Forum menu
Apologies if bindun but I’m curious if anyone can provide any explanation for this lady being found not guilty of animal cruelty when the evidence as far as I can see is incontrovertible.
Her success is likely due to paying for a very good lawyer but the two arguments used seem to me to be completely crazy.
1) The horse suffered no lasting damage. This is kind of obvious since she is a small human and he is a big horse, but this to me does not change the intent, or the potential harm to the horse interacting with people in the future.
2) She intended to teach him a lesson so he would not do it again. Any animal behaviour expert will tell you that violence never teaches animals anything good. They don’t have the ability to link it to something that they have done wrong, and only learn fear / potentially retaliate.
I dread to think what she might do to animals in private and whilst I disagree with whatever has gone on online against her, this seems to be a very bad result when the evidence is there to see. There is various talk about it being taken out of context but I cannot imagine any context where that behaviour is reasonable.
Compare & contrast:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-24650261
A Newcastle United fan who punched a police horse when trouble flared following his side's defeat to Sunderland has been jailed for a year...
(The horse) was not hurt in the attack.
Not condoning the above in the slightest, just comparing someone refusing to move for the police, then having a horse directed towards them, punching it in the heat of the moment (utterly in the wrong, obvs), but gets sent down, to someone repeatedly punching and kicking a horse as punishment.
It's a head-scratcher for me, for sure.
I think it's a bit like shouting at children when they've done something to frighten us.
We know that it's not the best way of dealing with things in the long run, but in the moment we do it anyway, because we're frightened and human and we're not thinking straight.
There's a big difference between it being an established pattern of behaviour or something that only happens occasionally. There's also a difference between doing something that only causes temporary harm and something that causes more long-lasting damage.
In this case, it wasn't the ideal solution, but when you've got a horse that may be on the point of going out of control, in an area where it could easily injure itself or other people, I don't really blame a person for over-reacting if it's not something that they do regularly.
Shouting and punching / kicking are two very different things. Plus she claims not to have over-reacted and is using the argument that this was completely rational and normal behaviour to teach the horse a lesson.
Then why was the horse placed in that situation in the first place? That would be the owner's responsibility to make sure it's able to cope and remain under control at all times. Regaining composure by beating it may have prevented a nasty incident, but how can that be accepted as fair enough with no comeback?
this was completely rational and normal behaviour to teach the horse a lesson.
At least some horsey people would agree with her. I'm not one, but I know a few who are, and they do.
My point about shouting is that it's not an ideal solution to the problem, but is a solution.
Then why was the horse placed in that situation in the first place? That would be the owner’s responsibility to make sure it’s able to cope and remain under control at all times.
Animals are unpredictable, even if well-trained. "Dangerous at both ends and crafty in the middle."
By that measure we'd never let a dog off the lead, and never transport a horse out of the paddock.
Yep, and there's a strong argument that should be the norm.
Point is, she kicked and punched a horse, and that's OK then.
Good luck with that.
Ain't that the truth. You'd get more joy allowing cyclists on pavements before that happened.
Point is, she kicked and punched a horse, and thats OK then.
Not what OP asked.
OP asked why she could have been found not guilty of animal cruelty, not whether we're ok with what happened.
You’d get more joy allowing cyclists on pavements before that happened.
Isn't that de-facto what's happened anyway?
Yep, the OP asked why they weren't found guilty, and my comment refers to society deeming it OK, by virtue of the legal system clearing her.
Not saying you or anyone here thinks it's cool to attack animals.
Speaking to someone I know well, who absolutely loves animals and would never harm one, who has owned horses in the past, and has lots of experience:
"Sometimes there's nothing else you can do."
She told the court her life had been "torn to pieces" by the case, having lost her job as a teacher, and that she had received death threats.
Torn to pieces - a little like the foxes the hunt she is part of 'accidentally' come across from time to time. I'm not sure I'm best placed to discuss this simply because the very fact she is a member of a hunt gives me a very fixed opinion of her attitude towards other animals on the planet we share that not doubt preducises my opinion of her in this case.
What I would say is that, I can ride but don't any more. I have been around horses a good amount as my sister worked with them for some time. I have never and would never have resorted to kicking a horse, especially in a situation where the balance of power between me and the horse was unequal and they had no means of escape as I was holding the reigns. But this was not some sort of neglectful deviant long term abuser.
Limited in what I can say but her leaving her professional role was not considered a bad thing by others and this event might have been in keeping with a personality not altogether appreciated.
