Sickening attacks

Re: Sickening attacks

Hannah Wynne Richards — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 16:22:16 GMT

That's the problem ever since the do-badders went soft on crime

Wynne

Re: Sickening attacks

Clive Ansell — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 16:19:52 GMT

If someone is a danger then 51 weeks is way too short, don't forget they will probably only serve a third to half of this. They may well be mentally ill and in need of help and treatment, but if dangerous should still be incarcerated under the mental health act.

Wynne, if you think these criminals will ever get long sentences - forget it. One of the men found guilty of being involved in the death of Baby P in 2007 got his sentence reduced on appeal and has been released after less than 3 years in jail. This individual also has previous convictions for arson, drug dealing and national front activity. He also was implicated in the torture of his elderly grandmother to force her to change her will. The idea that he no longer poses any danger, or that there is a place in civilised society for him, is beyond reasonable belief.

Re: Sickening attacks

Hannah Wynne Richards — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 14:04:41 GMT

Myconcern is 100% with these unfortuneate horses Which is why if I had my way,this criminal would never be released-and why I started this thread on whether the rest of you think 51 weeks is far too short

Wynne

Re: Sickening attacks

Mark Holmes — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 13:39:50 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

I'm not as squemish as you about calling a spade a spade

Wynne

[/quote]

The problem is that it is too easy to say "Evil" lock them up NEXT. It doesn't answer why it doesn't answer what do we do to prevent it in future and doesn't answer the question of what do we do about release. The only solution to "Evil" is permanent incarceration or execution. Its our ability to look beyond that as a society which sets us apart from Iran et al.

For example is somebody "Evil" if they have mental and psychological problems associated with childhood abuse potentially if in combination with low IQ and asperger's for example. When does something stop being evil and start being the result of a medical problem. If somebody had a car accident which resulted in head trauma leaving them with depression and an inabilty to empathise or relate to others. If their behaviour as a result then harmed somebody or something would that be accident induced evil?

Evil is a lazy diagnosis.

Re: Sickening attacks

Hannah Wynne Richards — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 10:33:26 GMT

I'm not as squemish as you about calling a spade a spade

Wynne

Re: Sickening attacks

Mark Holmes — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 10:24:01 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]There's a very evilperson out there who needs locking away permanently Even if caught he/she can only be imprisoned for 51 weeks-and it looks as though they'll get away with it totally[/quote]

Would not disturbed be a better description? SOmebody in serious need of substantial help and psychological treatment. Somenbody who needs commiting for the safety of themselves, others and animals. Evil? Unlikely.

Re: Sickening attacks

Hannah Wynne Richards — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 08:51:54 GMT

Fourth horse is a rumour,so as unconfirmed I won't include it Report in this week's Horse and Hound of 3 horses all stallions found dead in a short space of time 2 in the West country,1 in Wales All found with genitals removed, and an eye gouged out The police and RSPCA won't admit a crime has been committed How much evidence do they need before theyinvestigate this crime properly?The chances of 3 stallions (how many horses are entires?) dying naturally and then being found by someone who mutilates them in exactly the same way is so remote as to make winning the lottery loook like a dead cert There's a very evilperson out there who needs locking away permanently Even if caught he/she can only be imprisoned for 51 weeks-and it looks as though they'll get away with it totally

Wynne

Re: Sickening attacks

Hannah Wynne Richards — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 16:51:00 GMT

We definitely need a full PM report

Wynne

Re: Sickening attacks

Thomas Johnson — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 16:14:35 GMT

[quote user="Kate Richardson"]

Owner Tanya Ingram told H&H Sammy was missing his right eye, left eyelid and his tongue and genitals had been cut. He was three years old and she was intending on breeding from him.

But spokesman from the RSPCA told H&H: "No foul play is suspected and the injuries are thought to have been inflicted post mortem."

Devon and Cornwall Police told H&H “this is not a crime” and that he died of “natural causes” — but the owners are unconvinced.

[/quote]

It all sounds very odd to me, I can't imagine how you would restrain a 3 year old horse to inflict this sort of injury, or that death would be overly quick so would expect trails of blood, but the injuries don't sound as if they were caused by wildlife post mortem, is someone mutilating dead horses? I would agree that the comments from the police and RSPCA aren't helpful, I suspect we're missing a lot of information, is there a full post-mortem report available?

Re: Sickening attacks

Hannah Wynne Richards — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 14:37:21 GMT

Yet more evil humans harming defenceless animals Someone in Rochester has killed 10 cats with antifreeze-at least the RSPCA is doing something this time-no sign of the police though-what on earth do we pay taxes for-if not to eradicate all crime-including crime against animals ?

Wynne

Re: Sickening attacks

Lorna McHardy — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 14:14:15 GMT

[quote user="Kate Richardson"]

But spokesman from the RSPCA told H&H: "No foul play is suspected and the injuries are thought to have been inflicted post mortem."

Devon and Cornwall Police told H&H “this is not a crime” and that he died of “natural causes” — but the owners are unconvinced.

