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

Nope gsm, you have never referred to a technicality during this discussion.

Separate thread I think but - my experience if the rspca was of reluctance to be proactive. I’ve seen dogs and horses left in dreadful neglect and abuse.

Germanshepherdsmum

Quite right .

One can disapprove of the actions whilst accepting that they did not reach the threshold for a guilty verdict.

Of course you may, again I dont think anyone has said otherwise.

But that disapproval doesn't vindicate anyone if they make excessive/undeserved claims against that person nor does it vindicate aggressive/intimidating threats made towards them or suggested to others.

Thanks Iam. Yes, the RSPCA is inconsistent in its responses.

I think they foolishly allowed themselves to be railroaded into this prosecution by public opinion. They called an expert but they of all people know what ‘unnecessary suffering’ is, and if it was caused at all in this case there was no evidence of it when the horse was seen by a vet ten days later. They really should have had the guts to put out a statement explaining clearly the threshold which has to be met in such cases and that unfortunately there was insufficient evidence to support a prosecution on this occasion, such prosecutions having to be funded entirely by the donations they receive and if unsuccessful resulting in payment of the defendant’s costs as well as their own. The RSPCA are a charity which I support, but they are not above criticism. I would be happy to see their powers of prosecution removed and placed in the hands of the more pragmatic CPS.

Germanshepherdsmum

Did I say there was?

No, Callistemon did. You then said:

Getting off on a technicality’ frequently means that the defendant is found not guilty due to a legal lacuna brought up by the defence. It is of course a layman’s term. I don’t agree that it ‘usually’ means that the case doesn’t reach court or is dismissed. I would substitute ‘sometimes’ for ‘usually’.

Which proved to be another irrelevance.

I was addressing your claim that ‘getting off on a technicality’ usually means that a case doesn’t reach court or is dismissed. ‘Usually’ means that that is what mostly happens. It is not. So my correction of your statement was an irrelevance?

It has taken me a while to see you are somewhat playing word games, DaisyAnneReturns. Up to you of course, but not my cup of tea.
I could say more. I will if you want me to. Or I can leave it at that.

I think you will find, if you re-read, that it is others not me, playing games.

This women, whatever anyone thinks of her actions, did not deserve the treatment she got, here or on the rest of the relevant social media sites.

You have the power of the majority behind you fancythat, so you may say what you like knowing they are only likely to support and praise you.

And this bit of nastiness comes just as some posts seem to be at the moment when, without the extremists we have got closer to an accommodation of views

I said play word games not play games. Very different thing.
I will send you an example of playing word games.

The woman - up to people what they write.

I have never been one to worry about power of majority!
Learnt long ago not to bother about that.

Was not aware that saying someone plays word games, is nasty.

DaisyAnneReturns

Germanshepherdsmum

Is dislike of any form of cruelty to animals prejudice or bias?

Define cruelty, animal and dislike or are these all, for everyone, whatever you decide?

This is one example. There are a couple of subsequent others.

Define animal?! I had to read that about 3 times to make sure I was reading it correctly.

There may be a couple of othes playing word games[not the same as playing games]. I dont know.

Not sure I care about an accomodation of views.
There is hardly a total concensus in life about anything.
You and maybe a couple of others think we were not the jury, and the evidence they heard, will not have been the same as people not on that jury. Fair enough.

I was a little surprised to be asked to define ‘dislike’. I tend to go with dictionary definitions rather than make up my own meanings.

DAR I think I will leave things there. You are sounding more defensive that I was expecting.
I hope you have a good evening.

GSM and FT I don't understand what your saying. When I ask questions it's because I want to be clear what you are saying. Nothing more, nothing less. Mainly because you will very quickly pick me up on anything I get wrong - sometimes with the odd snear. Don't get me wrong, I don't care about you doing that, I am now feeling very good that you actually think I have time to write posts - very time consuming - and play some sort of game. I must be cleverer than I thought.