MY guess is the magistrate/ judge was a hunting sympathiser
She should have been found guilty.
The fact that she is a member of a local 'hunt' means that she probably knows some influential people (some are hunters too) and that has provided her with access to leniency that she does not deserve.
Anyone who strikes an animal, for whatever reason, should get a slap back.
I'm glad it has impacted her personal life and long may it continue to do so.
She strikes me as one of those 'hateful and entitled' people :o(
MY guess is the magistrate/ judge was a hunting sympathiser
Maybe. But there was a jury in this case.
Never been one since my job has always exempted me but one assumes the jury are going to be heavily swayed by how the judge sums up the case.
The judges summing up can make a lot of differnce. I have nothing to back that up tho apart from a long standing pattern of Hunters getting off in the face of evidence
She did find a vet who supported her in that no harm was done. Probably muddied the waters enough
There are vets around that sympathise with the hunting brigade and some that even participate. One of my nurses does, which has always confused me greatly, even though I do get the irony that I’m not a vegetarian and therefore cannot really judge according to some.
Being an active member of a hunt notorious for its behaviour doesn't exactly set you up to be an ideal guardian of other animals.
She lost her temper and struck out at a horse, which at that point was fully in her control, not once, but repeatedly over several seconds. The video speaks for itself.
One thing of note is that the attack may only have ended at that point because the filming sab started shouting, and she realised she was on camera.
If it was another human she was pummelling, it would have been an obvious conviction, but the threshold for proving 'unnecessary cruelty' to animals is, sadly, higher.
Plus she's clearly good at putting on the victim act, judging by her post-court comments, and is posh and nicely-spoken, so it probably wasn't difficult for the jury to shy away from convicting her.
Wouldn't want my kid in her primary class though, if she's got that short a fuse, so probably for the best that she's been turfed out of that job.
Violent scumbag.
even though I do get the irony that I’m not a vegetarian and therefore cannot really judge according to some.
That argument works for deer stalking and grouse shooting. It doesn't for hunting foxes with horses. Fox hunting is not about utility at all. its about sadism. fox hunting is deliberately cruel.
Agreed, although they argue that it is somehow required in order for the countryside to survive.
Look into how Foxhounds are looked after and how they deal with ill or wounded animals and you get a good idea of how these people view and treat animals in general.
fox hunts feed foxes, provide artificial earths etc
they also know where the natural earths are which is how they are able to dig out or block up entrances. they could just shoot these known foxes. without a population of foxes there is no fox hunting so hunts ensure there is a good supply of foxes
the hounds are also bred to be very little faster than foxes to ensure a exciting chase
the unspeakable in pursuit of the inedible
I'm a bit confused by this.
I'm assuming that the Newcastle Police horse case is different because it was a Police horse? In the same way that assaulting a member of the emergency services is different to assaulting a commoner like me.
The particular case obviously depends on the specific wording of the law she is supposed to have broken, and I'd love to see someone like the Secret Barrister explain it rather than an internet based barrack room lawyer.
I'm not a horse person so I have no idea if that level of force is "normal" or acceptable with a horse - I hope it isn't. But also as a non-horsey person I don't know what the "correct" alternative to make a horse do what you need it to do.
I think she raises an issue that should be up for open discussion - how do you undo the damage of social media "pressure" if you are not legally guilty of a crime? I'm doubtful this incident was the sole reason for her losing her job, but if that claim is true, that should concern all of us - if you or I got sacked based on some sort of cycling related incident that got a lot of coverage on social media, but were then found not guilty, I'd be pretty pissed off, to say the least. Taking rights - or in this case jobs - away from people we don't like is all well and good until the exact same thing comes round and bites us on our own arse.
I'm not sure at what point the footage was put on social media, but there's a reason that the Police don't like it to happen until legal action is finalised, and in my opinion (yours may vary) this demonstrates why.
the horse was clearly under control when she did it. She had clearly lost her temper. the horse will not be able to put the kicking and punching in the context of its behaviour a short while before
I’m doubtful this incident was the sole reason for her losing her job, but if that claim is true, that should concern all of us – if you or I got sacked based on some sort of cycling related incident that got a lot of coverage on social media, but were then found not guilty, I’d be pretty pissed off, to say the least.
Read between the lines of my previous post....
Shame the horse didn’t rear up and hoof her in the face, wipe that smug grin away for good
Stressing again that I'm not supporting her behaviour but as a non-horsey type
the horse was clearly under control when she did it.
