I’m really cross that the teacher shown punching her horse …..

Can't help it. Here's film of slaps, hits and kicks. They all look real, but no one was hurt. What you see on film isn't always the reality! www.google.com/search?sca_esv=560955759&cs=0&sxsrf=AB5stBi4HbwbiIrc695EirUicyrGrmpVvw:1693303152426&q=the+three+stooges+slapping&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwirjpPnzYGBAxUHXUEAHbJ6DCkQpboHKAZ6BAgBEAo&biw=1152&bih=562&dpr=1.25#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:b9d32874,

tickingbird

I think there’s a salient point being missed here. She didn’t hit and kick that pony to teach it a lesson or correct its behaviour. She was frustrated and angry and took it out on the pony. She was likely already in a mood because what the pony did was very little but it was enough to push her over the edge.

As for her hunting pals not appearing for the prosecution? They wouldn’t would they? I know enough about the hunting fraternity to know that such behaviour is commonplace - the majority wouldn’t bat an eyelid.

Exactly! Treating the pony in that manner would do nothing whatsoever to 'correct its behaviour'. And yes, clearly her hunting friends would be on her side - as anyone who knows anything about the hunting fraternity would know.

Grantanow

Should juries be abolished?

What difference do you think that would have made?

I think there’s a salient point being missed here. She didn’t hit and kick that pony to teach it a lesson or correct its behaviour. She was frustrated and angry and took it out on the pony. She was likely already in a mood because what the pony did was very little but it was enough to push her over the edge.

As for her hunting pals not appearing for the prosecution? They wouldn’t would they? I know enough about the hunting fraternity to know that such behaviour is commonplace - the majority wouldn’t bat an eyelid.

DaisyAnneReturns, I'm not putting words into anyone's mouth, nor am I twisting your words. I don't think anyone is condoning mob violence at all. And it is indisputable that she slapped and kicked the horse. The evidence of that is there for all to see - not to mention the fact that she admitted it in court. What was disputed was whether she caused 'unnecessary suffering' to the animal in the eyes of the law. So I will ask again, not only to you but to others - does anyone think that it is ever acceptable to slap and kick a horse like that?

DaisyAnneReturns

I write my posts very carefully Blondiescot. Please do not put words in my mouth.

The evidence is not "indisputable". Indeed, the point of a court is to dispute or argue such evidence. You were not in the position the court was.

Who has said it was acceptable behaviour.? I don't find the twisting of my words acceptable behaviour. But I would no more want mob justice to descend on you, because you have behaved in what I consider a less than civilised way, than I approve of the mob justice dealt out to this woman.

Werner Herzog said, "Civilization is like a thin layer of ice upon a deep ocean of chaos and darkness." Behaviour like this woman's may break through this thin layer but so does the attempt at mob justice, the 'need' to be angry I have seen on here and on social media generally.

As mob attacks have more chance of breaking down society than one woman and one horse can, I would deem the mob to be more dangerous to society, as a whole, than the woman, however unreasonable you may find that.

The evidence is not "indisputable". Indeed, the point of a court is to dispute or argue such evidence. You were not in the position the court was.

The evidence that she caused unnecessary suffering was not sufficient to convict her of the offence. After GSM's succinct explanation, I think most of us understand that.

The woman has admitted that she kicked and slapped the horse and implied that it was a proportionate response at that moment - the 'moment' we saw only in part on the video. However, coupled with the bit of the video we did see, and her defence of her actions - then the fact that she hit the animal is indisputable.

As for mob violence, I agree with you - however I don't believe anyone posting here and discussing the verdict, is likely to form part of any mob bent on terrorising this woman.

Should juries be abolished?

There's no 'mob justice' just people who've all seen that video and deplore the actions of this woman.

I write my posts very carefully Blondiescot. Please do not put words in my mouth.

The evidence is not "indisputable". Indeed, the point of a court is to dispute or argue such evidence. You were not in the position the court was.

Who has said it was acceptable behaviour.? I don't find the twisting of my words acceptable behaviour. But I would no more want mob justice to descend on you, because you have behaved in what I consider a less than civilised way, than I approve of the mob justice dealt out to this woman.

Werner Herzog said, "Civilization is like a thin layer of ice upon a deep ocean of chaos and darkness." Behaviour like this woman's may break through this thin layer but so does the attempt at mob justice, the 'need' to be angry I have seen on here and on social media generally.

As mob attacks have more chance of breaking down society than one woman and one horse can, I would deem the mob to be more dangerous to society, as a whole, than the woman, however unreasonable you may find that.

DaisyAnneReturns

I still feel what we have heard is very one-sided.

The video "was filmed by a hunt saboteur group".

Leading critics have claimed that the RSPCA spends too much time on prosecuting cases of neglect and cruelty and not enough on finding new homes for animals. In November 2013 the RSPCA was accused of instigating police raids on small animal shelters with insufficient evidence that animals were being mistreated. At one point the RSPCA became the most complained about charity in the UK.

The pony was standing on a grass verge at the side of the road with a child holding on to its lead rope when it unexpectedly started moving into the road, dragging the child behind.

None of this has been put forward in the screams against someone who has been found not guilty by a court.

I simply come back to the fact that we were not in that court and did not hear the evidence. None of us were at that roadside. Most have relied on reports in what they would normally see as the untrustworthy "gutter press".

So a horse which moved 'unexpectedly' deserved to be slapped and kicked? No, none of us were in court, but we have all seen indisputable evidence that she did slap and kick the horse. I understand the burden of proof in court cases, and I can understand how the verdict was reached, but I've yet to see anyone on here explain how that was acceptable behaviour. If she had slapped and kicked the child in the same way, would you still be defending her?

