasons for doing so. 
PS I have signed......


----------



## Clara Mo 3 (28 October 2014)

Holly Hocks said:



			CPT. I understand that the animal is currently treated as property and therefore the offence would be criminal damage, but would this not be a sort of case where sentencing could potentially take place outside the guidelines? (I only found out that sentences could be given outside of the guidelines when I was in court last week and the court clerk was giving the various options of sentencing to the Bench and said that if they wished to sentence outside of the guidelines then they must give their reasons for doing so. 
PS I have signed......
		
Click to expand...

Everyone is assuming this will even get to court - which is may not do from what I understand.


----------



## cptrayes (28 October 2014)

Holly Hocks said:



			CPT. I understand that the animal is currently treated as property and therefore the offence would be criminal damage, but would this not be a sort of case where sentencing could potentially take place outside the guidelines? (I only found out that sentences could be given outside of the guidelines when I was in court last week and the court clerk was giving the various options of sentencing to the Bench and said that if they wished to sentence outside of the guidelines then they must give their reasons for doing so. 
PS I have signed......
		
Click to expand...


I too don't think this particular case will get to court, I am not convinced any offence has been committed, or at least not one that can be proved.

But if we take a case where it could, it has to be absolutely exceptional to go outside the guidelines, and cases that are sentenced outside the guidelines are very likely to be appealed and the sentence reduced when a Crown Court Judge gets involved.  

I think it would be very difficult to go outside the guidelines for theft, but if you had the right bench who all understood what animals mean to their owners, and if the animal was killed in front of the owner, and if there could also be a charge of causing harassment alarm or distress, then you might just about justify a high community penalty.  But if the offender pleads guilty at the first opportunity then he has to be given a third off for doing that.

I think the chances of receiving a sentence which any of us would feel was appropriate is pretty low, but technically possible for criminal damage, but not theft.


----------



## Darremi (4 November 2014)

rockysmum said:



			Actually it does carry a prison sentence, 10 years 

Criminal Damage - Simple

Date Produced: 1 July 2011
Title: Criminal Damage
Offence: Criminal Damage - simple
Legislation: S1(1) CRIMINAL DAMAGE ACT 1971
Mode of Trial: Either Way. Treated as summary only if less than £5000
Statutory Limitations & Maximum Penalty: Maximum when tried on indictment: 10 years. Maximum when tried summarily: Level 5 fine and/or 6 months. Triable only summarily less than £5,000:
Maximum penalty: Level 4 fine and/or 3 months

Aggravating & Mitigating Factors
Intentional / reckless.
Motivation - revenge or political
Hate Crime
Pre-planned.
Extent of damage.
Damage to a school or other public amenity.
Damage to emergency equipment.
Significant public or private fear caused.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry to be pedantic but the maximum custodial sentence of 10 years only applies to criminal damage tried on indictment. Summary criminal damage (ie. Damage worth <£5k) is subject to a maximum custodial sentence of 6 months.


----------



## 10dan17 (4 November 2014)

ih my name is dan I am trying to get a hold of the lady how as had the hores shot by Harvey at the gg center this guy shot 3 of my best black & white cobs 3years ago and the police would not charge him I have been taking legal action on him 
I phone hores & hound today they have my details I think I can help you and you can help me as two cases as got to be better than one & this guy must be stoped from looking after horses 
please get in touch thank you danny


----------



## Dry Rot (4 November 2014)

Since this thread is still ongoing, perhaps I can ask the learned and wise how they would handle the following case?

Dog owner goes away for three months leaving a dog alone on a chain with someone coming in once a day to feed, water, and poo pick. Gradually, the word gets around about the dog until some well meaning member of the public removes the dog to give it some sort of life.

Outraged owner then returns, hears what has happened to the dog, reports the theft to the police and launches an appeal in the local media for the return of "her beloved pet".

Let us assume the thief is found. According to CPT's wishes the thief will now receive a heavy sentence because as we all know, having a much loved pet stolen puts the owner through a great deal of emotional stress.

This is obviously a hypothetical question because nobody would leave a dog in such a situation&#8230;.or would they?

I'll be very interested to hear the replies.


----------



## cptrayes (4 November 2014)

Dry Rot, 


Someone would report the animal cruelty and the owner would be prosecuted. The RSPCA  would rescue the dog.

If removed by a concerned person, they would face no charges unless they refused to return the dog. Theft has to have the intention to permanently deprive the owner of the goods.


----------



## cptrayes (4 November 2014)

Darremi said:



			Sorry to be pedantic but the maximum custodial sentence of 10 years only applies to criminal damage tried on indictment. Summary criminal damage (ie. Damage worth <£5k) is subject to a maximum custodial sentence of 6 months.
		
Click to expand...

And the maximum for someone who pleads guilty  straight away is four months, of which they serve two at most, and even that can only be given for very substantial damage usually done as part of a spree,  not a one off offence.  I don't see any chance of a one off malicious killing of a horse getting a jail term.


----------



## Clara Mo 3 (4 November 2014)

10dan17 said:



			ih my name is dan I am trying to get a hold of the lady how as had the hores shot by Harvey at the gg center this guy shot 3 of my best black & white cobs 3years ago and the police would not charge him I have been taking legal action on him 
I phone hores & hound today they have my details I think I can help you and you can help me as two cases as got to be better than one & this guy must be stoped from looking after horses 
please get in touch thank you danny
		
Click to expand...

If the person in question doesn't come forward, PM me and I may be able to bring you together so to speak.


----------



## Dry Rot (5 November 2014)

cptrayes said:



			Dry Rot, 


Someone would report the animal cruelty and the owner would be prosecuted. The RSPCA  would rescue the dog.

If removed by a concerned person, they would face no charges unless they refused to return the dog. Theft has to have the intention to permanently deprive the owner of the goods.
		
