ChatterBank2 mins ago
Savage Only Gets 5 Years
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Canary42. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
//The law on animal cruelty wants strengthening greatly. Sentences for such acts want increasing.//
As I mentioned earlier, changes are in the pipeline:
https:/
This chap was not charged under animal cruelty legislation. He was charged with Criminal Damage, for which the maximum sentence is ten years.
As I mentioned earlier, changes are in the pipeline:
https:/
This chap was not charged under animal cruelty legislation. He was charged with Criminal Damage, for which the maximum sentence is ten years.
Pastafreak - the thug is the one to blame
But if the owners had taken better care of their pets, then this would not have occurred. The owners didn't THINK! Obviously they could not anticipate such a monster, but what about if their tiddles was mutilated by a dog or run over by a bus! Pet owners have to take some responsibility for looking after their pets, and these ones quite clearly didn't. They are NEGLIGENT!
But if the owners had taken better care of their pets, then this would not have occurred. The owners didn't THINK! Obviously they could not anticipate such a monster, but what about if their tiddles was mutilated by a dog or run over by a bus! Pet owners have to take some responsibility for looking after their pets, and these ones quite clearly didn't. They are NEGLIGENT!
NJ : "This chap was not charged under animal cruelty legislation. He was charged with Criminal Damage,"
Yes you said that before and I asked where you got that information and was this "Criminal Damage" the 'damage' to the cats. All the reports I have read say similar to "Judge Jeremy Gold QC told him he would serve five years for the attacks on the cats, and three months, to be served concurrently for possession of a knife." - none mention "Criminal Damage".
I appreciate your previous reply to some of my questions in this thread NJ, and am not trying to hassle you, but I was hoping the source of your claim of "Criminal Damage", if public ,might shed some light on any psychiatric assessment of him.
Yes you said that before and I asked where you got that information and was this "Criminal Damage" the 'damage' to the cats. All the reports I have read say similar to "Judge Jeremy Gold QC told him he would serve five years for the attacks on the cats, and three months, to be served concurrently for possession of a knife." - none mention "Criminal Damage".
I appreciate your previous reply to some of my questions in this thread NJ, and am not trying to hassle you, but I was hoping the source of your claim of "Criminal Damage", if public ,might shed some light on any psychiatric assessment of him.
I read when he was convicted a few weeks ago that he had been found guilty of Criminal Damage. I haven't checked the latest reports for confirmation of that (other than to look at the sentence) but there's not really much else he could have been charged with that would attract such a sentence. However, I've found the BBC report:
https:/
"The 54-year-old had denied 16 counts of criminal damage and possession of a knife but was found guilty in June."
https:/
"The 54-year-old had denied 16 counts of criminal damage and possession of a knife but was found guilty in June."
JJ109 - I have been employed by three cats (all now dead) and they have been house cats. But if I had a suitable garden I would fence it off and allow them to prowl in their own garden.
Many people feel that cats should be allowed to roam and do 'cat stuff' (usually irritating the neighbours) and they accept that there are risks in letting such a small animal out on its own and there are many killed on the roads.
Most people on this planet are reasonable and easy to understand. There are many sad and sick folk too.
Many people feel that cats should be allowed to roam and do 'cat stuff' (usually irritating the neighbours) and they accept that there are risks in letting such a small animal out on its own and there are many killed on the roads.
Most people on this planet are reasonable and easy to understand. There are many sad and sick folk too.
//NJ, I quoted the same thing yesterday. Sad to learn you're not reading every pearl of wisdom I post...//
Sorry Corby. I just assumed SevenOP's the question hadn't been answered. To demonstrate my senility, I even posted a link to the very same report that was in the OP (having spent five minutes searching for it). I think I need a lie down. :-)
Sorry Corby. I just assumed SevenOP's the question hadn't been answered. To demonstrate my senility, I even posted a link to the very same report that was in the OP (having spent five minutes searching for it). I think I need a lie down. :-)
//But if I had a suitable garden I would fence it off and allow them to prowl in their own garden.//
I have also been employed by many cats over the years (though I'm out of that particular work at the moment). You would have to build one mighty fence to prevent a moggie scaling it (or finding some other means of egress) in order to broaden its horizons.
I have also been employed by many cats over the years (though I'm out of that particular work at the moment). You would have to build one mighty fence to prevent a moggie scaling it (or finding some other means of egress) in order to broaden its horizons.
NJ - this is the sort of fence that is 'supposed' to be cat-proof. https:/
dave - I don't disagree with what you said. My first cat was over 14 when he arrived. He was disabled and would not have survived outside.
The 'twins' were adopted from someone who had never let them out so it was all they knew. Frankie died in December and I have decided, for now, not to be adopted by further cats.
dave - I don't disagree with what you said. My first cat was over 14 when he arrived. He was disabled and would not have survived outside.
The 'twins' were adopted from someone who had never let them out so it was all they knew. Frankie died in December and I have decided, for now, not to be adopted by further cats.
Either way, it's ridiculous, if I'm reading this right, that Criminal damage has higher sentencing than animal abuse? It's like dogs have to be restrained in a car, purely for human safety. Theirs makes no difference- as soon as you put a dog in a car, it becomes "a load".
All seems a bit Dark Ages. I agree, wolf, there are always risks and accidents, in a normal healthy life... upsetting, but unavoidable. That isn't the same as a deliberate action.
All seems a bit Dark Ages. I agree, wolf, there are always risks and accidents, in a normal healthy life... upsetting, but unavoidable. That isn't the same as a deliberate action.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank4 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles17 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles28 mins ago
News42 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.