# Pet Shop Prosecution Result



## kato (May 12, 2007)

The EnviroLink Network: [itemname]

What do you think?


----------



## Optikal (Feb 4, 2009)

Interesting. I always run by the motto innocent until proven guilty. It makes a change to see an animal cruelty case brought to actual justice.


----------



## mask-of-sanity (Dec 27, 2006)

just saw that myself...very interesting


----------



## cooljules (May 20, 2008)

this was mentioned a while ago..

its not all cut and dry, whats been said etc.

i had it very recently, from someone who knew them....99% of the charges were dropped, and what they were convicted on, its how most rep keepers keep stuff....im serious, like rubs in tubs etc.

im too drunk to find the orig post, but someone soon will bring it up, makes good reading...


----------



## kato (May 12, 2007)

cooljules said:


> this was mentioned a while ago..
> 
> its not all cut and dry, whats been said etc.
> 
> ...


How can it not be cut and dry? It's even a different Judge. Plus what makes it more interesting is the fact that the charges are Criminal not Civil as suggested.

Personally I feel any attempt at an Appeal will be fruitless as they will have to produce or rubbish each individual Criminal Conviction.


----------



## cooljules (May 20, 2008)

kato said:


> How can it not be cut and dry? It's even a different Judge. Plus what makes it more interesting is the fact that the charges are Criminal not Civil as suggested.
> 
> Personally I feel any attempt at an Appeal will be fruitless as they will have to produce or rubbish each individual Criminal Conviction.


sorry missed the last bits..
i know it was a criminal court, but someone gave some facts which were based on the 1st post a few weeks ago, and i know the expert....so called expert, for the prosicution actually sort of made some howlers..

as the have been convicted, i cant say ooooooo its wrong, but i dont think its finneshed with yet....but thats just me


----------



## sarasin (Dec 8, 2007)

kato said:


> How can it not be cut and dry? It's even a different Judge. Plus what makes it more interesting is the fact that the charges are Criminal not Civil as suggested.
> 
> Personally I feel any attempt at an Appeal will be fruitless as they will have to produce or rubbish each individual Criminal Conviction.


Where does it say its a different judge?


----------



## kato (May 12, 2007)

sarasin said:


> Where does it say its a different judge?


Sorry my mistake.


----------



## Meko (Apr 29, 2007)

kato said:


> How can it not be cut and dry? It's even a different Judge. Plus what makes it more interesting is the fact that the charges are Criminal not Civil as suggested.
> 
> Personally I feel any attempt at an Appeal will be fruitless as they will have to produce or rubbish each individual Criminal Conviction.


 
now i could be wrong but thinking back to the original thread; wouldn't this just be the sentencing and not another trial? weren't they found guilty and awaiting sentencing? 
Didn't people say that they couldn't appeal just yet and had to wait till they'd been sentenced before they could appeal?


although this bit baffles me:


> District Judge Harrison also banned them both from keeping a pet shop for life and barred them from keeping animals for seven years apart from a family dog and some tropical fish they already own. They were also ordered to pay £750 towards the council’s costs.


if they're banned from keeping animals why would they be allowed to keep their dog and fish they own?


----------



## mask-of-sanity (Dec 27, 2006)

i understand that most of us house snakes in rubs ect but some of the charges are for birds and rats ect.....it says they are going to appeal so will see the outcome of that


----------



## sarasin (Dec 8, 2007)

Meko
if they're banned from keeping animals why would they be allowed to keep their dog and fish they own?[/quote said:


> Yea funny that isn't it.


----------



## cooljules (May 20, 2008)

mask-of-sanity said:


> i understand that most of us house snakes in rubs ect but some of the charges are for birds and rats ect.....it says they are going to appeal so will see the outcome of that


i know NOTHING about birds or rats, but someone who does, and who knows them, told me, they were done for having a bad cage, yet had the same cage a differant colour...and it was classed as fine

i kid you not, im drunk now, but that was told to me truthfully


----------



## mask-of-sanity (Dec 27, 2006)

cooljules said:


> i know NOTHING about birds or rats, but someone who does, and who knows them, told me, they were done for having a bad cage, yet had the same cage a differant colour...and it was classed as fine
> 
> i kid you not, im drunk now, but that was told to me truthfully


now thats odd....was it the same type of bird in each cage ?


----------



## boromale2008 (Feb 6, 2008)

but werent all the reptile charges dropped and prosecution was only against the non exotic animals??