Click to expand...

Well, the facts did not actually pan out as you suggest they should have. The SSPCA knew all about it and did not prosecute. And I very much doubt the thief would have returned the dog to a life of hell.


----------



## cptrayes (5 November 2014)

Dry Rot said:



			Well, the facts did not actually pan out as you suggest they should have. The SSPCA knew all about it and did not prosecute. And I very much doubt the thief would have returned the dog to a life of hell.
		
Click to expand...

So was the 'thief'  prosecuted?  And of so, what was the penalty, because I doubt that there would have been much of a punishment for that 'theft'. Clearly the value of the dog to the owner was no more than its cash value, if that, so the punishment would be the same if higher penalties were allowed.

I really don't understand why you are continuing this discussion. You don't agree, I get that. Are you going to keep coming up with one example after another to try to get me to agree with you? That'll be a bit tiresome for us all.


----------



## MerrySherryRider (5 November 2014)

cptrayes said:



			Dry Rot, 


Someone would report the animal cruelty and the owner would be prosecuted. The RSPCA  would rescue the dog.

If removed by a concerned person, they would face no charges unless they refused to return the dog. Theft has to have the intention to permanently deprive the owner of the goods.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry, I haven't kept up to date with this thread, but just caught these latest posts. If the rescuer claimed that they owned the dog, the abuser would then have to prove ownership, which is not so simple and would be costly.  A friend had a cat that visited a neighbour, who then claimed it belonged to her. The police weren't interested and unless he was prepared to take legal action at his own (prohibitive) expense, there was nothing he could do.


----------



## Dry Rot (5 November 2014)

cptrayes said:



			So was the 'thief'  prosecuted?  And of so, what was the penalty, because I doubt that there would have been much of a punishment for that 'theft'. Clearly the value of the dog to the owner was no more than its cash value, if that, so the punishment would be the same if higher penalties were allowed.

I really don't understand why you are continuing this discussion. You don't agree, I get that. Are you going to keep coming up with one example after another to try to get me to agree with you? That'll be a bit tiresome for us all.
		
Click to expand...


You don't seem to like people disagreeing with you, do you? I'm afraid that's what happens in a discussion! My example explained a real life situation where we have an uncaring owner (except as regards possession of what she clearly sees as an inanimate object without feelings) and a very caring thief. I was interested to hear how your proposals would cover that situation which is a complete opposite to the case cited in the header.

I thought your petition was to initiate a discussion in Parliament? I have noticed that you don't seem to want discussion on this forum, especially when it does not further your case. A suggestion that the law of tort already covered the problem was dismissed pretty quickly with an "I don't know". How do you test a theory without questioning?

No, the thief was not prosecuted as he/she was not caught and the owner regards her animals as possessions that she owns, no more. Her ponies graze in a sea of ragwort with barely any grass so feeding has to be supplemented with hay all the year round to appease the welfare organisations. Would you like photos? Yet she will not part with the animals.

It is possible to become emotionally attached to possessions without being concerned about things like welfare, except the minimum required by law as that introduces other factors.  If the animals appear physically healthy, there is not much the welfare organisations can do.  She is known locally as a hoarder who won't part with anything and her animals are "things" that come into that category.


----------



## Patterdale (5 November 2014)

*surfaces from multiple pages of hypothetical pedantism* 

Sooooo.......has anything happened to the man?


----------



## cptrayes (5 November 2014)

I don't have any problem with being disagreed with Dry Rot. What I have a problem with is people who go on and on posting the same things that don't move a discussion forward as if in some attempt to make me change my mind. 

If you raised something new, I would be happy to discuss, but you aren't raising any new points.

Why are YOU so unhappy simply to agree that we disagree?


----------



## Dry Rot (5 November 2014)

cptrayes said:



			I don't have any problem with being disagreed with Dry Rot. What I have a problem with is people who go on and on posting the same things that don't move a discussion forward as if in some attempt to make me change my mind. 

If you raised something new, I would be happy to discuss, but you aren't raising any new points.

Why are YOU so unhappy simply to agree that we disagree?
		
Click to expand...

So, no answers yet again!


----------



## Smurf's Gran (5 November 2014)

Dry Rot - who is the dog..is it in need of rescuing ?


----------



## Clara Mo 3 (5 November 2014)

Patterdale said:



			*surfaces from multiple pages of hypothetical pedantism* 

Sooooo.......has anything happened to the man?
		
Click to expand...

No, not a thing I understand.


----------



## Overread (5 November 2014)

Clara Mo 3 said:



			No, not a thing I understand.
		
Click to expand...

Although the RSPCA have left the site and it sounds like some of the livery people also left; although there's been no update in a long while as to if more have left the site. So at least in the short term business must be down on the site. We also have to wait and see if this remains the case long term - or if this is only a short term change the centre will resume normal operation once the frenzy over this case has died down.


----------



## cowgirl10 (6 November 2014)

hi Dan can you pm me plz as I have a number for you... and do not no how to p m on hear thanks


----------



## cptrayes (6 November 2014)

cowgirl10 said:



			hi Dan can you pm me plz as I have a number for you... and do not no how to p m on hear thanks
		
Click to expand...


Please make sure Dan is who he says he is before you hand over someone's phone number!


----------



## cowgirl10 (6 November 2014)

it will be my phone number!


----------



## Clara Mo 3 (6 November 2014)

cowgirl10 said:



			it will be my phone number!
		
Click to expand...

he has kit's owners number already.


----------



## Dry Rot (6 November 2014)

Smurf's Gran said:



			Dry Rot - who is the dog..is it in need of rescuing ?
		
Click to expand...

While I was taking the photograph, a couple appeared and I asked if they were taking care of the dog for the owner. I did intend giving the case some publicity because, amongst other things, both my neighbour and myself were fed up with the dog's nightly howling. Yes, I could have taken the dog but my grandfather was a very senior police officer and I was brought up to work within the law, not break it. 

