doggy.lover Posted March 1, 2008 Report Share Posted March 1, 2008 animal cruelty I'm utterly disgusted that someone who runs a pet care facility yet fails to care for that pet gets nothing more than a 12mth ban and what the hell good does that do when she has a business partner who can carry on running it for her anyway What a set of : the magistrates are Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanrossscot Posted March 1, 2008 Report Share Posted March 1, 2008 Unfortunately, Magistrates & Judges are bound by sentencing guidelines, it MAY be that they were only allowed to give the sentence that they did. (ie Crown Court Judge can only sentence max 7 years for tobacco smuggling no matter how much they smuggled) Magistrate's are restricted in the sentencing and fine powers more than judges which is why more serious cases are referred to Crown Court. I don't say it's right but.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillyMalc Posted March 1, 2008 Report Share Posted March 1, 2008 animal cruelty I'm utterly disgusted that someone who runs a pet care facility yet fails to care for that pet gets nothing more than a 12mth ban and what the hell good does that do when she has a business partner who can carry on running it for her anyway What a set of : the magistrates are Reading the article it appears that her partner has also been given a 12 month ban. The law is an ass in most cases where there are animals involved. Exactly the light punishments - if any at all - give the impression that animals are not important and I'm sure that that is part of the many reasons why some people feel it's okay to abuse/neglect them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted March 2, 2008 Report Share Posted March 2, 2008 It would appear not! http://www.rykat.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=36285 http://www.rykat.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=36279 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BilRed Posted March 7, 2008 Report Share Posted March 7, 2008 It would appear not! http://www.rykat.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=36285 http://www.rykat.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=36279 The first of those stories looks to be on very shaky ground with regard to what the truth of the situation is. The second one I'm not sure who you think should be punished and for what exactly. Clearly there is some shady behaviour going on but animal cruelty? Obviously I don't like healthy animals being put down for no good reason but I don't think for a minute that if the Vets refused to pts owners would take the dogs home with them and give them a good home instead, from that point of view the Vets could be said to be helping to avoid cruelty. What happens to the bodies after death may be distasteful but cruel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted March 7, 2008 Report Share Posted March 7, 2008 On the first, you're entitled to your opinion but perhaps a little more research may change your mind? The suggestion you appear to make re the second, ie that it's not cruel but effectively okay / acceptable for a vet to put a perfectly healthy dog to sleep, just for their organs & a little cash rather than even attempt to help them find a loving home simply appalls me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carolh365 Posted March 8, 2008 Report Share Posted March 8, 2008 Have a look at daneline.co.uk click the moving message at the top how daneline helped the RSPCA, I had 2 of these puppies with me 1 for 4 months and the other for 10 months, did the punishment for the crime, I feel not ....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted March 8, 2008 Report Share Posted March 8, 2008 Have a look at daneline.co.uk click the moving message at the top how daneline helped the RSPCA, I had 2 of these puppies with me 1 for 4 months and the other for 10 months, did the punishment for the crime, I feel not ....... Looking at the pictures & weights it's unbelievable that she's had the audacity to keep appealing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carolh365 Posted March 8, 2008 Report Share Posted March 8, 2008 They were the lucky ones Ian, some didnt make it that far Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BilRed Posted March 10, 2008 Report Share Posted March 10, 2008 I assume you are talking to me, in which case; On the first, you're entitled to your opinion but perhaps a little more research may change your mind? Yes, you're right, I am entitled to my opinion. You don't know how much research I have or haven't done into this or what connection I may or may not have with the story - maybe you are the one that should be doing more research I'm not inclined to take much note of a typically hysterical tabloid story. Might be true, might not be. I'm not about to hang anyone based on that. Does the punishment fit the alleged crime? What punishment? I don't see that this story fits the OP's question. The suggestion you appear to make re the second, ie that it's not cruel but effectively okay / acceptable for a vet to put a perfectly healthy dog to sleep, just for their organs & a little cash rather than even attempt to help them find a loving home simply appalls me. The second one I'm not sure who you think should be punished and for what exactly. Clearly there is some shady behaviour going on but animal cruelty? Obviously I don't like healthy animals being put down for no good reason but I don't think for a minute that if the Vets refused to pts owners would take the dogs home with them and give them a good home instead, from that point of view the Vets could be said to be helping to avoid cruelty. What happens to the bodies after death may be distasteful but cruel? I don't see anywhere that I suggest I think that the dogs were put down either for their organs OR for the £30 fee. My suggestion although maybe not stated clearly enough for you, is that I am sure that the Vets are well aware that the 'owners' of these dogs will find another method of disposing of them if the the Vet doesn't do the job for them. Perhaps you think that fate would be better or that it would make a significant difference if the dogs went to the pound and were pts after seven days. I expect Vets in your area do have plenty of time to run a rehoming service but, in the real world, they tend to be a little pushed for time. I see that thousands of perfectly healthy animals are destroyed and their body parts sold off for a profit every single day. The fictional greyhounds would have a more peaceful and respectful death than those animals. I don't regard putting an animal to sleep by lethal injection cruel, it is certainly not a crime that a vet is going to be punished in law for, so again I don't think it fits the original topic very well either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted March 10, 2008 Report Share Posted March 10, 2008 I assume you are talking to me, in which case; Yes, you're right, I am entitled to my opinion. You don't know how much research I have or haven't done into this or what connection I may or may not have with the story - maybe you are the one that should be doing more research As I said you're entitled to your opinion, as am I to mine and everyone else reading to theirs! Please don't therefore attempt to patronise me with - you don't appear to be very good at it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts