Suffering?

RE: Suffering?

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Sun, 26 Jul 2015 17:25:06 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

You've both hit the nail on the head. If we took the fight to the evil enemy's territory, and totally eradicated all criminals, then nobody's safety would ever be compromised.

Point proven, so I will now retire (triumphant ) from the argument

Wynne

[/quote]

Somebody fetch the dried frog pills, quick!

RE: Suffering?

Hannah Wynne Richards — Sun, 26 Jul 2015 14:10:31 GMT

You've both hit the nail on the head. If we took the fight to the evil enemy's territory, and totally eradicated all criminals, then nobody's safety would ever be compromised.

Point proven, so I will now retire (triumphant ) from the argument

Wynne

RE: Suffering?

grumpyoldman — Sun, 26 Jul 2015 11:47:11 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"] I'm in favour of us as a profession having to make home/outside visits when necessary.[/quote].

I think this has to be entirely a matter for the individual and the individual circumstances of the case concerned.

If its an established regular client and your comfortable with then ,fine.

I recently got rid of a pervert client who deliberately kept cornering a younger female vet on her night on call and repeatedly requested out of hours contact involving house calls. I think he had a cunning plan, but was not prepared to wait for it to unfold. Normally if sacking clients I will wait fro the case to come to a conclusion but made an exception in his case.

Several years ago I was called out to a seizing dog at 1am , jumped out of my pick-up, the house looked derelict boarded up,went to the back of the pick up , lifted the tail gate to get my torch. 3 creatures appeared from behind the wall and stood behind me ,asked what was in the back ? ..One came nearer ,I grabbed the calving jack and smashed it into his face ,pushed a second over the wall ,and the third ran off.

No one from this practice has been allowed to go on house calls to that estate after dark since.

These things are not common ,but they can and do happen ,some areas are a lot worse than others . For those reasons I really think you have to leave it to the individuals involved and their practices.

RE: Suffering?

Anthony Dennison — Sun, 26 Jul 2015 11:42:07 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

I'm in favour of us as a profession having to make home/outside visits when necessary. Many are opposed. They cite personal fear as the reason for their reluctance to do something which I would regard as an integral part of our duty as veterinary surgeons.

This fear only exists because we (as a society) have degenerated to the point that we endure (and suffer) the continued existence of criminals in our midst.

Wynne

[/quote]

No Wynne, your campaign ever since Chikosi just feels a little off the mark to me. Vets still offer home visits, we have to as part of the VSA, however there are times when it isn't possible immediately and there would be a time delay. It's not lazy vets not being bothered to leave their cosy surgery, it's busy vets not being able to give an exact time.

Are you telling me you have never refused a home visit, even when your safety was compromised?

RE: Suffering?

Hannah Wynne Richards — Sun, 26 Jul 2015 10:39:52 GMT

This fear only exists because we (as a society) have degenerated to the point that we endure (and suffer) the continued existence of criminals in our midst.

Wynne

RE: Suffering?

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Sat, 25 Jul 2015 15:11:12 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"] As I see it, we're at war - it's a war of the criminals against the law abiding. It's the nature of warfare to have casualities. The vast majority of those casualties (victims of crime) are the result of enemy action. Some (those very few who are falsely convicted ) are the victims of "friendly fire" This is , of course, highly regrettable - but it's not as bad as yielding to the enemy,and losing the war.[/quote]

I'm sure that bizarre and ridiculous analogy will be very comforting to the family of Sally Clark (the lady herself is of course dead).

RE: Suffering?

Hannah Wynne Richards — Sat, 25 Jul 2015 09:05:40 GMT

As I see it, we're at war - it's a war of the criminals against the law abiding. It's the nature of warfare to have casualities. The vast majority of those casualties (victims of crime) are the result of enemy action. Some (those very few who are falsely convicted ) are the victims of "friendly fire" This is , of course, highly regrettable - but it's not as bad as yielding to theenemy,and losing the war.

I regard you, Evelyn, as a "fifth columnist" whose insiduous propaganda is undermining the will to fight!

To get back to the original topic, I wouldn't have hesitated in stating that this emaciated horse had suffered unnecessarily - either through malnourishment, or untreated disease. Since the AWA came out, then it isn't actually necessary to prove (I've taken on board Evelyn's spelling lesson) suffering, merely that the owner hasn't protected the animal . There shouldn't be the slightest problem in proving this.

Wynne

RE: Suffering?

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Fri, 24 Jul 2015 18:18:08 GMT

Certainly I will.

RE: Suffering?

Hannah Wynne Richards — Fri, 24 Jul 2015 18:15:49 GMT

Tell Stephen Lawrence's mother that the system is fair.

Wynne

RE: Suffering?

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Fri, 24 Jul 2015 18:12:17 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]the system is biased against the prosecution[/quote]

But it isn't.