----------



## sarasin (Dec 8, 2007)

cooljules said:


> i know NOTHING about birds or rats, but someone who does, and who knows them, told me, they were done for having a bad cage, yet had the same cage a differant colour...and it was classed as fine
> 
> i kid you not, im drunk now, but that was told to me truthfully


It was me that posted about the cage, they were told the cage was too small for the parrot (it was a black cage) they swapped it for an identical cage in white HEY PRESO that was just fine :censor: idiots.


----------



## cooljules (May 20, 2008)

sarasin said:


> It was me that posted about the cage, they were told the cage was too small for the parrot (it was a black cage) they swapped it for an identical cage in white HEY PRESO that was just fine :censor: idiots.


no, also got it from someone else.....

i know someone who actually knows them (more her) here in sheffield...and we spent ages talking about it, esp who the so called long term respected herper was for the reports for the prosectution


----------



## boromale2008 (Feb 6, 2008)

cooljules said:


> no, also got it from someone else.....
> 
> i know someone who actually knows them (more her) here in sheffield...and we spent ages talking about it, esp who the so called long term respected herper was for the reports for the prosectution


sarasin actually knows her because she is her mam lol.


----------



## cooljules (May 20, 2008)

boromale2008 said:


> sarasin actually knows her because she is her mam lol.


that doesnt mean anything, family stick up for each other, even if in the wrong....

i got it from someone i know....not that i really like, but i know the reputition is ok and can be trusted.


----------



## sarasin (Dec 8, 2007)

cooljules said:


> no, also got it from someone else.....
> 
> i know someone who actually knows them (more her) here in sheffield...and we spent ages talking about it, esp who the so called long term respected herper was for the reports for the prosectution


I think I know who it is (not going to give name) but I think you'll find I know her better as I am her mam lol


----------



## boromale2008 (Feb 6, 2008)

cooljules said:


> that doesnt mean anything, family stick up for each other, even if in the wrong....
> 
> i got it from someone i know....not that i really like, but i know the reputition is ok and can be trusted.


welll have a drink of coffee and sober up a little because i wasnt having a go at u, the way your post was written sounded as if you thought sarasin didnt know her. so put your stella down and calm down.


----------



## cooljules (May 20, 2008)

boromale2008 said:


> welll have a drink of coffee and sober up a little because i wasnt having a go at u, the way your post was written sounded as if you thought sarasin didnt know her. so put your stella down and calm down.


what i said is family stick up or cover up...i know my mother did about me when i was younger...thats all. and i was a complete idiot

i got it from someone else, so belive them, or what they said thats all.


----------



## kato (May 12, 2007)

sarasin said:


> I think I know who it is (not going to give name) but I think you'll find I know her better as I am her mam lol


Hi,

Just curious as to why they were allowed to keep the dog and the fish? The Judge must of said something in Court - I'm guessing they were classed as Personnal not Business and the prosecutions was for Potential Pet Shop Stock, not family pets. Did the Judge say something in her summing up?


----------



## Meko (Apr 29, 2007)

sarasin said:


> Yea funny that isn't it.


 
its a bit like a paedo being told to stay away from children but to take his own on a nice holiday to Cambodia.


----------



## boromale2008 (Feb 6, 2008)

cooljules said:


> what i said is family stick up or cover up...i know my mother did about me when i was younger...thats all. and i was a complete idiot
> 
> i got it from someone else, so belive them, or what they said thats all.


lol mine just condemed me to the flames lol. i know which way my thoughts are on this case,but i will keep them private.


----------



## Meko (Apr 29, 2007)

kato said:


> Hi,
> 
> Just curious as to why they were allowed to keep the dog and the fish? The Judge must of said something in Court - I'm guessing they were classed as Personnal not Business and the prosecutions was for Potential Pet Shop Stock, not family pets. Did the Judge say something in her summing up?


 
i considered that but the picture in the original report showed bird cages in the house.


----------



## sarasin (Dec 8, 2007)

kato said:


> Hi,
> 
> Just curious as to why they were allowed to keep the dog and the fish? The Judge must of said something in Court - I'm guessing they were classed as Personnal not Business and the prosecutions was for Potential Pet Shop Stock, not family pets. Did the Judge say something in her summing up?


You seem to know everything (or maybe you know someone ) so you work it out.


