|
Post by kizi on Jan 15, 2013 0:15:32 GMT 1
Lesley skipper, I couldn't remember the name. You know what, since I saw the thread on here about her case, that's what got me out of bed every morning. Honestly. Because I now understand how easily a situation can get out of control. It's still not ok in my book, no animal should suffer at the mercy of a human who can't/won't care for them enough to see the harm being done, but it's not that simple either! The horses that i saw on the c4 programme (I missed the first 10 mins) were in far better condition and comfort than many more... There's plenty info I haven't seen/red on either case. But no it's not ok for animals to suffer. I have often been scolded for putting the needs of my animals far before my own, but i dont see it that way, because I chose this life!
|
|
|
Post by cbc on Jan 15, 2013 8:39:14 GMT 1
Good comment under Michelle Crowther on the Clwyd Davis facebook page. I dont remember slating Lesley Skipper, I had a lot of time for her and thought it was dreadful for both horses and her that things went wrong. (in a bit of a hurry this morning!!)
|
|
|
Post by jackiedo on Jan 15, 2013 8:48:21 GMT 1
The RSPCA are not there to attend to his needs either. There are other organizations that have clearly failed in that. However, he may be happy with his chaotic lifestyle and THAT is his choice. However. I am probably not the best person to express an opinion on this subject at the moment as I am very aware of a case of serious large scale neglect by another well known breeder/exhibitor who also sees nothing wrong in what they are doing, and has lots of supporters and friends. All I can think is... If they had seen what I have seen they would not sleep at night and hope that the courts make the right decision, not only for the animals there now, but the ones still in their mothers bellies and the ones they will continue to breed to suffer if they are not stopped. This person has been helped several times by well wishers with the best of intentions... or is that help indulgence and is it seen as verification by a deluded person?
|
|
|
Post by cookie on Jan 15, 2013 10:04:39 GMT 1
Jackie that's a great post and your last sentence really made me think.
Sent from my GT-I9100 using proboards
|
|
|
Post by mandal on Jan 15, 2013 11:26:32 GMT 1
This person has been helped several times by well wishers with the best of intentions... or is that help indulgence and is it seen as verification by a deluded person? This is one of the points I was trying to make in one of my other posts. Sometimes helping people to continue in their current lifestyle and beliefs only enables a continuation and the risk of a slide to animals suffering remains. I have stated my current feelings about severe neglect cases in general but the system seems not able to cope without having to go through these lengthy, money/resource eating prosecutions which often seem to have only a limited success rate anyway. I don't think we can do without the law process to protect both animals and humans' rights but surely there must be a more effective way. Where are risk assessments in all this?
|
|
|
Post by clara81 on Jan 15, 2013 12:36:21 GMT 1
I thought Lesley Skipper's horses were found in stables in foot deep bedding and crippled with laminitis? Hardly comparable to a large herd roaming a vast grazing area and the youngsters having lice. Clwyd never denied on the programme that he had a worming problem and it was being addressed by Michelle buying wormers with the money from selling the others.
His reaction to the dead foal was not unusual for a seasoned horse breeder.
I'm not defending him but I still don't understand why the sudden backlash- as I pointed out earlier and was completely ignored- the photos that started this thread are almost FIVE YEARS old.
|
|
|
Post by lawyerbunny on Jan 15, 2013 14:39:52 GMT 1
Please no trial by internet, either here or elsewhere. There are two sides to every story and none of us are in possession of the facts. I haven’t seen anyone jumping to defend any failure to care properly for his animals or suggesting that everything is 'fine'.
Two things the programme highlighted were the difference between the way in which our society protects and treats animals as against humans and secondly the differing approaches to how to handle someone like Clwyd.
On the second issue, the RSPCA on one hand were shown as officious, swooping down to remove animals, setting demands but offering little practical assistance. Michelle’s approach was different. That was of course in the editing, but experience tells many of us that that’s not uncommon from the RSPCA.
The first issue is the really tragic one. Ask yourself whether, if this man had no animals, anyone would care tuppence in what poverty and squalour he lives. No? I agree. Whatever Clwyd Davies may or may not be, he is clearly not a well man.