She had literally just grabbed the halter, so only just, but that doesn't excuse her actions
She had clearly lost her temper.
Clearly
the horse will not be able to put the kicking and punching in the context of its behaviour a short while before
I'm not a horse psychologist and neither are you.
I’m not sure what hoof in the slats means but I wouldn’t have blamed the horse for doing something like what I assume it means…
As tjagain said the horse was under control and very calm when she went on the offensive. Even if it wasn’t, it doesn’t have the cognitive power to understand physical punishment and relate it to previous or even current behaviour, which is why physical punishment is almost never recommended to train animals. It’s not to do with psychology it’s about the brains of animals. In fairness it pretty much applies to humans too.
It’s a head-scratcher for me, for sure.
Posh folk looking after their own. Welcome to Britain.
From a different perspective - I'm from a horse background - I rode when i was a kid and all my family and extended family are in the horse world (professionally and for pleasure).
On a scale of punishment and harm that would barely register to the horse. They are big strong animals. She was stupid to do it though and it seemed more for her own 'got to show them who's boss' mentality than any other purpose.
Horses aren't like dogs or other animals to train - some are great to deal with and respond to kindness, some are absolute ruddy psychos though and will try and kill you. They don't respond to a careful talk in the ear and a stroke on the nose. Some do need brute force to handle.
But there's a big difference between brute force and cruelty. Some of the worst cruelty I've seen are from those who 'love their horse to death' but never go near them, never ride them and just treat them as a pet. Just chucked out in fields and looked in on once a week if they are lucky.
Posh folk looking after their own. Welcome to Britain.
Maybe. But there was a jury in this case
The court transcript would be interesting reading
some are absolute ruddy psychos though and will try and kill you.
probably because they don’t want you riding them. at a guess.
Hmm interesting. Madame owns a horse, we both ride and spend quite a lot of time with (French) horsey folk.
Not a productive way to treat a horse: definitely.
Temper tantrum: yup
Injury to horse: no
Anywhere near the level of violence horses get up to when in a field together: absolutely not
Jury verdict: I agree.
If that was worth prosecuting it raises a lot of questions about what you can do with a horse:
Ride a horse over jumps - we put neoprene protections on the legs but even so taking a bale down hurts the horse's leg a lot more than a kick.
Put a new horse in a field with horses that already know each other - within 24h the new horse will be covered in bleeding bites and kick marks - a few of the other horses too as the horse finds its place in the herd. However horses love company and are miserable when not in a herd so it's crueler not to let them get bitten and kicked than not put them in the field.
She wasn't puching the horses nose IMO, she was doing what is normal in some circustances but not in that situation. If a horse bites you you give its nose a clout, instantly, once, hard; it has to learn not to bite you. If the riders reaction isn't instant it's pointless because the horse won't understand what the retribution is for - it's mimicking horse behaviour.When teaching it the distance it has to keep from you it gets a tap/push when it gets too close till it learns. There's the carrot and the stick, both have their place.
So my verdict, the horse was just doing what horses do, the woman had a silly tantrum which pedagoically was counterproductive, but certainly not cruelty at a level worth prosecuting.
Edit: our horse gave me a kick that put me in hospital for a week but neither me nor madame punished the horse. The kick was accidental, just a case of my ankle and his hoof being in the same place at the same time. However a bitey pony I used to ride learned not to bite me - he still bit Madame's bum though.
probably because they don’t want you riding them. at a guess.
Which shows your lack of understanding of horses and their nature.
Old money
Tried in court; not guilty.
The end.
Tried in court; not guilty.
The end.
OJ Simpson found innocent.
The end.
Whilst it might not be found to have been provable beyond reasonable doubt it is perfectly reasonable for someone watching the video to think her behaviour is substandard.
Perhaps the cottesmore hunt might reflect on how it is "laying" trails to ensure the horses are begin and finish in a safe location. Should be easy enough if they arent faking it.
On only (relatively) rare occurences, juries get it wrong.
Losing a job due to unproven accusations and allegations shouldn't happen but several posters seem to think it's acceptable.
Let's subject *you* to an unproven accusation or allegation which contributes to you losing your job
Are you relaxed about that?
I have no real problem with hunting; hare coursing is very different.
Let’s subject *you* to an unproven accusation or allegation which contributes to you losing your job
Ok lets go for it. Just to check though is it a video of me doing something (lets ignore deep fakes) or just your word?
I have no real problem with hunting; hare coursing is very different.
Really, why?