----------



## cooljules (May 20, 2008)

boromale2008 said:


> lol mine just condemed me to the flames lol. i know which way my thoughts are on this case,but i will keep them private.


well mine did (and still does) but i thought that not the norm...so said family stick up for each other...

freds wests wife was good at that...but thats totally differant

i jsut heard it from someone independant, who knew them, and knew the so called witness.......

i did like the bit, they took in some, forgot what, monitors i think, that most still died ONCE removed, a lep gex that was actually gettting much more weight on than it was when it came in, but wasnt mentioned, and that it said it took the expert 18 months to get a snake (i think from memory) healthy again...mmmmmmm and some other things that dont ring true


----------



## sparkle (Mar 21, 2007)

cooljules said:


> what i said is family stick up or cover up...i know my mother did about me when i was younger...thats all. and i was a complete idiot
> 
> i got it from someone else, so belive them, or what they said thats all.


 
ive heard several accounts from people who both know them ( as in talked to them face to face whether it be in the closed down pet shop or otherwise)and also the shop when it was open.. again most want to keep schtum which doesnt help matters really.. as the accusations levied against the shop privately would be better said in public so they accused could explain or defend if they wanted to...
ive heard negatives , ive heard positives...all from people I also trust.. which in turn makes it nigh on impossible to know whats what...
ive heard the shop was pretty bad... and ive heard it was below par but passable.. ive heard that some people think they are fine.. others dont..some think they are knowledgeable.. some say they took on too much and couldnt cope... will most of us ever REALLY know..

HEARING something doesnt make it true and that goes for positive and negative thats the balance here..

so what now??? if you didnt see it with your own eyes.. you have to just make your mind up with what you hear and what you read.. which is not particularly suitable when it comes to something like this ... 

and thats all i can really say on the matter


----------



## mask-of-sanity (Dec 27, 2006)

sarasin said:


> I think I know who it is (not going to give name) but I think you'll find I know her better as I am her mam lol


but are you her mum or are you lauren ..in a previous post you made you say your name is lauren , heres the link 

http://www.reptileforums.co.uk/lizards/103181-leaf-tail-gecko-u-henkeli.html


----------



## kato (May 12, 2007)

Meko said:


> i considered that but the picture in the original report showed bird cages in the house.


Technically speaking the cages could be at there home to store stock.


----------



## Meko (Apr 29, 2007)

possibly Kato but a ban is a ban.. you wouldn't get banned for driving a company car but allowed to drive your own.

just seems like a very strange thing to do.


----------



## kato (May 12, 2007)

sarasin said:


> You seem to know everything (or maybe you know someone ) so you work it out.


An honest answer would suffice.


----------



## kato (May 12, 2007)

Meko said:


> possibly Kato but a ban is a ban.. you wouldn't get banned for driving a company car but allowed to drive your own.
> 
> just seems like a very strange thing to do.


The Law in this Country is a very strange thing.


----------



## sarasin (Dec 8, 2007)

mask-of-sanity said:


> but are you her mum or are you lauren ..in a previous post you made you say your name is lauren , heres the link


I am Laurens mam, sometimes I am signed in as her without realising.
As for me sticking up for her, your damn right I will, especially since I know all she was guilty of was not doing the housework.
Don't worry it will all come out eventually.


----------



## freekygeeky (May 25, 2007)

sarasin said:


> I am Laurens mam, sometimes I am signed in as her without realising.
> As for me sticking up for her, your damn right I will, especially since I know all she was guilty of was not doing the housework.
> Don't worry it will all come out eventually.


i didnt realise you wre her mum, man im slow!! lol


----------



## Julie&James (Sep 24, 2007)

kato said:


> The Law in this Country is a very strange thing.


And there's your honest answer.

You were told in the last thread, honestly, what the background to this case was, and yet here you are again.

The Judge is a nutjob with a long history of wacky decisions. She ignored the evidence in the case. Other evidence presented for the prosecution was beyond faulty, but allowed to stand. 

The sentence is as insane as the verdict. You're guilty even though the evidence says you're not, and although I'm finding you guilty of animal cruelty you can keep your dog and your fish.

The law is an ass, ask any solicitor. Most of them will tell you, being generous, that about 5% of cases are safe verdicts.

The question that really needs an honest answer is why did you post this thread ? You seem to have more than a passing interest in this matter. Maybe while asking others for honesty you could show some yourself.


----------



## sarasin (Dec 8, 2007)

kato said:


> Technically speaking the cages could be at there home to store stock.


They had pet birds at home too, which the vet actually said were in good condition.


----------



## boromale2008 (Feb 6, 2008)

Julie&James said:


> And there's your honest answer.
> 
> You were told in the last thread, honestly, what the background to this case was, and yet here you are again.
> 
> ...


----------



## Julie&James (Sep 24, 2007)

boromale2008 said:


> what a joke that part is, my question is would you post or start a thread if you had seen the article in a paper so that other people on this forum could read it?? they were simply showing the outcome of the case,is that a bad thing??


You're welcome to that opinion.


