# Is this woman being hounded unfairly?



## Cecile (5 February 2017)

I am quite black and white regarding cruelty, I don't have much time for grey area's
However has this woman paid her due's regarding the charges she faced and should she now be allowed to be in this role, does anyone believe she is being hounded and victimised

http://www.irishnews.com/news/2017/...ruelty-put-in-charge-of-horse-welfare-912292/


----------



## slimjim (5 February 2017)

No.


----------



## Sandstone1 (5 February 2017)

No way should this women have this job.


----------



## jumbyjack (5 February 2017)

No, she should be hounded out of the job!


----------



## paddi22 (5 February 2017)

Even if she had paid her dues, i think it shows her as someone who is morally and ethically unfit to work with animals, and especially in a welfare role, its actually laughable.The fact that she is on the welfare committee is even worse as she has proven repeatedly she has no empathy for animals. I haven't a breeze what the sji were thinking. If that happened on any of the horse committees i am on i would step down in disgust


----------



## ester (5 February 2017)

Good lord no!


----------



## Goldenstar (5 February 2017)

There's no way she should have such a role it's appalling .


----------



## marotelle (5 February 2017)

Surely not!


----------



## Alec Swan (5 February 2017)

The decision to appoint Roulston was made,  presumably with the full knowledge of her conviction of 14 years ago.  We aren't in possession of the decision making process or the appointee's thought processes,  she has paid her debt to society,  presumably cleaned up her act and so yes,  there could well be good reason why she was offered the post.

We can only imagine that her progress will be monitored,  as it should be,  and I hope that she silences her critics by being a positive force in her new role.

And yes,  it would seem that she's being hounded.

Alec.


----------



## tristar (5 February 2017)

while ithink she should have a second chance at first thought, on reading the story someone who has a basic disregard for the welfare of baby animals to that point is not to be relied on, puppy farming and travelling puppies about the country is a very bad thing.


and horses probably take more looking after than dogs, they are a highly specialized area, could you rely on her sense of judgement.


----------



## ester (5 February 2017)

You don't get to score out your history when it comes to employment, it has nothing to do with having 'done your time' etc it's about having a history and a record which will quite rightly imo have an impact on you and your opportunities in your future. 

 I'm amazed there wasn't a suitable applicant without such a record, or didn't think that others would think it an issue.


----------



## Overread (5 February 2017)

One could argue that, having been one partaking in abuse, she might be more aware of the "tricks of the trade" in how an abuser might hide such abuses when presenting animals to the public - even if her experiences were with dogs/cats and not with horses. 

She has done her time, paid her due to society*. Furthermore there was no long lasting requirements to her release to society after her trial. It also appears that her abuse was not linked to psychological reasons; nor any long term impositions beyond the period of her punishment. 



In all rights she should be allowed for this position if we are to trust our legal system. 
Of course such an appointment is one that comes charged with baggage already for anyone appointed; so for someone with a less than ideal history behind her she is likely getting a lot of flak. 

I would think barring her position would have been very easy choice for those in charge considering how easily she can be targeted. As a result we can only assume that her appointment is either the result of internal bias and politics or the result of a serious show of commitment and duty on her behalf. One thus has to consider the panel that appointed her - the reflection of a lack of trust in her shows a lack of trust in them and thus the institution behind her more than a lack of faith in her alone.










*one can, however, argue that our punishments toward animal abusers can be rather lenient and thus more open to allowing repeat offences than in other areas - eg childcare. So whilst the concept of punishment ending is valid; one has to consider if it actually has solved the problem.


----------



## ester (5 February 2017)

But if that was how it worked you pay your debt and carry on why would anyone be given a criminal record? You'd just be sent on your way saying well done debt paid off you go. 

Yes some go from cyber crime to working in prevention etc but that doesn't involve responsibility for beings, would we say it were ok if the original convinction had involved children, and someone then went on to be a child welfare officer for
an organisation?


----------



## Overread (5 February 2017)

ester said:



			Yes some go from cyber crime to working in prevention etc but that doesn't involve responsibility for beings, would we say it were ok if the original convinction had involved children, and someone then went on to be a child welfare officer for
an organisation?
		
Click to expand...