That’s the second time you’ve used that excuse, when people’s meanings could not have been clearer. You talked about prejudice. I asked if dislike of cruelty to animals was prejudice. You asked me for definitions of dislike, cruelty and animals and whether I sought to impose my definitions on others. Those words could not have been clearer. You were not trying to be clear about what I was saying, A child would have understood. Word play at its clearest, which you seek to deny. You play games twisting words and you know that full well. Don’t pretend that you understand. The rest of us do. It’s not clever. It’s nasty.

It reads like word games to me too. It isn’t clever btw.

Germanshepherdsmum has it right in my view about the RSPCA.
What happened to the horse was wrong but not a strong enough case for court.

Some years ago, Prince Charles was seen thumping his horse during a polo match. Was he guilty of cruelty? If a stable hand hit a horse, would he/she be prosecuted?
Perhaps the verdict depends on your position in society.

Thanks Oreo.

Germanshepherdsmum

Thanks Iam. Yes, the RSPCA is inconsistent in its responses.

I think they foolishly allowed themselves to be railroaded into this prosecution by public opinion. They called an expert but they of all people know what ‘unnecessary suffering’ is, and if it was caused at all in this case there was no evidence of it when the horse was seen by a vet ten days later. They really should have had the guts to put out a statement explaining clearly the threshold which has to be met in such cases and that unfortunately there was insufficient evidence to support a prosecution on this occasion, such prosecutions having to be funded entirely by the donations they receive and if unsuccessful resulting in payment of the defendant’s costs as well as their own. The RSPCA are a charity which I support, but they are not above criticism. I would be happy to see their powers of prosecution removed and placed in the hands of the more pragmatic CPS.

The RSPCA are a charity which I support, but they are not above criticism. I would be happy to see their powers of prosecution removed and placed in the hands of the more pragmatic CPS.

I didn't realise it was a prosecution brought by them with no input from the CPS.

I also support the charity.

If, as reported, they left a card at Moulds' home asking her to contact them after the incident, it seems remiss that they didn't follow through.

They do seem to be between a rock and a hard place; they've been accused of not-acting - also of over-reacting. As you say, probably time to remove their powers of prosecution. Although I've seen past references to their high success rate with prosecutions.

The offence is ‘causing unnecessary suffering’ *curtaintwitcher. Unfortunately not all acts that we might call cruel cause unnecessary suffering, as we have seen in this case. It doesn’t depend on your position in society, it depends on whether you have caused unnecessary suffering. Hitting a horse, no matter how reprehensible, is unlikely to cause unnecessary suffering for the purposes of a prosecution.

Germanshepherdsmum

That’s the second time you’ve used that excuse, when people’s meanings could not have been clearer. You talked about prejudice. I asked if dislike of cruelty to animals was prejudice. You asked me for definitions of dislike, cruelty and animals and whether I sought to impose my definitions on others. Those words could not have been clearer. You were not trying to be clear about what I was saying, A child would have understood. Word play at its clearest, which you seek to deny. You play games twisting words and you know that full well. Don’t pretend that you understand. The rest of us do. It’s not clever. It’s nasty.

Of course, this could be more explicit. You have asked a very general question. I can't see the point, the need or any useful outcome relevant to this thread. We are talking about a woman, a horse and the ordure that has been dumped on her.

Why is this question relevant? Perhaps you can explain that. You know I will not answer random, off topic questions if I can avoid it.

Oreo

It reads like word games to me too. It isn’t clever btw.

Germanshepherdsmum has it right in my view about the RSPCA.
What happened to the horse was wrong but not a strong enough case for court.

I still don't know what you mean by "word games". I write as I speak, just as I presume the rest if you do. Are you now criticising the way I speak, my general communication skills?

This really is getting to be a very personal attack.

She got away with it because the jury were directed by the judge to clear her. No doubt both her and the judge move in similar circles. If that had been some kids on a council estate the outcome would have been different. What she did was disgusting and she deserved everything she got.

Please provide proof of that Gillycats.

Gillycats, it really is nonsense to claim some kind of class system meant this woman received more lenient treatment than ‘kids on a council estate’ would have.

You know that my question was entirely relevant DAR as it was posed in response to a comment about prejudice which you posted. In context, it was a very specific question, not a general question. You have chosen not to answer the question, as usual. My choice is not to engage further with you. I have better things to do.