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

proberty probity

I'm horrified by the decision .

Where is she teaching ?
I wouldn't want her to teach any of my children .

It’s very rare for juries to be able to see an actual film of the crime a person is accused of, and even more strange for them to dismiss the evidence of their own eyes. I can only assume they were directed by the judge on some legal technicality. It doesn’t change the fact that she is a nasty bad tempered woman who doesn’t understand anything about horses.

I thought her type of horse person had died out long ago, with the law against hunting. Unfortunately, it seems both continue with impunity.

I listened to the statement she made after the case. She said something along the lines of 'The RSPCA wouldn't engage with us. If they had come to see how we kept the horse and how well looked after he was, they would have had s different view. No. You still slapped and kicked him.
How many times had she done it in the past I wonder?

I find your comments very ODD DAR

What possible excuse could justify punching and kicking an animal??

None in my opinion. If she did get off due to a ‘technicality’ then the law is definitely an ASS!

So social media is now judge and jury!
Try listening to what she says. Why didn't the RSPCA engage with her and examine the horse? Because they chose like most on this thread to judge by a short video clip. It's worse than a witch hunt!
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12445473/Primary-school-teacher-39-not-guilty-animal-cruelty-footage-showed-punching-kicking-horse.html

To me, thats not the point Glorianny. If they had examined the horse, he may not have any visible marks/injuries from the kick/slaps. What does that prove? That she didn't kick hom hard enough?

Mistreating an animal in any shape or form is totally unexceptable. So how did this woman get away with it? The video clip is pretty clear so I wonder what evidence the jury was given

I have no idea why this bad tempered woman got away with blatant animal cruelty. I was amazed to hear the verdict.

Clear and obvious evidence was there and she should have punishment for being so vile.

Kate1949

I listened to the statement she made after the case. She said something along the lines of 'The RSPCA wouldn't engage with us. If they had come to see how we kept the horse and how well looked after he was, they would have had s different view. No. You still slapped and kicked him.
How many times had she done it in the past I wonder?

Back in the day - there were parents who looked after their children with care, providing for their needs, keeping them well fed, entertained, clean and healthy... but they didn't hesitate in hitting the child if they thought it might teach them a lesson...

Maybe she's from the same school of discipline?

What I find abhorrent is that people keep horses for their own pleasure, entertainment and amusement, and when the animal reverts to its natural pattern of behaviour - it gets punished. It has to be taught to fit into our world instead of us fitting into its world.

I appreciate we don't know the complete context, and a loose horse on the road is a danger to itself as well as others - but maybe when you're trying to coax a horse into a box - it shouldn't be done actually on the road if you can't manage it without hitting it to teach it a lesson?

Kate1949

To me, thats not the point Glorianny. If they had examined the horse, he may not have any visible marks/injuries from the kick/slaps. What does that prove? That she didn't kick hom hard enough?

Don't you understand that it really doesn't matter what you think. You were not there. You did not witness it. You have not been given all the evidence. Videos are notoriously bad at showing the actual event, but you feel you can judge by one short clip. It's the worst form of social media hounding and however you feel you should accept the jury's judgement. The posts suggesting this was some sort of technicality are so wrong the jury debated for 5 hours and she was found not guilty.

Dickens I don't think parents in days of yore thought punching a child hard in the face or kicking them was teaching them a lesson.

Well no I wasn't there and yes the jury deliberated for 5 hours. I think I probably am judging her from the clip which I found upsetting.

DaisyAnneReturns

An expert witness is a person whose opinion, by education, training, certification, skills or experience, is accepted by the judge as an expert. In this case, the expert was a vet.

'Expertise' (your quotes) is not "being questioned"; being the expert witness exposed to the evidence in this trial is. As far as I 'm aware no GN poster acted as such a witness. Therefore, they don't know the evidence presented to the jury, which may or may not have included the piece of film - their only evidence.

You are ready to stick to facts when facts are in favour of your argument Maisie, but very thin-skinned when they are not. Your loaded comment, "What level of abuse are you willing to find acceptable?" is an underhand attack. I am never prepared to accept abuse.

Thanking the jury for their service, Recorder Graham Huston said: 'Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much. I know it was not an easy case, no case is easy, but some cases are more difficult than others.

^'What is obvious is you gave this case the utmost attention and you proceeded with your deliberations carefully and thoroughly and I am very grateful to you.'^

The "expert" vets didnt agree with each other.

An equine vet, Dr Suzanne Green, told jurors the striking was "not proportionate", but another vet, appearing for Moulds' defence, said Bruce would probably have felt just "transient discomfort".

