cuffey
Olympic Poster
Posts: 962
|
Post by cuffey on Jan 2, 2009 1:56:57 GMT 1
Thanks everyone and more ideas please if you have them The passport nonsense is due to be tightened this year but will still be only as good as checks at ports. I do feel strongly about that, but local authorities/trading standards do not seem to have had extra money to pay staff overtime to make these checks--this was known before Trading Standards were made responsible for passport legislation If this can be linked into biosecurity issues--our area was badly hit by FMD, it might be a topic my MP would take on board. I also have evidence of ponies travelling from Ireland without passports. I totally agree about the indiscriminate breeding but dont think my MP would take that as a topic for this area I think horse insurers would be the best people to encourage owners/riders to take the BHS RRS Test by offering a discount on premiums for certificate holders The lack of turn out issue is against the Five Freedoms but again probably not a topic he would take up--too narrow. I have to be realistic.
|
|
|
Post by rifleman on Jan 2, 2009 9:43:35 GMT 1
My choice would be Maggie's Law - there's no justice in some thug getting no more than a feeble slap on the wrist for torturing or killing a horse, just because it belongs to somebody else.
Jack
|
|
|
Post by wally on Jan 2, 2009 17:14:45 GMT 1
None whatsoever, as the ones we already have are a waste of time.
|
|
|
Post by jaxnbreeze on Jan 2, 2009 17:49:49 GMT 1
For the sake of the animals and their owners to stop dishonest people who sell horses to unsuspecting honest souls from telling such ******* lies!.
|
|
|
Post by tt on Jan 2, 2009 21:16:42 GMT 1
My choice would be Maggie's Law - there's no justice in some thug getting no more than a feeble slap on the wrist for torturing or killing a horse, just because it belongs to somebody else. Jack Well said, Maggies Law needs someone to get behind it, www.maggieslaw.co.uk, tougher sentencing for people who go out armed to do malice, why else would you go out with a meat cleaver for the night? To do what they did and get a sentence reduced to 6 measley weeks is pathetic, Davina is suffering every day
|
|
|
Post by Lisa in Plymouth on Jan 2, 2009 21:41:22 GMT 1
I would like appropriate sentencing on animal cruelty convictions. Another subject that needs looking at is border checks on horses leaving/entering the uk - the horse passport is useless if not checked.
Already mentioned but disease control is very important - in Horse and Hound this week it refers to the new Tripartite Agreement allowing for free movement of horses between the UK, France and Ireland without a health certificate. A review of this legislation would be welcomed by many horse owners. In the past year europe has had a number of highly infectious diseases springing up - do we really want to see this spreading over here because they don't need health certificates? In the H&H article it states that a horse coming into the UK from France could well have originally come from Romania where Swamp Fever is endemic.
|
|
|
Post by arabmania on Jan 2, 2009 22:26:46 GMT 1
After being on a yard today where mares and foals and a stallion are kept in 24/7 and another big livery where horses are in over winter for at least 6 months of the year, I would love to see this be made illegal. Seconded!!!! thirded! but for ALL horses! yard i'm at suspect i'm cruel 'cause only my horse in turned out in this cold and frosty weather! the rest have been stabled 24/7 unbeleivable! i'll be cruel as long as my horse is happy and content!
|
|
|
Post by mirrormar on Jan 3, 2009 0:21:09 GMT 1
A ban on keeping animals should mean a ban and for life, and the excuse that an animal belongs to a family member should not be excepted, the animal should not be in the same house or yard as the banned person, difficult to police I know, but so many times I've heard of people being banned from keeping animals and they have then claiming the animal belongs to the wife, boyfriend, sister and who ever, makes me sick.
|
|
|
Post by wally on Jan 3, 2009 11:15:43 GMT 1
The judiciary do not like life bans for anything. It does not give a person any room for redemption.
However, where animals are concerned it is a hard one to decide about.
There is one chap here banned for 5 years. He ought to be banned for life as he will never change and in my view cannot.
However not all circumstances are the same. Someone who has run into hard times due to whatever circumstances may not have intentionally caused suffering. A ban as a wake up call is appropriate perhaps, but a life ban?
|
|