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]The only chance of me agreeing with you would be if[/quote]

There isn't the slightest chance of me agreeing with you. I truly hope that you are never falsely accused of anything, but if you were it might change your mind.

End of discussion, I think.

RE: Suffering?

Hannah Wynne Richards — Fri, 24 Jul 2015 15:45:41 GMT

How old were you during the 70s? Unless you experienced the socialist government of the time, you can have no idea how bad it was. The relief when Margaret Thatcher was elected was enormous. The massive crowds who turned out to stand in silence at her funeral shows that many many others felt as I did - she saved this country from socialism for a generation.

I am dreadfully disappointed to discover that she covered up for criminals, for, to me, to do so is as evil as committing the crime. By the way, there were also evil ones in Labour's ranks - Lord Jenner

On a related topic, I respected Royal College enormously when I 1st qualified. My 1st loss of respect for them came when they forbade us from cintacting the police if we had suspicions that dogs had been used for either badger-baiting, or illegal dog-fighting. I was absolutely outraged, and am glad that policy has now been reversed.

Evelyn. My parents were once burgled. Someone broke in and stole valuables whilst they were out. They were elderly by that time,and my mother was so traumatised,that for ages afterwards she wouldn't remain in the house by herself, and insisted on locking all doors, all the time. This was a woman who, 50 years earlier , whilst doing her district nurse training , had thought nothing of cycling through Cardiff's Tiger Bay by herself in the middle of the night, when on her way to deliver a baby. Her tales were exactly like "Call the Midwife" except set in Cardiff, not the East End! The mother of some friends of mine (from the same village ) had the same experience a couple of months earlier. Soneone broke into the empty house during daylight hours. It was even worse for her, as she was a widow, and living alone. Most local people had a fairly good idea which family were responsible, but there was no evidence, so no trial. If those cases had gone to trial, I think both my parents, and my friends' mother would have felt that for the defendant to escape because the system is biased against the prosecution would have been a further "kick in the teeth"

The only chance of me agreeing with you would be if the statistical chances of a false conviction were greater than the statistical chances of becoming the victim of crime. I'm not asking for the system to be biased against the defence - just for a level playing field - eg, since the prosecution must disclose evidence, it would only be fair for the defence to also disclose in advance.

In other words, removing the bias in favour of the accused would resuilt in the greatest good for the greatest many - good gracious - I'm turning into a socialist

Wynne

Arlo do you have a smiley for someone fainting?

RE: Suffering?

ruths — Thu, 23 Jul 2015 21:16:47 GMT

I have never accepted anything with blind faith, Wynne. every time I refuge your unfounded allegations about things, I show you the evidence that shows your opinions to be based on bias and misunderstanding.

You have no idea- I don't slavishly align myself to a political movement. once have done that, you become part of the problem

RE: Suffering?

Niall Taylor — Thu, 23 Jul 2015 21:09:03 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"] Sorry I thought you'd written magistrate - getting late in the day![/quote]

No, no - my bad. I wrote magistrate initially in error then changed it to barister once I'd realised - you're pretty quick on the draw!

Niall

RE: Suffering?

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Thu, 23 Jul 2015 19:56:14 GMT

"Prove" is spelt prove, not proove.

"Proove" reminds me of Private Eye in the sixties, and if you have no idea what I'm talking about I had better not explain.

RE: Suffering?

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Thu, 23 Jul 2015 19:05:20 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]The RSPCA solicitor asked if she'd ever done prosecution work. She replied "No"[/quote]

How the hell was that relevant? Does that make her a professional hired gun for the defence?

Now you, Wynne, were acting as professional hired gun for the prosecution (you've made it plain in this and another thread that that is how you see your role).

So, the magistrates weighed the evidence and came down on the side of guilt. What of it?

RE: Suffering?

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Thu, 23 Jul 2015 18:53:02 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"] Evelyn Court procedure is hopelessly biased against the prosecution. All prosecution evidence has to be revealed in advance to the defence. That means they have time to think up a reasonable-sounding refutation. The defence isn't revealed to the prosecution, so they have no time to look for evidence to disproove this excuse.[/quote]

Yes, roughly speaking. And that's how it should be. If the prosecution can't challenge the defence in court without knowing in advance what it is, either they are incompetent or there is no challenge to be made.

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]To appear in court saying the animal Might have ben ill, without producing evidence, including veterinary records which proved it had been ill is to prostitute one's vocation.[/quote]

Another bit of absolute tosh. A veterinary surgeon who thus appeared for the defence would have to be giving an expert opinion that, after looking at the clinical record and evidence, the animal could have been ill . It's open to the prosecution to challenge that and force him to explain and justify it, and its up to the magistrate or the jury to decide, after hearing both sides' arguments, what to accept.