Indeed, I added an edit after reading your post. Our system might well not be perfect when it comes to animal care. The other angle is the line between correction and punishment and how much our legal system punishes as opposed to corrects behaviour.


----------



## Tiddlypom (5 February 2017)

Absolutely not. 
She would have zero credibility in the job.


----------



## View (5 February 2017)

ester said:



			You don't get to score out your history when it comes to employment, it has nothing to do with having 'done your time' etc it's about having a history and a record which will quite rightly imo have an impact on you and your opportunities in your future. 

 I'm amazed there wasn't a suitable applicant without such a record, or didn't think that others would think it an issue.
		
Click to expand...


I don't know Irish law, but I would be surprised if they didn't have some legislation similar to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act.  So basically, apart from specified circumstances and roles, once an offence is spent so far as an employer is concerned there is no need to declare it.

However, in this situation, she should have made the panel aware of her past conviction.

We'll never know the deliberations that occurred behind closed doors prior to this appointment so we will just have to watch quietly from the sidelines.

But I'm with Alec on this one.  From the information in the public domain, yes, she is being hounded.

It goes without saying that I abhor cruelty to animals and that her past offence is unforgivable.  But she does deserve a chance to show that she has learnt.


----------



## Alec Swan (5 February 2017)

What speaks of double standards are the SPCAs who are up in arms and indignant,  and then we look at how they themselves conduct their affairs.  It's laughable.

Alec.


----------



## D66 (5 February 2017)

It isn't a job, she's a volunteer.  It is hard to find people who will give up their time for nothing, and she may well have learnt her lesson and reformed. I'll leave judgement on her to those who know her better and who have to deal with her.


----------



## alainax (5 February 2017)

I'm all for rehabilitation of offenders if at all possible and encouraging people to contribute to society, to make right their wrongs so to speak. However, she has went about this the wrong way. Instead of saying that is "old and recycled news from people who have it in from me", she could have said her past is the precise reason that she will be able to contribute to the board. Not only does she have a unique insight into the motivation of animal abusers, but also truly regrets what she did and lives with the guilt. She wants to make  amends for her past in ensuring the welfare of these horses. That might have been a bit more credible...


----------



## ester (5 February 2017)

I agree Alaina, it definitely matters how you handle stuff like this and saying it is old news/sweeping it under the carpet is not a great idea, I will say I didn't realise it was an unpaid position so they were perhaps shorter of candidates.


----------



## Damnation (8 February 2017)

No.

People of authority in any form of welfare position whether human or animal need to be squeaky clean.

E.g I wouldn't be happy with someone with a history of abusing the Elderly to be in charge of the welfare of a care home...

The other side of it I suppose is she is likely to not re-offend as she is under such scrutiny...


----------



## Snowy Celandine (8 February 2017)

If she were working as a shop assistant, for example, then this would be unfair hounding but since she will be working in animal welfare then, no, I do not believe her past cruelty to animals should be dismissed. The nature of her offences show that she was deliberately cruel, it was not something she could have done accidentally and been sorry for.


----------



## Nicnac (8 February 2017)

No - as Damnation said the Criminal Record relates to the role - doesn't matter if it's paid or not.  I put both paid and volunteer staff through DBS checks as they work with vulnerable adults - if they had a caution for shoplifting at 16 then it's not a big deal if it were 14 years ago, but if they have a conviction for GBH, theft, breaking and entering etc. I wouldn't touch them as won't put my clients at risk.  And am perfectly entitled to do so under the Rehabilitation of Offenders laws.

I would not have appointed her to any role, paid or voluntary, where animals are involved (or people for that matter) whether she's paid her 'dues' or not with that conviction.


----------



## Cecile (8 February 2017)

Assuming this article is written truthfully and not holding back vital facts, based on it being an honest account and no fiction thrown in to make it more newsworthy

Would I allow and be comfortable with this person being around any of my animals, alone or supervised?  
Not a cat in h*ll's chance would she be anywhere near any of my animals, she wouldn't even make it through my gate!

Other people can give her a second chance and as long as they are fully informed they can make their own decisions, it sounds as if there will be plenty of people waiting in the wings to say I told you so if things don't work out well


----------



## ozpoz (10 February 2017)

No. You need to demonstrate having a moral compass before being considered for a position which will assess welfare.
She clearly doesn't, given a conviction for cruelty and I am not sure this can be learned - you either have it or you don't.