[/quote]

So.... er.... some people with a penchant for cutting bits of dead horses were wandering about the countryside with a suitable implement, and happened to find this handy three year old? Yes, that sounds completely convincing - not.

Does it say what they're basing their diagnosis of death from natural causes on? Has a full post mortem been performed?

Re: Sickening attacks

Hannah Wynne Richards — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 12:43:32 GMT

It's obvious no-one has any intention of investigating-how much evidence do they need that a death is not natural ?

I'm angry and sickened and worried

Wynne

Re: Sickening attacks

Kate Richardson — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 11:58:48 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]Kate Surely you mean INappropriate.[/quote]

I did! and have corrected it!

Re: Sickening attacks

Hannah Wynne Richards — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 11:57:08 GMT

Kate Surely you mean INappropriate. There's also ben a second in Carmarthenshire-and nobody wants to know-and even if these evil evil evil people are caught the maximum sentence is nowhere near deterrant-thank God for hell-and I really mean that

Wynne

Re: Sickening attacks

Kate Richardson — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 11:41:04 GMT

On the Horse and Hound e-news I receive-

"Sammy, an 11.2hh Welsh/Arab pony, was found dead in his field near Whitstone, Devon on Saturday (14 January).

Owner Tanya Ingram told H&H Sammy was missing his right eye, left eyelid and his tongue and genitals had been cut. He was three years old and she was intending on breeding from him.

But spokesman from the RSPCA told H&H: "No foul play is suspected and the injuries are thought to have been inflicted post mortem."

Devon and Cornwall Police told H&H “this is not a crime” and that he died of “natural causes” — but the owners are unconvinced.

“It does not look like natural causes to me,” Ms Ingram told H&H. “He was fit and well. And the cuts were so clean it doesn’t appear to have been animals. His penis was cut off. We’re just so shocked, it’s so distressing.”

Not foul play? Natural causes? What part of it is "not foul play"? He was 3 years old. I am not saying that animals this don't die of natural causes, and I don't know many horses or ponies that would allow such mutilation without kicking the sh1t out of you, but I think these comments by the RS for the PREVENTION of C to A and the police are inappropriate

Re: Sickening attacks

Hannah Wynne Richards — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 09:35:52 GMT

I've heard of yet another poor horse being attacked Why oh why doesn't the law introduce a deterrant punishment-and the police devote the resources including properly staffed door to door and full forensics to detect? I'm increasingly disgusted and worried

Wynne

Re: Sickening attacks

Mark Holmes — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 15:13:32 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]Someone on ecstacy is more likely to try and dance someone to death than go and knife someone[/quote]

That is a very interesting point, whilst in the 90's when everybody partied on E tabs, a few people died as a result, (fewer in fact than have died on Viagra but thats a different issue) since they have gone out of fashion and people are drinking more. Far more people have died from drink related attacks. I understand the unintended result of reducing the use of ecstasy is an increase in deaths rather than a reduction in harm.

Re: Sickening attacks

Arlo Guthrie — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 15:02:23 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]I suppose my attitude could best be described by the burning building analogy If a building was burning, and a child,a dog, and a criminalconvicted of an atrocious crime (muder, rape, drug dealing, cruelty to animals ) were trapped,then I would save :[/quote]

Hmmm. I certainly agree the order in which I'd save them (but who wouldn't).

However, that's where we start to get our seratonin hit in different ways! Personally, I am ambivalent about drugs. After all, what is an off-license if not a legalised drug dealer? And isn't alcohol at the root of far more harm (it ain't called a pint of 'wife-beater' for nothing) than many drugs. Someone on ecstacy is more likely to try and dance someone to death than go and knife someone. What's more, drug dealing is a crime often driven by financial need, which stands a good chance of being 'curable', unlike someone who rapes a grandmother or a child, who to my mind is not.

Re: Sickening attacks

Hannah Wynne Richards — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 14:43:02 GMT

I suppose my attitude could best be described by the burning building analogy If a building was burning, and a child,a dog, and a criminalconvicted of an atrocious crime (muder, rape, drug dealing, cruelty to animals ) were trapped,then I would save :

1) the child

2) the dog

3) quite frankly, I wouldn't bother going back for the criminal-even if it was safe to do so

Wynne

Re: Sickening attacks

Arlo Guthrie — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 10:34:52 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]We don't want to see species become extinct, if they are beautiful or useful to us, whether that be just because we like them, or there is an awful lot we don't know about them and they are interesting and instructive to study, or they have or may have a most important part in our ecology that keeps our world as we like it (or indeed keeps our world suitable for our continued existence)............ not because anything has a "right" not to be extinct. [/quote]

At the risk of re-lighting the touchpaper, I agree with you completely.

I'm an atheist (Dawkins definition). If I believe in anything, it's seratonin. I think all human behaviour can be explained with reference to seratonin. I don't believe there is any such thing as altruism. Everything we do is to stimulate the production of seratonin / dopamine, including: preventing suffering (suffering being a definite 'downer' in my book), preventing extinction (particularly of own species), preventing harm to friends and family (which would be such a bummer that I would be prepared to suffer some pain and suffering myself in order to achieve the seratonin / dopamine high of having saved them).