The couple said they were nothing to do with the dog and had only stopped to get some water for their car from a water trough as it was over heating. We got chatting and they were told the story about the dog. I then left but had to go a few hundred yards up the road to turn the car. When I passed the site on my return, one of the couple was walking towards the dog with what looked like some food in a paper bag.

Next day, the carer had turned up as usual to feed and water to find no dog. Then all hell broke loose. The owner knows how to use the Press! I got a call from the police and I told them what I have written here. (They already knew the background). The dog has not been seen since -- thank God! The owner is not right in the head. But as the animals always appear to be in good physical condition, nothing can be done. She used to have several dogs but I never saw one of them being walked in all the 12 years she has lived on the site. I am tempted to put up a web site as I have photographs, witness statements, and there is a lot more. In my opinion, the authorities have let the animals down badly but what they can do is limited.

Sorry, CPT, to hijack the thread. But it does go to show that not all owners are caring, in the conventional sense of the word anyway, nor are all thieves cold blooded criminals out for a quick buck.


----------



## YorksG (6 November 2014)

Dry Rot said:



			While I was taking the photograph, a couple appeared and I asked if they were taking care of the dog for the owner. I did intend giving the case some publicity because, amongst other things, both my neighbour and myself were fed up with the dog's nightly howling. Yes, I could have taken the dog but my grandfather was a very senior police officer and I was brought up to work within the law, not break it. 

The couple said they were nothing to do with the dog and had only stopped to get some water for their car from a water trough as it was over heating. We got chatting and they were told the story about the dog. I then left but had to go a few hundred yards up the road to turn the car. When I passed the site on my return, one of the couple was walking towards the dog with what looked like some food in a paper bag.

Next day, the carer had turned up as usual to feed and water to find no dog. Then all hell broke loose. The owner knows how to use the Press! I got a call from the police and I told them what I have written here. (They already knew the background). The dog has not been seen since -- thank God! The owner is not right in the head. But as the animals always appear to be in good physical condition, nothing can be done. She used to have several dogs but I never saw one of them being walked in all the 12 years she has lived on the site. I am tempted to put up a web site as I have photographs, witness statements, and there is a lot more. In my opinion, the authorities have let the animals down badly but what they can do is limited.

Sorry, CPT, to hijack the thread. But it does go to show that not all owners are caring, in the conventional sense of the word anyway, nor are all thieves cold blooded criminals out for a quick buck.
		
Click to expand...

The problem with using unusual circumstances like the one outlined, is that they are unusual and there will always be anomalous situations, this does not negate the principal of the need for the majority to be protected by the law.


----------



## cptrayes (6 November 2014)

cowgirl10 said:



			it will be my phone number!
		
Click to expand...



I hope you get some proper answers to this situation and will be able to put the whole dreadful thing behind you.


----------



## Smurf's Gran (6 November 2014)

Dry Rot said:



			While I was taking the photograph, a couple appeared and I asked if they were taking care of the dog for the owner. I did intend giving the case some publicity because, amongst other things, both my neighbour and myself were fed up with the dog's nightly howling. Yes, I could have taken the dog but my grandfather was a very senior police officer and I was brought up to work within the law, not break it. 

The couple said they were nothing to do with the dog and had only stopped to get some water for their car from a water trough as it was over heating. We got chatting and they were told the story about the dog. I then left but had to go a few hundred yards up the road to turn the car. When I passed the site on my return, one of the couple was walking towards the dog with what looked like some food in a paper bag.

Next day, the carer had turned up as usual to feed and water to find no dog. Then all hell broke loose. The owner knows how to use the Press! I got a call from the police and I told them what I have written here. (They already knew the background). The dog has not been seen since -- thank God! The owner is not right in the head. But as the animals always appear to be in good physical condition, nothing can be done. She used to have several dogs but I never saw one of them being walked in all the 12 years she has lived on the site. I am tempted to put up a web site as I have photographs, witness statements, and there is a lot more. In my opinion, the authorities have let the animals down badly but what they can do is limited.

Sorry, CPT, to hijack the thread. But it does go to show that not all owners are caring, in the conventional sense of the word anyway, nor are all thieves cold blooded criminals out for a quick buck.
		
Click to expand...


Well it sounds as if the dog was rescued, good for you  (and the couple!)


----------



## Jojoc8 (7 November 2014)

Clara Mo 3 said:



			he has kit's owners number already.
		
Click to expand...

He was wanting the number of the lady's number who's horse it was and who's garden it was dumped in...she was halfway through buying the horse


----------



## Clara Mo 3 (7 November 2014)

Jojoc8 said:



			He was wanting the number of the lady's number who's horse it was and who's garden it was dumped in...she was halfway through buying the horse
		
Click to expand...

That may be the case but he has been in touch with me and said he has what he needs.  just trying to stop people wasting their time when he is satisfied he has what he needs already.


----------



## cowgirl10 (7 November 2014)

got in touch with him all is well


----------



## mrswad (10 November 2014)

All is not as it seems. There was only one innocent party in all of this and that was the horse.


----------



## cowgirl10 (10 November 2014)

this morning Leighton got charged with criminal damage. it's going to trial


----------



## Clara Mo 3 (10 November 2014)

cowgirl10 said:



			this morning Leighton got charged with criminal damage. it's going to trial
		
Click to expand...

Good !


----------



## EstherYoung (11 November 2014)

cowgirl10 said:



			this morning Leighton got charged with criminal damage. it's going to trial
		
Click to expand...

And if that's the case, then everyone needs to stop commenting their opinion on t'interweb until the trial is over, or we risk the trial falling over.


----------



## Goldenstar (11 November 2014)

EstherYoung said:



			And if that's the case, then everyone needs to stop commenting their opinion on t'interweb until the trial is over, or we risk the trial falling over.
		
