Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
A Nation Of Animal Lovers?
I think not!
I'm absolutely astounded this person was found not guilty! Do you agree with the verdict?
https:/
:(
I'm absolutely astounded this person was found not guilty! Do you agree with the verdict?
https:/
:(
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by divegirl. 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.
Your link goes straight to the Mail’s comments section (or at least it does when I click on it) and the Mail’s comments section is a cesspit of morons.
I vaguely recall seeing it at the time, and whilst it wasn’t great, it absolutely shouldn’t mean the end of her career.
Wondering whether she would do the same to a child in her charge is a lazy comparison and ill-thought out because of course she wouldn’t, but I get why you’ve done so because I’ve seen some of your posts posts in the past and you’re a bit of a militant vegan who feels animals should be on a par with people - but they never will be, and nor should they be.
I vaguely recall seeing it at the time, and whilst it wasn’t great, it absolutely shouldn’t mean the end of her career.
Wondering whether she would do the same to a child in her charge is a lazy comparison and ill-thought out because of course she wouldn’t, but I get why you’ve done so because I’ve seen some of your posts posts in the past and you’re a bit of a militant vegan who feels animals should be on a par with people - but they never will be, and nor should they be.
Choux at 6.43 - or perhaps it was represented satisfactorily which is why the verdict went the way it did.
She has been found not guilty. That to me is the same as an exoneration.
If you were found not guilty of a crime, how would you feel about people saying you shouldn’t be allowed to resume your career?
She has been found not guilty. That to me is the same as an exoneration.
If you were found not guilty of a crime, how would you feel about people saying you shouldn’t be allowed to resume your career?
//I am saddened that the CPS did not take up the prosecution - //
The CPS rarely, if ever prosecutes animal cruelty offences. It is traditionally the preserve of the RSPCA. They retain specialist lawyers well versed in Animal Welfare law.
//I am guessing the case was not presented satisfactorily at court.//
That's a rash guess since you, along with the rest of us, were not at the court and so did not hear the evidence or the legal arguments.
The CPS rarely, if ever prosecutes animal cruelty offences. It is traditionally the preserve of the RSPCA. They retain specialist lawyers well versed in Animal Welfare law.
//I am guessing the case was not presented satisfactorily at court.//
That's a rash guess since you, along with the rest of us, were not at the court and so did not hear the evidence or the legal arguments.
Deskdiary - // She has been found not guilty. That to me is the same as an exoneration. //
That's not really a conclusion that works.
Being 'Found Not Guilty' is not actually the same as 'Being Found Innocent'.
It does not mean that you did not commit the offence, it means that the prosecution cannot prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, and that is their burden of proof before the jury.
It's clear that the rider did abuse the animal, but as advised several times, without all the evidence, we cannot make an informed judgement about what has gone on.
That's not really a conclusion that works.
Being 'Found Not Guilty' is not actually the same as 'Being Found Innocent'.
It does not mean that you did not commit the offence, it means that the prosecution cannot prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, and that is their burden of proof before the jury.
It's clear that the rider did abuse the animal, but as advised several times, without all the evidence, we cannot make an informed judgement about what has gone on.
//Being 'Found Not Guilty' is not actually the same as 'Being Found Innocent'.
It does not mean that you did not commit the offence,...//
Careful Andy. I tried that approach this time last week (and a few times before that). I'm still not sure that I succeeded with my argument:
https:/
It does not mean that you did not commit the offence,...//
Careful Andy. I tried that approach this time last week (and a few times before that). I'm still not sure that I succeeded with my argument:
https:/
This raises a number of interesting points.
Ms Moulds would, and did, argue, that she was disciplining her horse, and that he was not unduly upset or frightened by her actions.
The RSPCA argue that physical discipline of an animal is counter-productive.
My view is that, although Ms Moulds would not see her action as cruel, it does not mean automatically, that it is not cruel.
Similarly, because her horse did not appear frightened of her, does not mean he was not distressed at the time - indeed that was the main plank of the RSPCA's case.
I think it comes down to the 'human nature' defence - "I don't mean to harm you, therefore you are not harmed ..." and of course, that is not a viable position to take.
If you run over and kill a stranger, you cannot defend yourself on the basis that you meant no harm, because harm was nevertheless the result of your action.
I think her behaviour was cruel, and is pretty typical of the 'country set' who 'love' their animals in a very different way from city dwellers, hence the endless debate about the cruelty of hunting animals, which of course, Ms Moulds does with enthusiasm.
I think the prosecution was valid - the actions of idiots threatening her and her family was clearly very very wrong, but she did deserve to lose her job.
The verdict was reached by a jury who know far more about this case than I do, so although I don't like it, I cannot disagree with it.
Ms Moulds would, and did, argue, that she was disciplining her horse, and that he was not unduly upset or frightened by her actions.
The RSPCA argue that physical discipline of an animal is counter-productive.
My view is that, although Ms Moulds would not see her action as cruel, it does not mean automatically, that it is not cruel.
Similarly, because her horse did not appear frightened of her, does not mean he was not distressed at the time - indeed that was the main plank of the RSPCA's case.
I think it comes down to the 'human nature' defence - "I don't mean to harm you, therefore you are not harmed ..." and of course, that is not a viable position to take.
If you run over and kill a stranger, you cannot defend yourself on the basis that you meant no harm, because harm was nevertheless the result of your action.
I think her behaviour was cruel, and is pretty typical of the 'country set' who 'love' their animals in a very different way from city dwellers, hence the endless debate about the cruelty of hunting animals, which of course, Ms Moulds does with enthusiasm.
I think the prosecution was valid - the actions of idiots threatening her and her family was clearly very very wrong, but she did deserve to lose her job.
The verdict was reached by a jury who know far more about this case than I do, so although I don't like it, I cannot disagree with it.
NJ - // //Being 'Found Not Guilty' is not actually the same as 'Being Found Innocent'.
It does not mean that you did not commit the offence,...//
Careful Andy. I tried that approach this time last week (and a few times before that). I'm still not sure that I succeeded with my argument:
https:/
I read your comments with interest NJ, and I stand by my, and your better informed, view on the subject.
I always remember a seriously nasty case of child abuse (physical) that my wife was involved in as a Head Teacher, and the school's governing body found in the teacher's favour, swayed by the adolescent crush of an elderly priest, which the woman manipulated in her favour.
She was found 'not guilty', after which she trumpeted her 'innocence' to anyone who would listen.
I saw the evidence, and I know she was as guilty as sin, and because she was found 'not guilty' did not, and never will, make her 'innocent'.
It does not mean that you did not commit the offence,...//
Careful Andy. I tried that approach this time last week (and a few times before that). I'm still not sure that I succeeded with my argument:
https:/
I read your comments with interest NJ, and I stand by my, and your better informed, view on the subject.
I always remember a seriously nasty case of child abuse (physical) that my wife was involved in as a Head Teacher, and the school's governing body found in the teacher's favour, swayed by the adolescent crush of an elderly priest, which the woman manipulated in her favour.
She was found 'not guilty', after which she trumpeted her 'innocence' to anyone who would listen.
I saw the evidence, and I know she was as guilty as sin, and because she was found 'not guilty' did not, and never will, make her 'innocent'.
Deskdiary - // AH - that’s why I said “to me” it’s the same as an exoneration, rather “it’s an exoneration” because I knew it would be picked up on. //
Then I must take it that you accept my point - that even though you see the situation that way, you, as well as me, know you are wrong in seeing it as you do.
Then I must take it that you accept my point - that even though you see the situation that way, you, as well as me, know you are wrong in seeing it as you do.
