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

It is a disgrace. How she was found not guilty is beyond me. I hope she is ostracised in her local community.

Lucyd

It is a disgrace. How she was found not guilty is beyond me. I hope she is ostracised in her local community.

You don't seem to understand justice or how courts work.

Gang style retribution based on your opinion, which is what you seem to be advocating, would lead to increased instability in the country. Is that really what you are advocating?

She was legally found innocent of causing unnecessary cruelty, but on the basis of a short video clip GNers seem to think they know better. So I wonder whose standards should apply here? There are members of the public who think it's OK to use dogs in fighting and other blood sports, there are others who think animals in abattoirs are being treated cruelly and who regard many farming methods as cruel. So who is going to make the decision here if not the law?
This concept that it is OK to continue to berate someone because of your personal views is wrong and dangerous, because if we don't allow the law to judge whose standards should we use?

Do you not understand, Glorianny, that whilst accepting that she was found not guilty of causing unnecessary suffering , (not ‘unnecessary cruelty’ as you put it) people (I am one of them) nevertheless believe her actions to have been cruel? That is not saying that we have different standards. For a prosecution for cruelty or neglect to succeed, it has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that unnecessary suffering was caused, not simply that the defendant acted cruelly. I see no reason why that should preclude any of us from speaking out about cruelty. In this case public reaction has punished this woman much more effectively than the law could have done.

This concept that it is OK to continue to berate someone because of your personal views is wrong and dangerous

The concept that we should not be allowed to express an opinion, within the boundaries of the law, is a dangerous path to go down.

What she did was not considered to be a crime according to the jury but we are still allowed to say that we thought it was the wrong think to do to an animal. Having viwed the video, imo it was not done to discipline the horse, it was done in sheer temper.

thing

Thanks DAR and GSM
in this case, the court of public opinion has punished this woman much more effectively than the law could have done

No GSM. Some people will believe the actions were cruel but, whether some gransnetters like it or not, some will not.

Glorianny does have a point. It certainly can be dangerous to encourage people to believe their oppinions are above the law and that they can take punishment into there own hands. Remember Jo Cox. Did you, or any of those suggesting "community" punishment want that to happen? The man who killed her should not have been the only one held to account for a criminal act. This excessive right to say what you like, and megaphone it out on social media should come under new law if existing law doesn't cover it.

The publishers who make their living out of content must be held to account. They currently take all the benefits and none of the responsibility.

Of course some people will consider that her actions were not cruel, especially people who would do the same thing themselves.

I did not suggest community punishment. I commented on the punishment which had been meted out to her by public opinion. How dare you ask if I wanted Jo Cox to be murdered. That is beyond the pale. Twisting words, as ever.

Germanshepherdsmum

Do you not understand, Glorianny, that whilst accepting that she was found not guilty of causing unnecessary suffering , (not ‘unnecessary cruelty’ as you put it) people (I am one of them) nevertheless believe her actions to have been cruel? That is not saying that we have different standards. For a prosecution for cruelty or neglect to succeed, it has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that unnecessary suffering was caused, not simply that the defendant acted cruelly. I see no reason why that should preclude any of us from speaking out about cruelty. In this case public reaction has punished this woman much more effectively than the law could have done.

Totally agree, GSM. It can be perefectly possible to understand that the case may not have met the burden of proof required for 'unnecessary suffering', while at the same time believing that her actions were totally unacceptable. I am still waiting for anyone to tell me why they think that is NOT the case.

As far as I can see Blondiescot, no one has said that throughout the entirety of this thread.

Could that be because those who are disagreeing are disagreeing about something else you may not chose to address. It is, after all, a choice we can all make.

DaisyAnneReturns

I think you will have to explain why you are confused Aveline, if you want a reply.

DaisyAnneReturns

As far as I can see Blondiescot, no one has said that throughout the entirety of this thread.

Could that be because those who are disagreeing are disagreeing about something else you may not chose to address. It is, after all, a choice we can all make.

I have addressed the points which have been made, but I have repeatedly asked those who appear to have been defending this woman's actions whether they feel it is ever acceptable to slap or kick a horse. So far, no-one has given me a direct answer to that.