Click to expand...

This  is ridiculous of course people don't have to stop commenting .
People directly involved ought not of course .
Very very good news about the criminal damage charge .


----------



## Merrymoles (11 November 2014)

Goldenstar said:



			This  is ridiculous of course people don't have to stop commenting .
		
Click to expand...

Once someone is charged with an offence, the case becomes sub judice and reporting restrictions come into force. A good defence lawyer could argue that those judging the matter, whether magistrates or jury, could be influenced by reading about it, whether in the traditional media or on the internet and some high profile cases have ground to a halt because of this.

Anyone who publishes information about the case - which includes posting on the internet - may found to be in contempt of court.

It doesn't prevent debate of the bigger issue generally but anyone who posts specific information, whether true or false, about the details of the case should be very careful.


----------



## Dolcé (11 November 2014)

moleskinsmum said:



			Oh lord I am beginning to lose the will to live and to see why some people whose opinions I respected seem to have left the forum in recent years.

I will continue to believe that someone taking the life of or harming an animal with malicious intent deserves a greater penalty than those available for low-value criminal damage.

I am not sure why we have to debate a hundred different scenarios.

There will always be different circumstances in every case and the charge and penalty will depend on those circumstances. In the case of ann-jen's horse, for which I offer my sympathy, had she been a human, the driver would probably have been charged with causing death by careless driving or manslaughter, due to the lack of intent. However, if they had mown someone down on purpose, there would have been a charge carrying a heavier penalty.

In terms of civil law, in the case that someone shot my horse maliciously, I probably could not afford to pursue a case for damages and, in any case, money would not be the issue.

That's my tuppenceworth and I will bow out now.
		
Click to expand...


You said it all really, it isn't about the money/value, it is about the penalty given by the Courts.  CPT started the petition following the shock and upset at the beginning of the thread, and the total disbelief of so many that criminal damage would be the only avenue open to the police if cruelty couldn't be proven.  I am shocked at the petty arguments being put forward by some, if you don't want to sign it then don't sign it but don't keep blathering on about how wrong it is. It would seem that some have to 'have a go' at every chance they get and knock people, say your piece and just leave it there.


----------



## cptrayes (11 November 2014)

cowgirl10 said:



			this morning Leighton got charged with criminal damage. it's going to trial
		
Click to expand...

That'll be interesting.  If it goes to a Magistrates Court, the maximum sentence possible, for a spree of severe damage is six months, of which he would serve three.  I think he's unlikely to get anything like that for a first conviction, probably a community penalty.  So don't get your hopes up for a penalty that you think he deserves, guys, even if he is found guilty, which may be a challenge.


----------



## Goldenstar (11 November 2014)

cptrayes said:



			That'll be interesting.  If it goes to a Magistrates Court, the maximum sentence possible, for a spree of severe damage is six months, of which he would serve three.  I think he's unlikely to get anything like that for a first conviction, probably a community penalty.  So don't get your hopes up for a penalty that you think he deserves, guys, even if he is found guilty, which may be a challenge.
		
Click to expand...

Well ,you thought he was not going to be charged with criminal damage .

I think it will all hang on whether his brief can make a case he had a lawful excuse 
to PTS the horse . 
If he was not followed the correct procedures over the debt that brought him to point where he PTS the horse I think he will struggle to do that .
And the magistrates will not take his excuse the horse was dangerous at face value , I have a lot of respect for the common sense of magistrates based on my involvement in equine welfare cases .


----------



## cptrayes (11 November 2014)

Goldenstar said:



			Well ,you thought he was not going to be charged with criminal damage .

I think it will all hang on whether his brief can make a case he had a lawful excuse 
to PTS the horse . 
If he was not followed the correct procedures over the debt that brought him to point where he PTS the horse I think he will struggle to do that .
And the magistrates will not take his excuse the horse was dangerous at face value , I have a lot of respect for the common sense of magistrates based on my involvement in equine welfare cases .
		
Click to expand...


Yes, I did think it was likely it might not come to court Goldenstar, but I don't expect always to be right about everything I say might or might not happen, only things that I say certainly will.   

If he pleads not guilty, his defence is going to be very interesting and very complicated for the bench to unravel. I wonder if it will go before a District Judge who is legally qualified instead of a bench of  volunteer lay Magistrates.  We'll see.


----------



## cptrayes (11 November 2014)

This has either passed the CPS likelihood of conviction score, or deemed to be so much in the public interest that it has been charged.  It's going to be very interesting to hear his defence. 

I agree with you that they won't take his claim the horse was dangerous at face value, but the case has to be proven being reasonable doubt, and unless they can produce evidence that the horse was NOT behaving dangerously that night, they will struggle to jump that hurdle.


----------



## fburton (11 November 2014)

cptrayes said:



			That'll be interesting.  If it goes to a Magistrates Court, the maximum sentence possible, for a spree of severe damage is six months, of which he would serve three.  I think he's unlikely to get anything like that for a first conviction, probably a community penalty.  So don't get your hopes up for a penalty that you think he deserves, guys, even if he is found guilty, which may be a challenge.
		
Click to expand...

Presumably a civil case would then be brought against him, no?


----------



## Merrymoles (11 November 2014)

fburton said:



			Presumably a civil case would then be brought against him, no?
		
Click to expand...

Depends if any aggrieved party can afford it - very expensive if things don't go your way


----------



## fburton (11 November 2014)

moleskinsmum said:



			Depends if any aggrieved party can afford it - very expensive if things don't go your way
		
Click to expand...