----------



## mask-of-sanity (Dec 27, 2006)

sarasin said:


> I am Laurens mam, sometimes I am signed in as her without realising.
> As for me sticking up for her, your damn right I will, especially since I know all she was guilty of was not doing the housework.
> Don't worry it will all come out eventually.


as a parent i understand you will stick up for her.............the post was signed in as sarasin and then stated name was lauren, so i take it you both sign in as each other, so how are we ment to know who is replying to any questions being asked


----------



## sarasin (Dec 8, 2007)

mask-of-sanity said:


> as a parent i understand you will stick up for her.............the post was signed in as sarasin and then stated name was lauren, so i take it you both sign in as each other, so how are we ment to know who is replying to any questions being asked


I have just explained it you you, if you don't understand why not use your brain and see who is signed in now.


----------



## kato (May 12, 2007)

Julie&James said:


> And there's your honest answer.
> 
> You were told in the last thread, honestly, what the background to this case was, and yet here you are again.
> 
> ...


I was interested in this case of the same reason Councillor Steve Nelson says in the Paper Article,

"Councillor Steve Nelson, Cabinet member for housing and community safety, said: “I hope this sentence acts as a deterrent to anyone who would even consider treating animals like this.”

There are many things that I can say about this case, but I honestly don't wish to upset anyone. We can crow on and on about the Animals in the couples house, but at the end of the day the shop was closed because of not satisfying the local Councils requirements, something which is very very important to any business whatever there field. I do not know anyone involved in this case either, but I do wish that until any Appeal is won that this sends a message out to all those Shops whose animal husbandry is below par. Because at the end of the day who wants to see an animal suffer?

I don't.


----------



## Meko (Apr 29, 2007)

mask-of-sanity said:


> as a parent i understand you will stick up for her.............the post was signed in as sarasin and then stated name was lauren, so i take it you both sign in as each other, so how are we ment to know who is replying to any questions being asked


the post you linked is over a year old. 
A lot can happen in a year, such as 2 people using the same ID decide to get seperate ones.


----------



## cooljules (May 20, 2008)

kato said:


> I was interested in this case of the same reason Councillor Steve Nelson says in the Paper Article,
> 
> "Councillor Steve Nelson, Cabinet member for housing and community safety, said: “I hope this sentence acts as a deterrent to anyone who would even consider treating animals like this.”
> 
> ...


i know a shop, been reported over and over and over and over...still there, and it has bad care...and i have seen it with my own eyes many times, complain and nothing is down..

im not just taking untidy or dirty vivs (normal dirt, crap that day etc) but really bad


----------



## sarasin (Dec 8, 2007)

It also says that *“Not one single animal removed required any emergency* *treatment.”* Now I find that very strange, since they were supposed to be so very ill.


----------



## kato (May 12, 2007)

sarasin said:


> It also says that *“Not one single animal removed required any emergency* *treatment.”* Now I find that very strange, since they were supposed to be so very ill.


Is'nt that because they were dead at that time?


----------



## sarasin (Dec 8, 2007)

kato said:


> Is'nt that because they were dead at that time?


Very :censor: funny, there were supposed to be very ill animals removed that supposedly died later in the care of their expert (I use that term term loosley)so why were they not given treatment?


----------



## Julie&James (Sep 24, 2007)

kato said:


> I do wish that until any Appeal is won that this sends a message out to all those Shops whose animal husbandry is below par.


Maybe

But if you've been paying attention, the message it actually sends out is .. if you keep exotics you'd better hope and pray that an "anonymous complaint" to your local council doesn't land you with a surprise inspection on a day when you haven't been 100% on your housework, because there are judges working in this country who will destroy your life without considering the many thousands of perfectly true facts which might argue in your favour.

There but for the grace of (insert a deity of your choice) go us all.


----------



## Julie&James (Sep 24, 2007)

kato said:


> Is'nt that because they were dead at that time?


Yes because people often take dead animals for emergency treatment.

Have you been paying attention to ANY of this, other than the monosyllabic screaming headline on the local rag ?


----------



## mask-of-sanity (Dec 27, 2006)

sarasin said:


> I have just explained it you you, if you don't understand why not use your brain and see who is signed in now.


i can see who is signed in but not who is behind the keyboard


----------



## cooljules (May 20, 2008)

Julie&James said:


> Maybe
> 
> But if you've been paying attention, the message it actually sends out is .. if you keep exotics you'd better hope and pray that an "anonymous complaint" to your local council doesn't land you with a surprise inspection on a day when you haven't been 100% on your housework, because there are judges working in this country who will destroy your life without considering the many thousands of perfectly true facts which might argue in your favour.
> 
> There but for the grace of (insert a deity of your choice) go us all.


im waiting for another visit....

i had one years ago via a neighbour...rspca didnt even know the types of animals i showed them, and they said unless i changed a few things they would have me in court...