Hats off to those who’ve been honest enough to share their experiences of things starting to get out of control. IMO if we’re all honest most of us have been there in one element of our lives or another, be it work/weight/relationships.
|
|
|
Post by mandal on Jan 15, 2013 15:01:28 GMT 1
Ask yourself whether, if this man had no animals, anyone would care tuppence in what poverty and squalour he lives. No? I agree. Whatever Clwyd Davies may or may not be, he is clearly not a well man. I'm not sure I agree here. It is true his conditions have been highlighted by the focus on the horses and many people suffer in silence. I don't believe we can automatically assume anyone living in these conditions is ill. I have met many over the years who are not but can no longer see their plight objectively or they feel a burden or do not wish to ask for help or perceive others as interfering rather than helping. Is that an illness? A society/cultural one perhaps.
|
|
|
Post by mandal on Jan 15, 2013 15:09:42 GMT 1
I'm not defending him but I still don't understand why the sudden backlash- as I pointed out earlier and was completely ignored- the photos that started this thread are almost FIVE YEARS old. I think it's just us trying to get to grips with the issues surrounding cases like this rather than a backlash. I also realized how little any of us know about the facts in any of these cases. That is why I am 'on the fence'.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2013 15:47:14 GMT 1
On the second issue, the RSPCA on one hand were shown as officious, swooping down to remove animals, setting demands but offering little practical assistance. Michelle’s approach was different. That was of course in the editing, but experience tells many of us that that’s not uncommon from the RSPCA. I feel that's trial by telly. From the brief glimpses of what Channel 4 chose to show us, plus a dollop of assumption, you've reached a conclusion of big words: "officious", "swooping", "demands". I personally didn't feel that. I felt the RSPCA was in an all too common position of operating in the face of opposition from the owner, in very difficult conditions and in what they believed to be the best interests of the animals. Far from swooping down, they had been working over a period of time to try and improve the situation. My own experience of the RSPCA with the ponies next door was that they were in fact reluctant to have to sieze - don't let's forget that leaves then with more animals to have to care for and rehome - and would much rather try and work with the owners so they become better animal carers. Going round grabbing people's animals to try and shoehorn into their crammed facilities isn't what they really want to do, is it? Yes, Michelle was portrayed in a better light but you could if you chose use some big words against her. Maybe she was 'bullying' Clwyd, or was she 'riding roughshod' over him, and I personally would call her handling of that pony 'inept' to say the least, or probably even 'cruel'. I've put those words in quotes as they're just words you could use, not that I'm necessarily saying that. Apart from the inept over the pony handling, that I am saying. And as for whether anyone would have cared had he had no animals - remember Mr Trebus? Just the same sort of person, but no horses. And just the same sort of programme.
|
|
|
Post by mandal on Jan 15, 2013 16:04:42 GMT 1
The important issue for me is that these owners are carers of dependent living beings. I feel the same about any carer who is not able to cope and the dependent suffers severely. I think that whether the dependent is and animal or another human. Should I feel it's worse if the one suffering is human? Many do but the principle is the same I believe.
|
|
|
Post by jackiedo on Jan 15, 2013 17:15:31 GMT 1
People always think the worst of the RSPCA - based on reporting which may be biased I look forward to the outcome of the trial. And ONE of Lesley Skippers horses was found to be crippled with laminitis on high deep litter bedding.
|
|
|
Post by lawyerbunny on Jan 15, 2013 21:17:44 GMT 1
Please don't misunderstand me, Liz. I'm saying that's how I feel they were shown in the editing. I felt that was what the programme was asking us to consider, the difference between the two approaches. I didn't say that was my conclusion, but I felt the contrast between the two was a key part of the programme. That's how I felt they were portrayed. For what it's worth, I haven't reached a conclusion, believe me.
The fact that people would feel different things when watching it was surely also the point of the programme.
|
|
|
Post by shan on Jan 15, 2013 21:40:08 GMT 1
Why do so many of us assume that because a person lives in a way that's different to us, or what we consider 'normal', that they need or want help? Some do, some might, some probably don't. I know a couple of people who's houses are like cluttered filthy pig-styes, but there's nothing wrong with their mental health and that's just the way they choose to live, same as some people live in treehouses...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2013 10:17:15 GMT 1
I'm with you, LB. Yes, what it comes down to is the editing. We mustn't forget with any report, flim, etc. that we are only seeing what the editors have chosen to put in, and we're seeing it in the context they pick too. Before even starting to edit, they would have chosen the angle, and (here's me assuming) that angle would have been what makes good television. Even the tone of the voice over influences how we feel about what we're seeing. It always reminds me of one of the great old ads, The Guardian's skinhead one. www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SsccRkLLzU
|
|