If they couldn't afford to pay the livery on time, I guess not... :blue:


----------



## Alec Swan (11 November 2014)

The problem that I have with any system which would allow any Criminal Court to consider the owners 'perceived' value of any damaged goods,  rather than a realistic value is that the Courts would be clogged up with the claims and appeals and there would be no resolve.  Consider this;

Someone shoots my dog without a reason which a Court would consider to be acceptable.  Setting on one side my anger at the person concerned,  am I to appear before a Court,  and put in an oscar winning performance to enhance my claim,  and is that how the enormity of the crime,  or the value of the damaged (or dead) property is to be assessed?  There is no Justice System in this country,  regardless of any appeal to Downing Street which will countenance such a daft approach.  

Justice,  and so Value (and they are totally separate issues),  cannot be assessed upon the effect upon the secondary victim.  When the killers of Steven Laurence were being tried,  the damage to the family wasn't and shouldn't have been influenced the effect upon the killers being found guilty,  or not,  but by the crime which had been committed,  in this case,  an innocent young man was deprived of his life.  The effect upon his family,  however horrific it must have been,  was a totally separate consideration.  So is the case with this shot horse.  The person responsible must be judged upon his regard,  or lack of it,  for the Laws of this Land.  The emotional effect upon the owners is a matter for the Civil Courts.

Alec.


----------



## Optimissteeq (11 November 2014)

Alec Swan said:



			The problem that I have with any system which would allow any Criminal Court to consider the owners 'perceived' value of any damaged goods,  rather than a realistic value is that the Courts would be clogged up with the claims and appeals and there would be no resolve.  Consider this;

Someone shoots my dog without a reason which a Court would consider to be acceptable.  Setting on one side my anger at the person concerned,  am I to appear before a Court,  and put in an oscar winning performance to enhance my claim,  and is that how the enormity of the crime,  or the value of the damaged (or dead) property is to be assessed?  There is no Justice System in this country,  regardless of any appeal to Downing Street which will countenance such a daft approach.  

Justice,  and so Value (and they are totally separate issues),  cannot be assessed upon the effect upon the secondary victim.  When the killers of Steven Laurence were being tried,  the damage to the family wasn't and shouldn't have been influenced the effect upon the killers being found guilty,  or not,  but by the crime which had been committed,  in this case,  an innocent young man was deprived of his life.  The effect upon his family,  however horrific it must have been,  was a totally separate consideration.  So is the case with this shot horse.  The person responsible must be judged upon his regard,  or lack of it,  for the Laws of this Land.  The emotional effect upon the owners is a matter for the Civil Courts.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Ok so when you put it like you have in the above quote I agree, the thing I am struggling with is the animals and emotional attachment vs inanimate objects. Allow me to explain :- In the case of Steven Lawrence, a human life is absolutely valued above animals and is the right thing to do, so placing value on the human life is already done per say.
If I understand the argument(s) correctly, then we are saying that if a person is to shoot an animal, then potentially they would get no greater punishment than if they were to damage property, which doesn't seem to sit quite right with me, doesn't animal life have a greater value than inanimate objects? Having listened to the arguments for both sides I see it is a thorny issue and can offer no solution but if someone shot my dog, I'd be significantly more distressed than if they shot at my car for example. Is the answer then to take civil action against the perpetrator and if so, how likely is a favourable outcome (rhetoric question as I don't know how long the piece of string is either!)


----------



## Fenris (11 November 2014)

Optimissteeq said:



			Ok so when you put it like you have in the above quote I agree, the thing I am struggling with is the animals and emotional attachment vs inanimate objects. Allow me to explain :- In the case of Steven Lawrence, a human life is absolutely valued above animals and is the right thing to do, so placing value on the human life is already done per say.
If I understand the argument(s) correctly, then we are saying that if a person is to shoot an animal, then potentially they would get no greater punishment than if they were to damage property, which doesn't seem to sit quite right with me, doesn't animal life have a greater value than inanimate objects? Having listened to the arguments for both sides I see it is a thorny issue and can offer no solution but if someone shot my dog, I'd be significantly more distressed than if they shot at my car for example. Is the answer then to take civil action against the perpetrator and if so, how likely is a favourable outcome (rhetoric question as I don't know how long the piece of string is either!)
		
Click to expand...

There is an argument that because the law here gives items of great sentimental value an 'upgraded' position in law and nothing could be of more sentimental value than the family pet then animals already have an 'upgraded' position in law.

"The starting point had always to be that burglary of a home was a
serious criminal offence. Such a burglary was not only an offence
against property but also, and often more alarmingly and
distressingly, an offence against the person.

Where goods of significant sentimental, even if of only slight
economic, value were taken or damaged, the impact on the victim was
likely to be high, not least because those objects were irreplaceable.

Therefore, in the sentencing decision, particular focus was required
on the impact of the offence on those living in the burgled house.

Whether or not the burglar had any specific intention to cause harm,
he ran the risk that the victim/s might suffer serious adverse
consequences. Where that happened, sentences should be reflective even of unintended consequences."

Taken from

January 26, 2009

Sentences to reflect effect on home burglary victim

Court of Appeal, Criminal Division
Published January 26, 2009
Regina v Saw
Regina v Tete-Djawu
Regina v Smith (Martin)
Regina v Kassa
Regina v Younis
Regina v McPhee
Before Lord Judge, Lord Chief Judge, Lord Justice Latham, Vice-
President, and Lord Justice Hughes
Judgment January 16, 2009


Now that is the situation as it applies to burglary, but there is no reason why it should not also be applied to criminal damage, negligence or any other prosecution or claim relating to animals.  It would, however,  have a devastating effect on animal keeping in this country if animals were to be given higher value because of the owner's sentimental attachment to them.  It would mean that every business that dealt with animals would need much higher insurance cover and would have to follow far more stringent safety procedures.  All of those costs would be passed onto the customer.  Think vet fees are high now?  This would drive them through the roof.