1 snakes no access to food at any time
2 snakes looking unhappy

i kid you not....

i begged them to take me to court, had a lot of respected herpers with reports, but they wouldnt take me to court...and i begged


----------



## Julie&James (Sep 24, 2007)

cooljules said:


> im waiting for another visit....
> 
> i had one years ago via a neighbour...rspca didnt even know the types of animals i showed them, and they said unless i changed a few things they would have me in court...
> 
> ...


You're lucky, sometimes even having the RSPCA vet arguing your side doesn't stop you from getting screwed by our broken legal system.

You dodged a bullet.


----------



## sarasin (Dec 8, 2007)

mask-of-sanity said:


> i can see who is signed in but not who is behind the keyboard


 Well thats your tough luck, if you can't or wont believe me.


----------



## mask-of-sanity (Dec 27, 2006)

Julie&James said:


> Yes because people often take dead animals for emergency treatment.
> 
> Have you been paying attention to ANY of this, other than the monosyllabic screaming headline on the local rag ?


why would anyone take a dead animal for emergency treatment...its a bit late by then


----------



## boromale2008 (Feb 6, 2008)

think this thread needs closing because its just daft bickering now, the post was originally put up to show the results of the case and now its just a tug of war bickering.


----------



## sarasin (Dec 8, 2007)

mask-of-sanity said:


> why would anyone take a dead animal for emergency treatment...its a bit late by then


Oh so there was no ill animals removed then?


----------



## cooljules (May 20, 2008)

Julie&James said:


> You're lucky, sometimes even having the RSPCA vet arguing your side doesn't stop you from getting screwed by our broken legal system.
> 
> You dodged a bullet.


i did...but i didnt.

i really wanted the press to cover it, but they said it was too small...

i did read that orig about the RSPCA vet etc first time....

last time rspca came (they sent someone from the other side of the country who knew about reps....) i just made the first names i could think of off the top of my head, and really daft names...not even real.

turned out they had seen a BD before....

i do remember picking out a DWA name......and it passsed them by

i did have the report they gave me, at the time, what i had to change (was after than new law came out, saying they didnt HAVE to be suffering)


----------



## kato (May 12, 2007)

sarasin said:


> Very :censor: funny, there were supposed to be very ill animals removed that supposedly died later in the care of their expert (I use that term term loosley)so why were they not given treatment?


 
Did your(sorry but I mean your daughter and her fella) Solicitor not advise you that those Animals were entitled to be inspected at anytime by a neutral Vet of your choice? It sounds to me that your(sorry) Legal Representatives were not upto the job. If it was me I would of got an Expert(Vet) of my Choice to be present while the Animals were removed, That way there would of been none of these problems. RSPCA Vets are not normally that good at this, a practising Vet local to yourselves would of been better.


----------



## Julie&James (Sep 24, 2007)

mask-of-sanity said:


> why would anyone take a dead animal for emergency treatment...its a bit late by then


The point being made, which sailed about 20,000 feet over your head was that the council removed a large number of animals, many of which were CLAIMED to be sick. This formed part of the prosecution case. However, NOT ONE of those animals was given vetinerary care after being removed. Meaning .. THEY WEREN'T SICK AT ALL.

Many of them have died in captivity since removal, but that's more a factor of the inappropriate and amateurish care they've received since seizure, and again proves that if people reading this are interested in animal suffering they should be furious with the council, NOT the defendants.



kato said:


> Did your(sorry but I mean your daughter and her fella) Solicitor not advise you that those Animals were entitled to be inspected at anytime by a neutral Vet of your choice? It sounds to me that your(sorry) Legal Representatives were not upto the job. If it was me I would of got an Expert(Vet) of my Choice to be present while the Animals were removed, That way there would of been none of these problems. RSPCA Vets are not normally that good at this, a practising Vet local to yourselves would of been better.



How would it affect your opinion if you were to know that their brief tried on several occasions to have a neutral vet examine the animals which were seized, and were repeatedly refused access except to a very small number of animals. This, as you pointed out, is CLEARLY in breach of their rights in the case.

Another fact that was completely ignored by the judge.