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"] the original purpose of law - which is to protect the innocent[/quote] Oh, the irony.It is indeed so –yet you reject as "bias" all the mechanisms designed to do just that.

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]I also disagree with you that a wrongful conviction is worse than a wrongful acquital.[/quote]

Then I'm glad that you do not, and never now will, run the legal system.

Someone wrongly convicted suffers – by God, they suffer. Someone wrongfully acquitted does not suffer, The victims of the crime are irrelevant: they have already suffered and conviction or acquittal of an accused makes no difference to that.

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"] A victim of crime, who then sees the perpetrator wrongfully acquited is then , although innocent, punished a second time.[/quote]

Oh yes, and indeed every one of us suffers agonies at seeing this guy that we all know for sure is guilty walk free, we'd love to wipe the smirk off his face, blah blah......

This is getting ridiculous.

RE: Suffering?

Hannah Wynne Richards — Thu, 23 Jul 2015 18:37:38 GMT

Sorry I thought you'd written magistrate - getting late in the day!

Wynne

RE: Suffering?

Hannah Wynne Richards — Thu, 23 Jul 2015 18:36:31 GMT

She's not been struck off - I follow Royal College news fairly closely, but when I checked their website, she's no longer on the register - I don't know why- perhaps retired. How did you discover she was a magistrate - all it says on your article is that she's a barrister. Maybe she finds that more lucrative!

Wynne

RE: Suffering?

Niall Taylor — Thu, 23 Jul 2015 18:19:42 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"] I once appeared against her. The RSPCA solicitor asked if she'd ever done prosecution work. She replied "No" The magistrates treated her as a professional "hired gun" for the defence, and didn't seem impressed - they convicted, banned, and jailed the owner.

Wynne[/quote]

That would explain why she became a barrister - she'd need a second string to her bow once she'd been struck off for defending someone eventually convicted of animal cruelty!

Niall

RE: Suffering?

Hannah Wynne Richards — Thu, 23 Jul 2015 17:37:19 GMT

Sorry for turbo posting but I really don't know how the smilet got there!

Wynne

RE: Suffering?

Hannah Wynne Richards — Thu, 23 Jul 2015 17:36:14 GMT

I once appeared against her. The RSPCA solicitor asked if she'd ever done prosecution work. She replied "No" The magistrates treated her as a professional "hired gun" for the defence, and didn't seem impressed - they convicted, banned, and jailed the owner.

Wynne

RE: Suffering?

Niall Taylor — Thu, 23 Jul 2015 17:27:52 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]The RSPCA seem to think one is there to help them secure a conviction. This is not so. Make a statement of what you truly believe and an opinion that you can justify to yourself as well as to anyone else. If that's not what they want, tough.[/quote]

Exactly

There was an excellent article in Vet Times a few years back about this very subject - Forsyth, M., 2008 Don't be court in the headlights Veterinary Times, vol 38 no 6 pp 8-10. The author states "A veterinary expert witness is not judge or jury, or a hired gun for either party."

I'd attach a copy, if only I knew how - help!

Niall

... ah, here you go!

www.vetsurgeon.org/.../Forsyth-2008-Don_2700_t-be-court-in-the-headlights-VET-TIMES-_2800_txt-only_2900_.pdf

RE: Suffering?

Hannah Wynne Richards — Thu, 23 Jul 2015 14:29:06 GMT

I once appeared in a case where an owner was accused (and found guilty) of causing unnecessary suffering by failing to seek veterinary advice for a badly infected wound on a horse. The defendant's solicitor stated that the owner had treated it - with Germolene. I stated "About as effective as trying to bail out the Titanic with a tea-cup" (It was just after the film had come out) The solicitor looked embarrassed, and complained to the bench. The chairman told me not to mock the defence solicitor. I think what he was really saying was not to bully her!

Wynne

RE: Suffering?

grumpyoldman — Thu, 23 Jul 2015 13:10:51 GMT

The only other advice I can give in these situations, is make it clear at the outset that your there reluctantly and if its clear your not being paid what you say including any opinions ,will be taken as genuine and sincere. Opposing Barristers will often wave your clinical notes and invoices at you at make sneering remarks about them, fees etc. If your there FOC that "instantly kicks that one into touch", and stops them accusing you of being in the RSPCAs pocket. You could be ready with a few quips of your own. I remember one barrister suggesting that a labrador was not really that thin was it ? in fact pretty normal really ?, my response was "its all about perspective really you may think your quite normal but i would suspect that your no stranger to the biscuit tin".He turned and complained to the judge. The judge just looked over his glasses at him and said "you asked for that".

RE: Suffering?

Hannah Wynne Richards — Thu, 23 Jul 2015 12:25:46 GMT

You're right Ruths - but I suspect the same could be said of you and Marx

Wynne