----------



## Optimissteeq (11 November 2014)

Fenris,
         a good post and you raise something I'd not considered before. As I said earlier, it doesn't sit well with me re not giving animals a higher sentimental value, but in light of the points raised I don't have enough of a counter argument other than feelings. I will therefore gracefully concede


----------



## Holly Hocks (11 November 2014)

People have stated that this case is going to "trial".  If the offender pleads guilty at the first hearing, there will be no trial.  Just a summary of facts read out by the prosecution and then the defence solicitor will give the mitigation.  Magistrates will retire for 10 minutes  to decide on sentence and that will be the end of it.  Unless he pleads "not guilty" there will be no trial.  Very very few go "not guilty" and even if they do at the first hearing, many of them then plead "guilty" before the trial.


----------



## Alec Swan (11 November 2014)

Optimissteeq said:



			Ok so when you put it like you have in the above quote I agree, the thing I am struggling with is the animals and emotional attachment vs inanimate objects. Allow me to explain :- In the case of Steven Lawrence, a human life is absolutely valued above animals and is the right thing to do, so placing value on the human life is already done per say.
If I understand the argument(s) correctly, then we are saying that if a person is to shoot an animal, then potentially they would get no greater punishment than if they were to damage property, which doesn't seem to sit quite right with me, doesn't animal life have a greater value than inanimate objects? Having listened to the arguments for both sides I see it is a thorny issue and can offer no solution but if someone shot my dog, I'd be significantly more distressed than if they shot at my car for example. Is the answer then to take civil action against the perpetrator and if so, how likely is a favourable outcome (rhetoric question as I don't know how long the piece of string is either!)
		
Click to expand...

Animals are 'Possessions',  they come under the heading of asset and goods and chattels.  I was going to say,  'Rightly or wrongly',  but I believe Rightly so.  Humans are never owned.  Your Car and your Dog,  in the eyes of our system of Justice,  are one and the same.  A Court has to decide upon the loss to an owner of a possession,  and whether that judgement would include the owners perceived sense of loss,  or not,  would be dangerous ground,  I suspect.

There has to be a line drawn where we consider the rights of the human and the rights of their possessions,  and how we adjudge one or the other.

Fenris,  a thought provoking post,  well researched and argued too!

Alec.


----------



## cptrayes (11 November 2014)

Holly Hocks said:



			People have stated that this case is going to "trial".  If the offender pleads guilty at the first hearing, there will be no trial.  Just a summary of facts read out by the prosecution and then the defence solicitor will give the mitigation.  Magistrates will retire for 10 minutes  to decide on sentence and that will be the end of it.  Unless he pleads "not guilty" there will be no trial.  Very very few go "not guilty" and even if they do at the first hearing, many of them then plead "guilty" before the trial.
		
Click to expand...


Excuse me?   Defendants OFTEN go not guilty, and as a Magistrate I was in the retiring room on many an occasion for up to an hour deciding what the correct verdict or sentence should be. (It is not normal to do both on the same day, more usual to await probation/youth offending reports for three or two weeks )..


----------



## Honey08 (11 November 2014)

IS it going to trial?  I've missed any updates on what's happening.


----------



## cptrayes (11 November 2014)

Honey08 said:



			IS it going to trial?  I've missed any updates on what's happening.
		
Click to expand...

He has been charged. We won't know if it is going to trial until we know if his first plea is guilty or not guilty. That depends on how soon he is given a date in court, and that depends on how busy his local court is.


----------



## Princess Rosie (12 November 2014)

If it goes to trial is it usual for the public to be allowed to attend?


----------



## cptrayes (12 November 2014)

Yes.  Numbers are limited by space.  Only youth trials are held without the public being able to watch.


----------



## Dry Rot (12 November 2014)

I don't know enough about the law to argue the point but it seems to me the criminal law applies generally and the civil law applies in particular.

What do I mean by that? Well, it is theft to steal £100 from someone but it is the same crime whether the person the money is stolen from is on benefits or a multimillionaire. It would confuse the issue to make it any different.

On the other hand, if my neighbour doesn't clean a ditch as he is obliged to do, I can sue for the damage the flooding has caused me because he has a duty of care under Common Law. That is not a fixed penalty and will vary in proportion to the damage done and the costs involved.

Where there is a criminal offence, as I understand it, there is nothing to prevent the injured party from also raising a civil action to recover damages for injuries that are personal to them.

Surely, this is where the confusion in this case arises? Once you start to vary the penalty for the crime according the damage inflicted on the victim, that appears to confuse the two branches of the law. 

Is it possible to get a logical and informed response to that question or will it be followed by the usual emotionally fuelled insults and personal attacks? Are there no lawyers on this forum?


----------



## cptrayes (12 November 2014)

In criminal cases, compensation is also awarded. It varies according to the means of the offender. But if the compensation is not high enough, because the offender can't pay it, then there will be no point in taking a civil case, because the offender can't pay what he hasn't got, and you'd end up having to pay your own costs even if you win.


----------



## Holly Hocks (12 November 2014)

cptrayes said:



			Excuse me?   Defendants OFTEN go not guilty, and as a Magistrate I was in the retiring room on many an occasion for up to an hour deciding what the correct verdict or sentence should be. (It is not normal to do both on the same day, more usual to await probation/youth offending reports for three or two weeks )..
		
Click to expand...

I've had one "not guilty" in the last three years. I am at court at least once a fortnight - more recently once a week.  Yes our magistrates will sentence on the same date although we don't have youths in my line of work. Our normal scenario is plea, summary of facts, mitigation by defence, magistrates request probation reports, probation report is done by PS who are at court already, magistrates sentence.
Even at Crown Court with early guilty pleas the sentences have been on the same days as PRs have already been done. At Crown Court the judge doesn't even always retire with an early guilty plea!