----------



## cooljules (May 20, 2008)

Julie&James said:


> The point being made, which sailed about 20,000 feet over your head was that the council removed a large number of animals, many of which were CLAIMED to be sick. This formed part of the prosecution case. However, NOT ONE of those animals was given vetinerary care after being removed. Meaning .. THEY WEREN'T SICK AT ALL.
> 
> Many of them have died in captivity since removal, but that's more a factor of the inappropriate and amateurish care they've received since seizure, and again proves that if people reading this are interested in animal suffering they should be furious with the council, NOT the defendants.


yes...thats what i meant to say earlier...the last report, said lots died AFTER being removed!!


----------



## sarasin (Dec 8, 2007)

kato said:


> Did your(sorry but I mean your daughter and her fella) Solicitor not advise you that those Animals were entitled to be inspected at anytime by a neutral Vet of your choice? It sounds to me that your(sorry) Legal Representatives were not upto the job. If it was me I would of got an Expert(Vet) of my Choice to be present while the Animals were removed, That way there would of been none of these problems. RSPCA Vets are not normally that good at this, a practising Vet local to yourselves would of been better.


For your information they were not given any choice in the matter at the time, and neither was I when they raided my house. The vet that represented them was not an RSPCA vet.
After the animals had been siezed Lauren asked for her vet to see them, but it was months before she was allowed, the council just kept coming up with excuses all the time.


----------



## kato (May 12, 2007)

sarasin said:


> For your information they were not given any choice in the matter at the time, and neither was I when they raided my house. The vet that represented them was not an RSPCA vet.
> After the animals had been siezed Lauren asked for her vet to see them, but it was months before she was allowed, the council just kept coming up with excuses all the time.


This seems like a bum deal to me. But is no Grounds For An Appeal - personally I would ditch my Legal Team if I were you and seek a specialist out in Animal Law. I would also seek to Lodge a complaint about the failings of your Legal Team.


----------



## sarasin (Dec 8, 2007)

kato said:


> This seems like a bum deal to me. But is no Grounds For An Appeal - personally I would ditch my Legal Team if I were you and seek a specialist out in Animal Law. I would also seek to Lodge a complaint about the failings of your Legal Team.


The legal team (as you put it ) have been brilliant, it was the :censor: judge who just refused to listen to a single word they said, so Lauren won't be ditching them.


----------



## Julie&James (Sep 24, 2007)

kato said:


> This seems like a bum deal to me. But is no Grounds For An Appeal - personally I would ditch my Legal Team if I were you and seek a specialist out in Animal Law. I would also seek to Lodge a complaint about the failings of your Legal Team.


I love how you make a judgment like this with about 10% of the available information. Your naieve belief in the infallability of justice is laughable. I can only hope (because I wouldn't want to see anyone suffer the way these people have) you never experience the powerlessness you feel when the authorities steamroller your life. You think just because the law says you have a right to x, y or z that means you get that right ? You think you're somehow special, and could magically select the perfect legal team to overcome the pigheadedness, nepotism and impenetrability of the "system" once the wheels are in motion ? You don't live in the real world I'm afraid. 

Try reading some Kafka. It may have been written a long time ago, but it's still 100% relevant to the way people get sucked up by the giant hoover in cases like this and spat out the other end. 

Must be nice behind those rose-tinted glasses you wear.


----------



## kato (May 12, 2007)

Julie&James said:


> The point being made, which sailed about 20,000 feet over your head was that the council removed a large number of animals, many of which were CLAIMED to be sick. This formed part of the prosecution case. However, NOT ONE of those animals was given vetinerary care after being removed. Meaning .. THEY WEREN'T SICK AT ALL.
> 
> Many of them have died in captivity since removal, but that's more a factor of the inappropriate and amateurish care they've received since seizure, and again proves that if people reading this are interested in animal suffering they should be furious with the council, NOT the defendants.
> 
> ...


I started this Thread and I would prefer if you would not insult people who Post on it. Personal opinions are fine, but insults are not welcome.

As for the Judge, they have the Right To Accept and refuse any information they like - hence Judge.


----------



## sarasin (Dec 8, 2007)

And just a few words (before I go) about the reptiles THEY killed, Lauren had some cat geckos at home, after she explained what they were and told them their requirements (NO TAP WATER) the expert told her that was rubbish, guess what they died.
A kimberly rock monitor was identified as a water monitor, so was kept (by them ) in totally unsuitable conditions, and that died, Need I say more.


----------



## Julie&James (Sep 24, 2007)

kato said:


> I started this Thread and I would prefer if you would not insult people who Post on it. Personal opinions are fine, but insults are not welcome.


Go ahead and quote any of my posts wherein I insulted someone. 

Disagreeing with your opinion does not equate to an insult. Neither does pointing out where someone uses faulty logic, or claims something incorrect.

If you're going to accuse me of something, produce evidence, or retract.