DaisyAnneReturns

LondonMzFitz

Quote - Hunting is legal as long as you follow the laws and rules governing it.

Hunting is absolutely not legal in England, Scotland or Wales :
www.league.org.uk/what-we-do/hunting/fox-hunting/#:~:text=Is%20fox%20hunting%20illegal%3F,Scotland)%20Act%202002%20in%20Scotland. So called "Trail Hunting" is legal, where a pre-laid scent trail is laid, but if the hounds come across the scent of a fox then the chase is on. Until the fox - or at this time of year, fox cubs - are mauled to death while people sit on their horses and look on ... "Sport" apparently. Fun times, take your kids ... Yuk.

Your prejudice is blinding you.

Hunting is legal AS LONG AS YOU FOLLOW THE LAWS AND RULES GOVERNING IT.

What is so difficult to understand about that?

I don't believe I am prejudiced, I regard it as informed decision.

I think your challenge is Blondiescot that you, like the vast majority on here, believe, as Anikin in Star Wars did that, “If you are not with me, then you are my enemy.”

You set out to make me your enemy with, as you tell us, repeatedly asking "those who appear to have been defending this woman's actions whether they feel it is ever acceptable to slap or kick a horse." I would sincerely like to know where I defended or denounced her actions.

Even in that quote, you have decided that others must approach this event as you do. This event, according to you, is either acceptable or unacceptable. The parameters of my thinking must be the ones you decided.

But those are not my thoughts as I look at both the events and the reaction. I have tried to unravel the event, the circumstances it took place in, and the outcomes, some of which I found "acceptable", some of which I found less so.

It seems to me that your only goal now is not to assess the rights or wrongs of the event but to either bully me into saying I agree or make me say something you can attack me for. Otherwise, why ask a question you know I will not answer because, unlike you, I do not deal in absolutes.

I don't believe I am prejudiced, I regard it as informed decision. LondonMzFitz

We would all like, at some point, to believe we are not prejudiced or biased. The only way to stop that prejudice or bias affecting our decisions is to accept that we are, and understand how that might affect our thinking.

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

DaisyAnneReturns

I think your challenge is Blondiescot that you, like the vast majority on here, believe, as Anikin in Star Wars did that, “If you are not with me, then you are my enemy.”

You set out to make me your enemy with, as you tell us, repeatedly asking "those who appear to have been defending this woman's actions whether they feel it is ever acceptable to slap or kick a horse." I would sincerely like to know where I defended or denounced her actions.

Even in that quote, you have decided that others must approach this event as you do. This event, according to you, is either acceptable or unacceptable. The parameters of my thinking must be the ones you decided.

But those are not my thoughts as I look at both the events and the reaction. I have tried to unravel the event, the circumstances it took place in, and the outcomes, some of which I found "acceptable", some of which I found less so.

It seems to me that your only goal now is not to assess the rights or wrongs of the event but to either bully me into saying I agree or make me say something you can attack me for. Otherwise, why ask a question you know I will not answer because, unlike you, I do not deal in absolutes.

Wow, you are reading a hell of a lot into what you think I said or did not say there! I'm not trying to bully anyone. I am asking a very simple question, and not just to you - is it ever acceptable to slap or kick a horse? Yes or no. It's a very simple question, so why not give me a simple answer? I am genuinely interested to learn if anyone actually thinks there are circumstances in which it would be acceptable to treat an animal in that way.

I will give you an answer. NO.

DaisyAnneReturns

^I don't believe I am prejudiced, I regard it as informed decision.^ LondonMzFitz

We would all like, at some point, to believe we are not prejudiced or biased. The only way to stop that prejudice or bias affecting our decisions is to accept that we are, and understand how that might affect our thinking.

Okay, now tell us about condescension!

Blondiescot

Absolutists see things as either right or wrong. There is little chance of nuance in an absolutists arguement therefore no point in answering your question which is, in itself, a logical fallacy.

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?

I am sorry if you find that condescending. LondonMzFitz. It wasn't my intention. I wonder why a simple truth makes you feel like that.

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.