----------



## cptrayes (12 November 2014)

Holly Hocks said:



			I've had one "not guilty" in the last three years. I am at court at least once a fortnight - more recently once a week.  Yes our magistrates will sentence on the same date although we don't have youths in my line of work. Our normal scenario is plea, summary of facts, mitigation by defence, magistrates request probation reports, probation report is done by PS who are at court already, magistrates sentence.
Even at Crown Court with early guilty pleas the sentences have been on the same days as PRs have already been done. At Crown Court the judge doesn't even always retire with an early guilty plea!
		
Click to expand...

And I've done four trials in my last three sittings, which is unusual but trials are not uncommon, and it was similar when I was in Cheshire. What court are you with?  Are you limited to the day of the week you can sit, and missing the days on which trials are held?  I would estimate that sitting thirty days a year, I would do around ten trials, not including cracked and ineffective ones or guilty at the door of the court.   In Stockport and Macclesfield, there are plenty of effective trials.

Of course if  a decision is easy you don't retire for long, but your post gave the impression that it would be normal only to retire for ten minutes on a difficult decision and in my experience that is simply not true.

Judges don't need to retire, do they, they don't have to confer with anyone but themselves!   Going out to the retiring room is to argue things out without being overheard.


----------



## Smurf's Gran (12 November 2014)

http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/rye...moved_from_equestrian_centre_by_RSPCA/?ref=mr

Here is the link to the updated York Evening Press article


----------



## Princess Rosie (14 November 2014)

http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/man-charged-shooting-dumping-horse/

Please see update. x


----------



## powderly (14 November 2014)

cptrayes said:



			And I've done four trials in my last three sittings, which is unusual but trials are not uncommon, and it was similar when I was in Cheshire. What court are you with?  Are you limited to the day of the week you can sit, and missing the days on which trials are held?  I would estimate that sitting thirty days a year, I would do around ten trials, not including cracked and ineffective ones or guilty at the door of the court.   In Stockport and Macclesfield, there are plenty of effective trials.

Of course if  a decision is easy you don't retire for long, but your post gave the impression that it would be normal only to retire for ten minutes on a difficult decision and in my experience that is simply not true.

Judges don't need to retire, do they, they don't have to confer with anyone but themselves!   Going out to the retiring room is to argue things out without being overheard.
		
Click to expand...

Hollyhocks and cptrayes, if you hold the positions that you claim to do on this forum, I am shocked at your lack of professionalism and loose tongues. This matter is now sub judice and you should know better.


----------



## _GG_ (14 November 2014)

powderly said:



			Hollyhocks and cptrayes, if you hold the positions that you claim to do on this forum, I am shocked at your lack of professionalism and loose tongues. This matter is now sub judice and you should know better.
		
Click to expand...

Yes it is now sub judice, but they are not involved in the case. Their posts have been discussing the processes, not actually discussing the goings on internally of this case, they can't, because they are not involved!

I stand to be corrected if I am wrong though!


----------



## Dry Rot (15 November 2014)

powderly said:



			Hollyhocks and cptrayes, if you hold the positions that you claim to do on this forum, I am shocked at your lack of professionalism and loose tongues. This matter is now sub judice and you should know better.
		
Click to expand...

Pretty much what I said about 50 pages ago, but my comments were not directed at individuals just the wild emotionally charged speculation that seems to have no regard for the facts. Trial by media and mass hysteria.


----------



## powderly (15 November 2014)

_GG_ said:



			Yes it is now sub judice, but they are not involved in the case. Their posts have been discussing the processes, not actually discussing the goings on internally of this case, they can't, because they are not involved!

I stand to be corrected if I am wrong though!
		
Click to expand...

They are both claiming to be officers of the court and are discussing this case, with regard to court processes, after a defendant has been charged.


----------



## cptrayes (15 November 2014)

powderly said:



			Hollyhocks and cptrayes, if you hold the positions that you claim to do on this forum, I am shocked at your lack of professionalism and loose tongues. This matter is now sub judice and you should know better.
		
Click to expand...

Oh get off your high horse   There is no reason whatsoever why I should not have made any comment on this thread that I have. Why do you think I shouldn't?


----------



## cptrayes (15 November 2014)

powderly said:



			They are both claiming to be officers of the court and are discussing this case, with regard to court processes, after a defendant has been charged.
		
Click to expand...


No I'm not


----------



## cptrayes (15 November 2014)

Dry Rot said:



			Pretty much what I said about 50 pages ago, but my comments were not directed at individuals just the wild emotionally charged speculation that seems to have no regard for the facts. Trial by media and mass hysteria.
		
Click to expand...

If you had said anything like that about me I would have answered you DR. you did not.

By the way, I've got people pm ing me asking me what your issue is with me on this thread, would you like to answer them?


----------



## cptrayes (15 November 2014)

_GG_ said:



			Yes it is now sub judice, but they are not involved in the case. Their posts have been discussing the processes, not actually discussing the goings on internally of this case, they can't, because they are not involved!

I stand to be corrected if I am wrong though!
		
Click to expand...


She is correct, GG,  that if Hollyhocks is a serving magistrate she should not, if her rules are the same as Stockport's, be commenting on a forum. I am not a serving magistrate, so I'm now free to say what I like


----------



## Holly Hocks (15 November 2014)

I'm not an officer of the court either - never said I was - I just have a working knowledge of the law and court processes because of my work and that is what me and CPT were discussing.


----------



## Dry Rot (16 November 2014)

cptrayes said:



			If you had said anything like that about me I would have answered you DR. you did not.
		
Click to expand...

You are correct. As I stated in my post, "&#8230;.but my comments were not directed at individuals&#8230;."




			By the way, I've got people pm ing me asking me what your issue is with me on this thread, would you like to answer them?
		
Click to expand...

My issue with you is that you seem very evasive when it comes to a direct question and then descend to personalities as a means of defence&#8230;..as you seem to be doing now. I am interested in the facts, not personalities nor in hysteria. 