> As for the Judge, they have the Right To Accept and refuse any information they like - hence Judge.


Yep, and God help you if you get a bad one.


----------



## kato (May 12, 2007)

Julie&James said:


> Go ahead and quote any of my posts wherein I insulted someone.


"The point being made, which sailed about 20,000 feet over your head"

This can hardly be deemed as polite.:bash:


----------



## Julie&James (Sep 24, 2007)

kato said:


> "The point being made, which sailed about 20,000 feet over your head"
> 
> This can hardly be deemed as polite.:bash:


You need to go look up "insult" in the dictionary.

"The point sailed 20,000 feet over your head" is an observation about something that happened within the conversation. Had I said "you moron" or "big nose" that would be an insult.

In a discussion, if you fail to follow the simplest thread of the conversation and post something that shows you're missing the point, and someone points that out, it's hardly a breach of etiquette. 

Frankly, your assertion that Lauren is incapable of working out whether or not her legal advisers were doing a good job, and the implication that you're SO much more intelligent that you would have known better what to do comes much closer to an insult than anything I've said in this thread.


----------



## sparkle (Mar 21, 2007)

edited cos i cant be bothered ..


----------



## kato (May 12, 2007)

Julie&James said:


> You need to go look up "insult" in the dictionary.
> 
> "The point sailed 20,000 feet over your head" is an observation about something that happened within the conversation. Had I said "you moron" or "big nose" that would be an insult.
> 
> ...


Firstly, if you think that I cannot deem what is or is not an insult, then you are very very wrong.

Secondly, Lauren's Legal Team have not performed how Lauren wanted them to. Therefore they were not upto the job. I do not claim to be intelligent, but this is something I happen to know a lot about. There are probably things that you know which I know nothing off. You must remember that Lauren is in the eyes of Uk Law a Convicted Criminal. At this moment in time, now she is a Criminal. But if her Legal Advisers were so so good and all this evidence which you keep going on about is so flawed then why is Lauren a Convicted Criminal? The only reason could be that the Legal Team have not done there job properly. I am not making or getting close to an insult, I am stating hard facts and if you disagree then I think that you are being slightly hypocritical.

If people had any sense, they would possibly be asking me for help not rubbing me up the wrong way. After all I have made no personal insults and I have even said that there is no doubt that this Couple know how to look after animals.


----------



## Julie&James (Sep 24, 2007)

kato said:


> Firstly, if you think that I cannot deem what is or is not an insult, then you are very very wrong.


I'm wrong, but there's no evidence and you're just incapable of proving it right now so we have to take your word for it. Right. Are you District Judge Kristina Harrison by any chance ?



> Secondly, Lauren's Legal Team have not performed how Lauren wanted them to. Therefore they were not upto the job. I do not claim to be intelligent, but this is something I happen to know a lot about. There are probably things that you know which I know nothing off. You must remember that Lauren is in the eyes of Uk Law a Convicted Criminal. At this moment in time, now she is a Criminal. But if her Legal Advisers were so so good and all this evidence which you keep going on about is so flawed then why is Lauren a Convicted Criminal? The only reason could be that the Legal Team have not done there job properly. I am not making or getting close to an insult, I am stating hard facts and if you disagree then I think that you are being slightly hypocritical.


If you think justice only depends on having the right legal team, and that only people who are actually guilty are convicted, then you must live under a rock and read Barbra Cartland novels all day. The reason Lauren was convicted has been stated to you 1000 times, you just seem incapable of taking it on board. The judge made a very very bad decision. Authority closed ranks and the little guy got screwed. If you think this never happens, I pray you never get a rude awakening, it'd toss your world upside down.



> If people had any sense, they would possibly be asking me for help not rubbing me up the wrong way.


And what help would you be able to provide ? And why would you want to ? After all, in your eyes they are convicted criminals and therefore guilty, since the law never makes a mistake.



> After all I have made no personal insults


Neither have I. (And you still haven't retracted your accusation).



> and I have even said that there is no doubt that this Couple know how to look after animals.


So how come they're convicted criminals in your world of perfect justice ?


----------



## kato (May 12, 2007)

Julie&James said:


> I'm wrong, but there's no evidence and you're just incapable of proving it right now so we have to take your word for it. Right. Are you District Judge Kristina Harrison by any chance ?
> 
> If you think justice only depends on having the right legal team, and that only people who are actually guilty are convicted, then you must live under a rock and read Barbra Cartland novels all day. The reason Lauren was convicted has been stated to you 1000 times, you just seem incapable of taking it on board. The judge made a very very bad decision. Authority closed ranks and the little guy got screwed. If you think this never happens, I pray you never get a rude awakening, it'd toss your world upside down.
> 
> ...


