Jump to content
Cold?
Local
Radar
Snow?

Animal cruelty


Recommended Posts

 

A teenager who had footage on his phone of him kicking a cat in the face and repeatedly beating a dog has been banned from keeping animals for life.

The 16-year-old, who cannot be named because of his age, attacked the cat in a Luton street and pinned down and punched a Staffordshire bull terrier.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-27518275

 

How the **** can you stop this person getting animals/pets if you do not know who they are? this no naming nonsense on sentencing is bonkers and short of useless.

Edited by Jax
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The Police will know his actual name, but they can't release it to the public because of his age. They will basically put a record on the PNC and if he is found to have an animal on his person then he will be arrested and have the animal confiscated.

 

I think that's how it works.

on reflection of my post the public should be made aware of this person, who IMHO is old enough to hold their own judgement and is clearly a danger to pets/animals and I would add people as they appear to have violent tendencies and the public should know this further.

Edited by Jax
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the no naming policy for juveniles...and it does say in that report that he has been served a rehabilitation order, even though it doesn't specify exactly what that is about. Compulsory counselling one would suggest, to deal with underlying attitudes of rage, hate and fear? People that hate that much, fear.

 

I think the pet ban is simply a token gesture to the community. If it isn't, and it's based on empirical evidence that an animal basher will always be that way, then that's concerning.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Animal cruelty is closely correlated with psychopathy, I'd name and shame this vile teenager. I expect we'll see him in prison at some point!

 

 

I don't. Embarass them, they don't deserve to be protected by the Govenment for their terrible actions. It's like that kid who stabbed Ann Maguire to death. Why protect him? He's a murderer!

 

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime! That's how I see it.

Yes on both, protection does not teach nor protect others in these cases.

Edited by Jax
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just read the news article and I actually feel physically sick! What's worse is he named the video "LOL" and the screenshots from the video on the article page itself... absoultely nope - still swearinging vile!

 

Reveal this sociopath's name, throw him in a mental hospital and keep him away from every other living organism on this planet, for the love of God! I don't want myself or my pets to be anywhere near this psychopath!

Indeed, and my point all along, how can we know if we are not told.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont know.. maybe by getting rid of juvenile secrecy or whatever it's called.

at this level I think is needs to be done

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem here is that if a juvenile gets caught for what is a relatively minor offence of, say shop lifting, which I dare say is an offence which a fair number of juveniles commit during the course of growing up and is a phase most grow out of, then under those circumstances it is hardly fair or right that he is branded as a thief for the rest of his life for something that was really a passing phase.

 

On the other hand there are some right little so and so's about, such as the one in the opening post and some of these grow up psychopathic to remain a danger to other people and animals for the rest of their lives - although common sense gives good clues as to which is which this is not sufficient for a court of law. However should he be caught again after he has attained the age of 17 years there would be no reason why he should not be named and shamed and from the circumstances described there appears to be a strong likelihood that this will happen - I suspect that from the lifelong ban handed down that this is not the first time this has occurred, making recurrences so much more likely, so have patience - it is likely that all is not lost in this case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-27518275 How the **** can you stop this person getting animals/pets if you do not know who they are? this no naming nonsense on sentencing is bonkers and short of useless.

I'd chop his balls off and feed them to the cat that he attacked if it was upto me.
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw a man kick one of his 3 dogs one day last summer. When I challenged him he claimed he simply tripped over her, which was why she yelped out. The point here is he was not some spotty, teenage richardhead, he was well into his 50's, perhaps even early 60's and not exactly thuggish looking - or I might not have said anything! Much as with drinking and driving it's easy to assume animal cruelty is a young persons problem, but older people are often equally as bad...if not worse.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cruelty to animals and cruelty to other humans usually goes hand in hand - for some reason some people are never as happy as when they are inflicting pain - I think it is a defect in the way their heads are wired but both the animal kingdom and humanity would be much better off without them.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Animal abuse and torture should be taken more seriously! Harming animals is bad enough, but it is also the first signs that the individual may inflict the same cruelty on humans.  When this happens, the individual is then dealt with properly, but intervention should take place sooner, as it is too little too late!