This dispenses with the need for any thought about some humans being more equal than others, or that an adult dog deserves more consideration than a newly born baby. Of course some humans are more equal than others. Equally, the death of a child will always pain me more than the death of a dog.

What need is there to look beyond that?

Re: Sickening attacks

Julian Earl — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 20:04:51 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

[quote user="David Mills"]

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

Errrr..... yes there is.They are humans. Thus to humans they are deserving of higher consideration than other species.No further rationale is required.

[/quote]

Yes there is. Because:

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

The relevance of the "intelligence " or "cognitive ability" of a species is only that we feel the greater the intelligence, the greater the suffering, or the greater the loss to us.

[/quote]

So what of babies? They ain't intelligent, and probably less intelligent that collies, cats, and all the apes etc etc.

[/quote]

That makes my point.

We (humans in general, in modern times, anyway) are generally "against" "cruelty to animals" (I certainly am) because we don't like to think of them suffering. Animals do not have "rights" (a human concept) other than what we choose to grant them.

I was trying to point out that human philosphy seems to take it as given that the greater the "intelligence" the greater the "capacity for suffering", hence the greater the "right" to protection from cruelty. I don't subscribe to that enthusiastically, but it's not a bad principle to use (among others) when drafting law. For instance, as soon as it was shown that the octopus had greater intelligence than previously thought, it was given greater protection.

We don't want to see species become extinct, if they are beautiful or useful to us, whether that be just because we like them, or there is an awful lot we don't know about them and they are interesting and instructive to study, or they have or may have a most important part in our ecology that keeps our world as we like it (or indeed keeps our world suitable for our continued existence)............ not because anything has a "right" not to be extinct.

Humans have rights (for instance, not to be murdered, not to be injured) because they are humans and we are humans.

[quote user="David Mills"]So therefore, on our scheme, adult dogs deserve more consideration than a newly born baby. The natural conclusion of the 'because they're humans' argument is that some humans are more equal than others.[/quote]

Not at all. That is just non sequitur. To me.

[/quote]

I agree with Evelyn on one specific point, that animals do not have rights but only when people talk about "natural" rights; no creatures, humans included, have natural rights, such as a right to life for example. (Legal rights are a separate matter.)

My 2p-worth: the whole dispute, discussion, debate, or whatever else you wish to involve can be disposed of if we start talking about the right correct end of the stick instead of the wrong end. Rights are a result of one thing, and one thing only: responsibility. Not this "can't have rights without responsibility" which is bandied around, because that is clearly not so. What we do have is a responsibility to others, a responsibility to consider their wishes, not to harm them, not to kill them and so on. This places the onus directly on us, and not on the recipient of our favours. The question left begging is then to what or whom do we have responsibility? That also largely depends on one thing: power. If we have power over X as an entity we - if we are moral beings - should consider its wishes, its needs. Pets? We have power over them so we should be responsible to them. Whales? As humans we control their destiny and should consider them. Amazonian natives? We have power over the wood we buy, so we should consider them as well. Babies? We can dismiss all argument about their rights dependent on whether they are intelligent now, or have potential for the same - we just have responsibilities to them. Martians? We have no power over them at all so a discussion over whether we have responsibilities towards such beings is a nonsense whereas one could argue that they would "have" rights as intelligent beings even though we can not influence them.

The bone of contention then is at what level do we not have responsibility? Only towards humans? Mammals? Vertebrates? This is similar to any discussion of speciesism but places the onus on the object not the subject. If we take responsibility then whether the environment or the individual, either animal or human, has any rights becomes academic.

My 2p as stated, leave your change at the door.

Re: Sickening attacks

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 19:28:16 GMT

[quote user="David Mills"]

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

Errrr..... yes there is.They are humans. Thus to humans they are deserving of higher consideration than other species.No further rationale is required.

[/quote]

Yes there is. Because:

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

The relevance of the "intelligence " or "cognitive ability" of a species is only that we feel the greater the intelligence, the greater the suffering, or the greater the loss to us.

[/quote]

So what of babies? They ain't intelligent, and probably less intelligent that collies, cats, and all the apes etc etc.

[/quote]

That makes my point.

Humans have rights (for instance, not to be murdered, not to be injured) because they are humans and we are humans.

Not at all. That is just non sequitur. To me.

Re: Sickening attacks

james herriot lied — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 13:48:01 GMT

Quite right, Bob: it's about time we put a stop to this kind of thing.

Actually, I was just interested to know if the good Mr Mills was as good a recipient for this kind of drivel as he is a donor. Having found the answer, I'll toddle off.

Re: Sickening attacks

Bob Russell — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 13:35:36 GMT

Am I the only one suspecting that 'sickening attacks' are starting between Vetsurgeon members?

Re: Sickening attacks

james herriot lied — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 08:28:54 GMT

Oh, I have no illusions about our respective intellectual worthiness. I'm not your opponent, Mr Mills, but I'm sure there's somebody out there who's a suitable match for you.

Have you tried local community college evening classes? They cater to all levels.