DaisyAnneReturns

I didn't say there weren't.

However, because this was reported in such a one-sided way her family have received death threats, she has lost her job, temporarily driven from her home and a "snippet of a video" has been used by social media to define her life.

I actually agree with you, DAR. The woman was extremely foolish, but she in no way deserved such extreme reactions from anyone.

I don't like the 'unnecessary suffering' term at all. When is suffering ever necessary - except for medical procedures?

Reading GSM's posts, I understand why the verdict was given.

And, sure, we cannot tell from the video how much force was used by the woman when she kicked and hit him round the face.

But the video does clearly show that she kicked and hit him - for the crime of trying to trot off.

I saw a man in the park once hit his dog round the head for a similar 'offence'.

The arrogance of the human species and the sense of 'entitlement' to make animals obey them sickens me.

That pony was simply obeying its natural instinct, it doesn't have the capacity to understand why it was kicked and hit, because it is an animal. It was distressing to watch the video.

Apart from the death-threats - which I can never condone under any circumstances - nor hounding the family out of their home albeit temporarily... I'm glad she was sacked from her job. She tried to 'teach' the pony that actions have consequences, and now she knows the same principle applies to her.

Germanshepherdsmum

The charge would have been causing unnecessary suffering Glorianny. The jury would have heard expert evidence as to whether unnecessary suffering was caused and simply had to decide whether causing unnecessary suffering had been proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is a matter of fact. Emotions have to be set aside. It’s nothing to do with whether that was or was not an acceptable way to behave or an adequate way to control an animal.

I had a feeling that the standard of evidence required to prove cruelty unnecessary suffering would be quite high and that, unless the horse had been physically injured, it would be difficult to prove.

Which doesn't in any way alter my opinion of her actions. She kicked the horse and punched it on the nose. Horses aren't big unfeeling lumps of flesh, they are sensitive animals which respond to sympathetic handling and bribery... They also have memories. What she did to it could well make it difficult to catch in the future; frustrating and potentially dangerous on a road.

I saw quite a long clip of the incident. The horse got loose and wandered off down the road. She caught it without any difficulty at all. At which point any wise horse handler would have given it a pat and a polo for being so good and led it back to where it should have been.

Whatever had happened before the video was taken would in no way whatsoever have justified what she did. You just do not lose your temper with a horse and physically abuse it, it's counterproductive and, frankly, ignorant.

I am not being emotional about this, I have had horses for years and do know what I am talking about. Others have said similar on this thread.

The video alone is solid evidence of cruelty. There's no need to take any circumstances into account - especially as they were caused by the (idiot) woman leaving a child to hold the horse - near a road.

Courts and juries get things wrong quite often. Juries are just random people, after all. At least she will have lost friendship and respect from others - a punishment in itself - as she's shown her character faults so well.

I didn't say there weren't.

However, because this was reported in such a one-sided way her family have received death threats, she has lost her job, temporarily driven from her home and a "snippet of a video" has been used by social media to define her life.

Oh please. There are other ways of controlling an animal without punching, kicking and slapping.

I still feel what we have heard is very one-sided.

The video "was filmed by a hunt saboteur group".

Leading critics have claimed that the RSPCA spends too much time on prosecuting cases of neglect and cruelty and not enough on finding new homes for animals. In November 2013 the RSPCA was accused of instigating police raids on small animal shelters with insufficient evidence that animals were being mistreated. At one point the RSPCA became the most complained about charity in the UK.

The pony was standing on a grass verge at the side of the road with a child holding on to its lead rope when it unexpectedly started moving into the road, dragging the child behind.

None of this has been put forward in the screams against someone who has been found not guilty by a court.

I simply come back to the fact that we were not in that court and did not hear the evidence. None of us were at that roadside. Most have relied on reports in what they would normally see as the untrustworthy "gutter press".

Did anyone come forward to give evidence for prosecution or defence? Was that necessary. There was the video, a vet examined the horse, there were experts for defence and prosecution as well as a judge, jury and legal framework

The fact that no one came forward to give evidence for the prosecution indicates that none of them regarded it as cruelty

Or they were afraid to go against her?
Or didnt fancy going to court?
Or they were her friends?
Or any number of reasons.
Their kids are friends at school? etc etc

Well said, GSM. And Glorianny, based on the video alone, do you think that's an acceptable way to treat any animal? I'm not talking about the charge of causing unnecessary suffering - but do you think slapping and kicking a horse can ever be considered acceptable?

The charge would have been causing unnecessary suffering Glorianny. The jury would have heard expert evidence as to whether unnecessary suffering was caused and simply had to decide whether causing unnecessary suffering had been proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is a matter of fact. Emotions have to be set aside. It’s nothing to do with whether that was or was not an acceptable way to behave or an adequate way to control an animal.

Callistemon21

^So either they are all unfeeling people who support cruelty, or there really wasn't any^

Well, that's an interesting thought. Perhaps most of the people there thought that kicking and punching horses is an acceptable way to behave.

Perhaps they did. Perhaps they thought it was an adequate way to control an animal. I don't know I wasn't there. But neither were any of the people on this thread who are being judge and jury based a short video clip. But a jury given all the evidence found her innocent of the charge.

The video clearly shows that woman kicking and slapping the horse. Though we can't tell from the footage how forceful were the slaps and the kick, we can clearly see her doing it. She admitted it anyway as her way of disciplining the animal. Shameful.

I can't imagine any circumstances where you would need to kick, slap or punch any animal. She didn't deny that she did it. She was just trying to discipline him apparently. Please correct me if I am wrong, but isn't she part of a fox hunting group?