Edited by lassie23
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

There's me thinking two wrongs don't make a right :)Can totally understand why it makes some people's blood boil though, shame some are equally cruel to their fellow beings too.

 

 

Maybe not, but the second wrong should be severe enough to cancel out the first one. Off with his hands, I say. There, back on the level now. Punishment like that should ensure that a wrong isn't committed in the first place. Why is (almost) everyone so soft  in the goddamn head?

Link to post
Share on other sites

True, but then you're only lowering yourself back to their level. I.e., low. Unfortunately there will always be the one amongst a majority of right minded folk.

and that one in a majority must be removed

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

As Nick suggested earlier, remorseless animal cruelty is a correlate of sociopathy and a pretty good predictor of future similar criminal behaviour. These minds are very hard to treat and even harder to cure. My metaphor for what should happen to these people has always been one of a great big cargo ship which every six months sails sufficiently far away from shore before opening a great big ramp and offloading its occupants into the deep blue yonder...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

remember a year or so back a woman put a cat into a communal bin, and then passers-by heard a meeowwing sound emitting from the bin and freed the not to happy but unhurt puss. (came to light I think via security cctv)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Think animal abuse in any form should be an alarm trigger to get that person into facilities just like those for human related crimes, as has been sai, this kind of activity is a start for some and the finish never normally that good.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it is always as simple as abuser of animals = abuser of humans/psychopath.

 

For sure severe animal cruelty is an indicator of a psychopath, but not always.

 

Sadly in my job, we come across a lot of kids who have only ever known abuse to themselves, other people and animals, hence they don't know any better and think hurting animals is OK as an outlet for your feelings. I'm not saying that makes it acceptable, because it doesn't, but things aren't always clear cut, but that's just one example of animal cruelty not necessarily indicating an evil person.

 

Occasionally we do see psychopaths and often they have abused animals, but it also normally goes hand in hand with other things such as fire setting, bed wetting and extreme sensation seeking. In that case we refer them to specialist services.

 

Animal cruelty makes me sick. I find it hard to understand how someone could cause deliberate suffering to another living thing. I don't think the reasons are straightforward all the time, sometimes it is. I do believe though there needs to be more stringent checks on people and it should be easier to ban people from keeping animals for life.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 My metaphor for what should happen to these people has always been one of a great big cargo ship which every six months sails sufficiently far away from shore before opening a great big ramp and offloading its occupants into the deep blue yonder...

 

Excellent idea - and it should be televised at peak times!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-27696760

 

 

A dog given Ibuprofen by its owners for a neurological condition became so distressed it chewed off its own paw.

Tony O'Neil, 55 and Donna Lynch, 44, of Great Yarmouth, Norfolk, gave the painkiller to brindle mastiff Jessie when her prescribed medication ran out.

Just shocking!

 

 

On Monday, O'Neil, of Middle Road, was fined £625 and Lynch, of Nelson Road Central, £260, for failing to provide adequate veterinary care and failing to protect Jessie from pain.

Each must pay £500 towards costs.

Is this really all enough?

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-27696760

 

Just shocking!

 

Is this really all enough?

 

It doesn't appear to be.. on the surface. But we, the public, are not privy to all the facts and specific circumstances which come before the courts. The Animal welfare act ( 2006 ) says there is a maximum penalty for animal cruelty of £20,000 and/or 51 weeks jail. Has this Act been strengthened since? Perhaps it should be.

 

Remember, this couple have been named and consequently shamed in front of their community and associates for not taking due care. With the internet, their names are mud ( rightly or wrongly ) forever. That's a big hit. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

That is such a difficult topic.

 

I am completely against animal testing BUT I do see why it may be the only option sometimes, especially if there is a brand new component. I wish that computer programmes were sophisticated enough to not warrant testing on any living thing. Cosmetics should never be tested on animals ever.

 

The thing is we have so many amazing things that we do now because of animal testing for example cancer and AIDS treatments so I think medically, animal testing is the only situation I would think it could be acceptable in.

 

Horrible as it is, I am not sure what better option there is for certain things and as long as it is done to the highest standards, then it may be a necessary evil.

 

I think human test subjects are amazing for doing it.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...