Legal teams are selective and, as with cases involving psychiatrists et al, there are usually conflicting opinions from the professionals paid to give their view. The defence will obviously go with ‘expert’ that supports their case.

This was a clear case of bad tempered animal abuse. It may not have particularly injured the pony but it was intended to cause pain or she wouldn’t have done it.

Exactly tickingbird.

tickingbird your last sentence says it all.The worst thing is the horse didn’t seem to be doing much wrong anyway and went over to it’s owner who kicked it and slapped it around the nose.
However, this obvs doesn’t equate to animal cruelty in a court situation.The vid showed her leading it back into it’s box and it went in calmly.

Well she seems to have learnt something from it because she has now said "I certainly will never strike a horse, discipline a horse, in that manner because my life has been torn to pieces as a result of that four-second decision," she added." What a pity that she had to learn that kicking and punching an animal isn't acceptable only when she got dragged through the court. Which makes me wonder how many times she'd done it before and just not got caught on camera.

The judge must have been asleep on the day, how did that obnoxious woman get away with being a nasty horrible bully?
She inflicted punch blows to that poor horse and then started kicking the horse as well. I clearly think that because the woman appeared to have a good background by that I mean a nice horse box dressed up in all her riding gear and owning a horse the court decided they would just let her off with a slap on the wrist. On the other hand if it had been a gipsy traveler doing that to one of their horses they would probably have got three months in prison. One rule must be for all no matter who. she was guilty of animal cruelty and should have had to pay the price.

You took the words out of my mouth Claudius. I wouldn't imagine this is the first time she's done it. I wouldn't consider myself a particular animal lover, but I hate cruelty of any kind.

fancythat

DaisyAnneReturns

An expert witness is a person whose opinion, by education, training, certification, skills or experience, is accepted by the judge as an expert. In this case, the expert was a vet.

'Expertise' (your quotes) is not "being questioned"; being the expert witness exposed to the evidence in this trial is. As far as I 'm aware no GN poster acted as such a witness. Therefore, they don't know the evidence presented to the jury, which may or may not have included the piece of film - their only evidence.

You are ready to stick to facts when facts are in favour of your argument Maisie, but very thin-skinned when they are not. Your loaded comment, "What level of abuse are you willing to find acceptable?" is an underhand attack. I am never prepared to accept abuse.

Thanking the jury for their service, Recorder Graham Huston said: 'Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much. I know it was not an easy case, no case is easy, but some cases are more difficult than others.

^'What is obvious is you gave this case the utmost attention and you proceeded with your deliberations carefully and thoroughly and I am very grateful to you.'^

The "expert" vets didnt agree with each other.

An equine vet, Dr Suzanne Green, told jurors the striking was "not proportionate", but another vet, appearing for Moulds' defence, said Bruce would probably have felt just "transient discomfort".

Experts don't necessarily agree. They are there to give expert opinion which is objective and unbiased, in relation to matters within their expertise. It must also be evidence which gives the court the help it needs in forming its conclusions. If expert opinions differ it will show the jury that experts differ in the area they are judging. They are not there to tell the jury what to believe or make their minds up for them.

Glorianny

Kate1949

To me, thats not the point Glorianny. If they had examined the horse, he may not have any visible marks/injuries from the kick/slaps. What does that prove? That she didn't kick hom hard enough?

Don't you understand that it really doesn't matter what you think. You were not there. You did not witness it. You have not been given all the evidence. Videos are notoriously bad at showing the actual event, but you feel you can judge by one short clip. It's the worst form of social media hounding and however you feel you should accept the jury's judgement. The posts suggesting this was some sort of technicality are so wrong the jury debated for 5 hours and she was found not guilty.

I can't believe that anyone who saw the video clip could think that her behaviour was in any way acceptable. I've sat through enough court cases in my time to know that there would be a lot more evidence than just that short clip, but are you really trying to tell me that you think it's acceptable to slap and kick a horse like that?

Personally if she been my child's teacher, I'd have been very relieved that she'd been removed from caring for them. And if my child was in the class that she's now teaching at, I'd be worried about how she'd show her anger and exasperation in a classroom of 30+ children.

I suspect the charge was one of causing unnecessary suffering to the animal. Her actions were abhorrent but may not have caused unnecessary suffering, which is what would have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. I haven’t read up on the case but my guess is that the prosecution were unable to prove beyond reasonable doubt that she caused unnecessary suffering. I imagine that what would make say a cat suffer may not make a horse suffer, because of their relative sizes. Please note that I am not in any way condoning what was done, merely trying to find a possible explanation for the verdict.

That does make sense GSM and without any obvious injury, proving unnecessary suffering would be hard to prove. Someone like her shouldn't be around horses or any animals come to that.