----------



## Asha (10 February 2017)

Assuming all the facts are on there, then no.

Positions involving welfare should be given amongst other requirements, on the persons morals. She didn't just make a simple mistake, she sold puppies/kittens from the boot of a car. She clearly thought this was acceptable. On that basis, no.


----------



## Alec Swan (10 February 2017)

Well blow my old boots,  it's now a question of morality I see!

Those who've never been given the wrong change and said nothing,  those who've never lied to a partner or parent,  those who've never found a tenner and picked it up saying nothing,  and those who've never farted in church can form an orderly queue. 

Lily white are we all? 

Alec.


----------



## ester (10 February 2017)

Well I am not quite sure how that list of things is in anyway comparable, and no I have done none of them, helped by the fact that you won't find me in Church

Alec I am curious of your posting on this and on the case of the girl who barged someone with her horse, in that instance you seem to suggest any justice the courts hand out would be insufficient, but in this case it is fine, she has done her time and should be permitted to be involved in they very thing she was prosecuted for? So which is it, the courts do their job and we forgive and forget or they aren't giving out justice?



Alec Swan said:



			Assuming that what we read is unequivocal,  the brat can thank her lucky stars that she isn't my daughter.  The wrath of the Court was nothing compared with what would have happened when she arrived home.  Even were she provoked, * the sentencing hands down a degree of acceptance and understanding,  and that isn't justice,  in my opinion.
*
Alec.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Alec Swan (10 February 2017)

The answer's simple ester,  it's to do with the gravity of the crime,  with illegal parking and murder being at opposite ends of the scale.

Alec.


----------



## Asha (10 February 2017)

Alec Swan said:



			Well blow my old boots,  it's now a question of morality I see!

Those who've never been given the wrong change and said nothing,  those who've never lied to a partner or parent,  those who've never found a tenner and picked it up saying nothing,  and those who've never farted in church can form an orderly queue. 

Lily white are we all? 

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Alec, no I'm far from lily white, ive made mistakes and done things wrong. But ive never sold animals from the back of car, with scant regard for their current/ future well being. the comment from the trial sums it up for me ' a callous disregard' for animal welfare.


----------



## ester (10 February 2017)

And in your opinion the justice system doesn't take that in to account? So it is impossible to 'pay' adequately for some crimes, in which case I can see how that would be the case for murder, I can't see how that is the case for assault- which is only a magistrates case after all. 

Or are we on an crimes against animals are less than those against people? Assault of a person versus causing unnecessary suffering to an animal? 

I am honestly struggling to see that much difference myself, neither person was deemed to have commited a crime worthy of a prison sentence.


----------



## Alec Swan (10 February 2017)

Asha said:



			Alec, &#8230;&#8230;.. . the comment from the trial sums it up for me ' a callous disregard' for animal welfare.
		
Click to expand...

I never give to animal charities,  preferring to concentrate on being of help to humans.  It also seems strange to me how a puppy can be sold to a buyer who then transports it in the back of a car,  and often for considerable distances and that's ok but a woman who travels puppies for the same distance,  and then sells them is somehow wrong.  I don't see it as callus disregard,  I'd say that's a curious set of values.

Alec.


----------



## ester (10 February 2017)

For four days? I'm not sure I know anyone who would travel them for that long without a break! While you went to a horse show. 

http://uspca.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Strabane-Chronicle-31-01-13-SJI.pdf


----------



## Pigeon (2 March 2017)

Alec Swan said:



			Well blow my old boots,  it's now a question of morality I see!

Those who've never been given the wrong change and said nothing,  those who've never lied to a partner or parent,  those who've never found a tenner and picked it up saying nothing,  and those who've never farted in church can form an orderly queue. 

Lily white are we all? 

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

I think what is troubling is the nature of her crime. She clearly shows that she is willing to compromise on animal welfare, when money is involved... That is exactly what competition horses need to be protected from!! So should she be hounded, maybe not, but I don't think she should have been given that position. It's weird that she applied for it in the first place!!


----------