Do you want me to E-Mail the Judge this Post of yours? Its bound to do there case good.

The British Judicial System is by no means perfect. But as residents of the United Kingdom we must abide by it and if we breach that Law in anyway shape or form we must be held accountable. This does not mean that the system is perfect. Nor does it mean that we should not help Convicted Criminals. But what it does mean is that we MUST stick by any decision it makes whether we like it or not. Yes, everyone Convicted of a Crime is entitled to Appeal, but very very rarely decisions are overturned and only a single charge is likely to be overturned - in this case there are eight Charges and Convictions.

As for me, I don't need evidence nor do I need to be told a thousand times. I just as a British Citizen must accept that The Judges decision is right - and until a successful Appeal I will not think otherwise.

I can help because I have an in depth knowledge of The British Judicial System. Especially Appeals and Military Law. I have no grudge against Lauren and her partner in any way shape or form. But what I would like is to hear in a few years time that they have got they're Convictions overturned and are back on the straight and narrow.

Now this is my personal opinion - I think a very high proportion of Solicitors and Barristers are not upto the job that they are employed for. For instance if I was Lauren I would only of used a Solicitor who had an in depth knowledge in Animal Law - correct me if I am wrong but I do not believe that her Solicitor was an expert in this? Most Solicitor's are well known to big themselves up and there Firms - but usually they are only in it for the money and will string a case out so that they can get more money. I feel that a Solicitor who is good will represent a Client in a case in a Field that they are interested or specialise in.


----------



## Julie&James (Sep 24, 2007)

kato said:


> Do you want me to E-Mail the Judge this Post of yours? Its bound to do there case good.


Why would you email a private and anonymous discussion about a legal case to the judge ? What possible motive would you have for doing so ? What exactly do you think the judge would do with your email if you were to send it ? Are you of the opinon that judges give a toss about discussions on internet forums ?



> The British Judicial System is by no means perfect. But as residents of the United Kingdom we must abide by it and if we breach that Law in anyway shape or form we must be held accountable. This does not mean that the system is perfect. Nor does it mean that we should not help Convicted Criminals. But what it does mean is that we MUST stick by any decision it makes whether we like it or not. Yes, everyone Convicted of a Crime is entitled to Appeal, but very very rarely decisions are overturned and only a single charge is likely to be overturned - in this case there are eight Charges and Convictions.


Tell that to these guys ..

Free Satpal Ram

BBC News | UK | Life of Crime | Miscarriages of Justice

then maybe you should read this ..

Miscarriages of Justice Home Page

Then explain why this body exists ..

CCRC - Home page



> As for me, I don't need evidence nor do I need to be told a thousand times. I just as a British Citizen must accept that The Judges decision is right - and until a successful Appeal I will not think otherwise.


As a British Citizen it's your duty to HOLD THE AUTHORITIES TO ACCOUNT, not roll over like a puppy and lap up whatever they choose to foist on you. That's why we live in a free country. 



> I can help because I have an in depth knowledge of The British Judicial System. Especially Appeals and Military Law. I have no grudge against Lauren and her partner in any way shape or form. But what I would like is to hear in a few years time that they have got they're Convictions overturned and are back on the straight and narrow.


How does military law apply here ? As to your comment about "back on the straight and narrow", go reread your post about insults. They were never OFF the straight and narrow in the first place.



> Now this is my personal opinion - I think a very high proportion of Solicitors and Barristers are not upto the job that they are employed for. For instance if I was Lauren I would only of used a Solicitor who had an in depth knowledge in Animal Law - correct me if I am wrong but I do not believe that her Solicitor was an expert in this? Most Solicitor's are well known to big themselves up and there Firms - but usually they are only in it for the money and will string a case out so that they can get more money. I feel that a Solicitor who is good will represent a Client in a case in a Field that they are interested or specialise in.


Would you like me to email your comments to the law firm involved ? I've never heard of a judge suing anyone for expressing a view about decisions they make (freedom of speech remember ?), but I know most solicitors are MASSIVELY litigious if it comes to their attention that anyone is libelling them or calling into doubt their professional capabilities. You think your extensive knowledge of the British Justice System equips you to defend yourself against a lawfirm you've decided to defame ?


----------



## boromale2008 (Feb 6, 2008)

this thread has become pathetic now. either it should be closed or you two should keep it in pm's.


----------



## freekygeeky (May 25, 2007)

im sorry but what has this got to do with anyyy of you?
nothing.
its so so rude...
unbelievable.


----------

