Donate SIGN UP

A Nation Of Animal Lovers?

Avatar Image
divegirl | 17:31 Fri 25th Aug 2023 | News
67 Answers
I think not!

I'm absolutely astounded this person was found not guilty! Do you agree with the verdict?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12445473/Primary-school-teacher-39-not-guilty-animal-cruelty-footage-showed-punching-kicking-horse.html#comments

:(
Gravatar

Answers

1 to 20 of 67rss feed

1 2 3 4 Next Last

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.
I cannot agree with it. However, I am hoping there is no way she will get her teaching job back as the video shows what she has done - I remember seeing it at the time and was shocked. This was in Melton Mowbray - the home of the Quorn :(((
I can’t be arsed reading it.
What was her excuse for punching and kicking the pony, and how was she cleared ?
I am saddened that the CPS did not take up the prosecution - I am guessing the case was not presented satisfactorily at court.
Question Author
''I can’t be arsed reading it.
What was her excuse for punching and kicking the pony, and how was she cleared ? ''

She claimed she was disciplining the pony for running off. I wonder if she would do the same to a child in her [supposed] care?
That's a lame excuse. An animal runs off and later gets chastised. It wouldn't be able to connect the two events.
She was cleared by a jury. So nowt to do.
Not having all the facts which were presented to the court I am unable to comment on the verdict. Incompetence isn't necessarily a crime. She's ruined her employment prospects however.
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.
Yes we absolutely are a nation of animal lovers, the cruel people of this nation are not really representative of our nation. Especially when you look at other nations! Look at all the ear cropping, tail docking, and spike collars that are still legal in the USA. Barbaric!!
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?
//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.
Well I think she was being cruel. A lot of these hunt people are as hard nosed as hell. You can see the horse is not happy. When I was a kid I used to play with some children and I can still remember their mother kicking a horse in the face and she was the vet's wife!
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.
She doesn’t help things by being so sanctimonious and irate . I don’t suppose she could have said sorry about kicking and punching of an animal. She should have been found guilty. I would not like her to be teaching any of my family .
She's obviously old school.
//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://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/News/Question1846715-1.html
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.

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.
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://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/News/Question1846715-1.html //

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.

1 to 20 of 67rss feed

1 2 3 4 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

A Nation Of Animal Lovers?

Answer Question >>