|
|
Post by Clover on May 31, 2007 15:55:53 GMT
In our area a man has been found guilty of cruelty to animals. Because I could see that he still had sheep and ducks etc on his property, I rang the RSPCA to tell them.
This man was banned for 10 years, but I found out its him that is banned and not the property. Can you believe that! What is the point of a ban if his wife or anybody that lives on the property can still keep animals. That isn't protecting the animals at all. He isn't allowed to look after the animals, but how can that be enforced. I just can't understand this and I'm upset knowing that other animals could still suffer.
Here is part of what it said in the newspaper.
The court heard an RSPCA vet discovered two, 6ft-long boa constrictors in need of immediate attention. There was also a bearded dragon lizard with a gangrenous foot and two dehydrated hamsters. The bill to treat the animals was more than £6,400. He was banned from keeping any animal for 10 years, given a three-year conditional discharge and ordered to pay £1,500 compensation.
He deserves the punishment and more, but why aren't the animals being protected. I can understand why some animal liberation groups enter property to remove the animals.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wheekies on May 31, 2007 16:41:32 GMT
That really seems entirely inappropriate doesn't it - surely it should apply to the property *and* the person - that's no deterrent whatsoever is it - I'm glad you rang the RSPCA and found that out - that really doesn't seem right does it. ?! It seems an entirely un-enforceable way to go about things.
Plus, say the story is the pets are his wife's for example, and she goes away for a few days - he could then argue that the ban on him would mean he couldn't legally feed/water the animals whilst she wasn't there - ?? which then opens up another fiasco !
And he only had to pay the compensation of £1,500.00 - he didn't even get stung for the £6,400.00 vet treatment - unbelievable.
|
|
|
|
Post by Clover on May 31, 2007 17:02:22 GMT
It is unbelievable Wheekies. All the animals were his, no matter what he may now claim, his wife didn't have any role in looking after them. Although that doesn't excuse her neither, they are a married couple and both should have been responsible for the animals.
I just hope the rspca will do regular checks on the animals without giving them prior warnings.
|
|
|
|
Post by anna on May 31, 2007 19:14:34 GMT
A lot of laws are crazy. This one too. It is very frustrating. In Reading two brothers have just changed their plea to guilty over a driving conviction at their hearing - they were having a race against one another on the road which is know as the "13 bends of death" literally because it is 13 bends and people drive at crazy speeds along it. The two men driving separate cars made a girl swirve into an oncoming bus. She died, four days before her wedding. The reason they changed their plea on the day of the hearing - their grandfather had just been killed in a road rage incident too. However, they only received 8yrs and 7yrs. Even though they have technically in deed caused a murder, but only receive a driving ban jail sentence. Clover, I hope everything turns out to be OK in the end.  |
|
|
|
Post by Melza on May 31, 2007 23:51:51 GMT
laws these days! -slap on hand with wetbus ticket- they are utterly useless, my opinions of the government here arent good, and i hadnt even considered what yours would be like!
it is stupid in my opinion, but what can you do? keep try though! get a petition of something! it is just wrong that he can keep abusing his animals!
|
|
|
|
Post by Clover on Jun 1, 2007 12:09:52 GMT
That is an awful sad story anna and to think they were going to plead not guilty too *sigh*
I think the RSPCA also think a ban doesn't have anywhere near enough conditions to it Melza. Hopefully the law will change and really come down on people that abuse animals.
|
|
|
|
Post by Melza on Jun 2, 2007 6:47:08 GMT
i hope so to Jackie!
|
|
|
|
Post by Bean on Jun 4, 2007 20:53:46 GMT
It's ridiculous and upsetting isn't it, it seems it's almost a total waste of time and money even trying to get a ban as it'll only work for people who live alone. I hope things change, as it's the animals that will suffer and that's supposed to be the point of it. *sigh*
|
|
|
|
Post by roloandsmudge4ever on Jun 26, 2007 17:26:52 GMT
how stupid is that really i mean what muppets! how can the say he is banned and the wife aint? they both live in the same house and she could be treating them the wrong way 2!!!! and in ten years time he could just go and do it again! and he could be dealing woth the animals when shes at work (thats if she has a job obviuosly!)1!!!!!!!!! if i was in charg things would be ALOT! different!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by piggygirl on Jun 27, 2007 23:53:54 GMT
thats not good enough they need to ban the property not the people i would ring them again
|
|
|
|
Post by nekota on Jun 28, 2007 3:57:10 GMT
That is sad. Recently, some forms of animal abuse in the US just got deemed felonies, so that's improvement, but the spca still doesn't do to blinking much in the way of individual cases. The ones that get smacked hard are the major abusers, and little guys like the man I met that was smacking his dog around with anything he could reach when he got angry (including a tire iron, once), get a slap on the wrist and a temporary ban from owning animals. How smart is this?!?!
I agree it's ridiculous. You should rally support from the neighbors and friends in town and try and petition them into doing more.
|
|
|
|
Post by Teebers on Jun 28, 2007 6:47:44 GMT
Wow that is frustrating! But if the wife wasn't involved in the first conviction how is it right to punish her? I'm assuming she wasn't! If she was I move on to the hypothetical - him having a second, uninvolved wife!
This kind of loophole seems to be fairly common - you know, how businessmen put their houses in their wife's name before they go bankrupt and all, that kind of thing. It's kind of silly how they get away with it so easily.
|
|