I am neither for nor against either party in this case because I do not know all the facts. I will reserve judgement until after the case is heard. If, as we are led to believe, you held a responsible position within the legal system, I would have thought the time for your petition would have been after the trial had concluded and we were all a bit wiser and cooler heads prevailed. I wonder if that is why you haven't had much support?


----------



## cptrayes (16 November 2014)

Dry Rot said:



			My issue with you is that you seem very evasive when it comes to a direct question and then descend to personalities as a means of defence..as you seem to be doing now. I am interested in the facts, not personalities nor in hysteria. 

I am neither for nor against either party in this case because I do not know all the facts. I will reserve judgement until after the case is heard. If, as we are led to believe, you held a responsible position within the legal system, I would have thought the time for your petition would have been after the trial had concluded and we were all a bit wiser and cooler heads prevailed. I wonder if that is why you haven't had much support?
		
Click to expand...

You are a laugh DR,  You really are. I have evaded nothing, I just admit when I don't know an answer. 

 'as we are led to believe' ?  Are you suggesting that I am lying?  Thanks for that insult 

My petition was not about this case, and I explained earlier that is is something that has been on my mind to do for some time. I hope you never lose an animal in circumstances that would bring it home to you how much it matters.


----------



## Dry Rot (16 November 2014)

I don't think it is possible to have a reasoned discussion with you cpt, so I won't try. 

Is there a yawn smiley?


----------



## henmother (17 November 2014)

cptrayes said:



http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/71053


Please sign this one and spread it as wide as you can. Will someone also quote this post so that the people who have me on use ignore will see it, we need as many signatures as we can get, to get this officially presented to the government.   THANKS 

....
		
Click to expand...

Signed, and thankyou for making the petition.


----------



## cptrayes (17 November 2014)

Thanks henmother


----------



## powderly (21 November 2014)

Holly Hocks said:



			I've had one "not guilty" in the last three years. I am at court at least once a fortnight - more recently once a week.  Yes our magistrates will sentence on the same date although we don't have youths in my line of work. Our normal scenario is plea, summary of facts, mitigation by defence, magistrates request probation reports, probation report is done by PS who are at court already, magistrates sentence.
Even at Crown Court with early guilty pleas the sentences have been on the same days as PRs have already been done. At Crown Court the judge doesn't even always retire with an early guilty plea!
		
Click to expand...

 Is it any wonder that I thought you were an 'officer of the court???' I did take my Law degree 25 years ago and never practised so am happy to be proved wrong - but I always thought that anyone involved in the court process would be well acquainted with the sub judice rule, and the ramifications of what could happen if this wasn't adhered to.


----------



## cptrayes (21 November 2014)

powderly said:



			Is it any wonder that I thought you were an 'officer of the court???' I did take my Law degree 25 years ago and never practised so am happy to be proved wrong - but I always thought that anyone involved in the court process would be well acquainted with the sub judice rule, and the ramifications of what could happen if this wasn't adhered to.
		
Click to expand...

But there is no sub judice issue with discussing procedure, which is all either of us were doing at the point of your criticism !


----------



## cowgirl10 (30 March 2015)

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/ne...s_legal_action_over_shooting_pregnant_horses/


----------



## cowgirl10 (31 March 2015)

https://m.facebook.com/groups/482253815256172?refid=0


----------



## Emma_H (1 April 2015)

Not again!
How are they still trading anyway, surely everyone moved their horses out the last time?


----------



## Meowy Catkin (1 April 2015)

cowgirl10 said:



https://m.facebook.com/groups/482253815256172?refid=0

Click to expand...

The link doesn't work for me. What does it say?


----------



## cowgirl10 (1 April 2015)

it's a group.... GG center protest group


----------



## Meowy Catkin (1 April 2015)

cowgirl10 said:



			it's a group.... GG center protest group
		
Click to expand...

That's lovely, but are you allowed to say on here what the update/latest news is?


----------



## cowgirl10 (1 April 2015)

yes it's not a problem now... it's been thrown out of court for the loaner not turning up to give evidence ! so we need another way and the protest group is what that is for... every one welcome to come give these views.... if the link don't work just type GG center protest group in your search bar on Facebook and it will be there .. thank u xx


----------



## Emma_H (1 April 2015)

Does this link work for you Faracat?

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/ne...s_legal_action_over_shooting_pregnant_horses/


----------



## Meowy Catkin (1 April 2015)

Thanks.


----------



## fburton (1 April 2015)

April Fools!


----------



## Merrymoles (1 April 2015)

fburton said:



			April Fools! 

Click to expand...

I think not, sadly.


----------



## Gingerwitch (21 January 2021)

Kaylum said:



			It's true she has posted pictures of her horse it was shot and dumped in her garden. She owed £30.
		
Click to expand...

This is the thread that still give me nightmares. It came up on the bullying thread but is anyone aware of what finally happened to the yard and person whom shot this poor animal ?
I have tried to Google it but to no avail


----------



## Ambers Echo (21 January 2021)

The man who was licenced to shoot the horse escpaed prosecution - he was doing his job. IIRC, the trial relating to the YO who gave the order to shoot the horse collapsed when the loaner failed to show up to court. There was always a whiff of 'what don't we know' about this whole sorry tale.


----------



## Widgeon (21 January 2021)

I haven't trawled back through the thread but I think this is the same yard local to us that shot a horse. AE is right, there was more to it - relationships between the individuals involved, I believe - and the yard has been entirely closed for a few years now.


----------



## Gingerwitch (21 January 2021)

Widgeon said:



			I haven't trawled back through the thread but I think this is the same yard local to us that shot a horse. AE is right, there was more to it - relationships between the individuals involved, I believe - and the yard has been entirely closed for a few years now.
		
Click to expand...

Thanks for the update.  X


----------

