Thursday, 29 March 2012

I Think They Did The Wrong Sort Of Psychiatric Report…

A Carmarthenshire woman who admitted suffocating her dog has been jailed by magistrates — against the advice of a psychiatric report.
No doubt it was the usual garbage about how she wasn’t hugged enough as a kiddie.

But given the horrific act it’s to the mags’ credit that they kicked it into touch…
Hillary Rees, 44, of Park Hall in Carmarthen, pleaded guilty to causing unnecessary suffering to a protected animal when she appeared before Llanelli Magistrates' Court earlier this year.

Rees killed her black and white English bull terrier Lockie on May 14 last year after being told by Carmarthenshire Council it could be a danger to her family.
Interesting. I wonder just how that came about? A complaint? And if it's a potential 'danger to her family', is it not a potential danger to others?

Something the council should therefore be acting on, rather than hoping the owner will do the decent thing?
At her sentencing, magistrates heard how Rees suffocated the dog by putting him in a muzzle and putting a plastic bag over his head, a method which took 10 minutes to kill the dog.
And did she try the ‘I can’t afford a vet’ excuse tried (and accepted) by so many others?

Well, no:
Prosecuting, Jon Tarrant said Rees had received a number of offers from friends and neighbours to look after the dog, and had been offered help by the council.

Mr Tarrant said she had refused the offers, saying she had paid £700 for the dog and wanted £700 back.
The vicious underclass animal-torturing bitch! No wonder they told the defence to take a hike…
Mitigating, solicitor David Williams said a report from psychiatrist Dr Christopher Moyle warned an immediate custodial sentence "would not be appropriate" for Rees.

Mr Williams said: "He and the psychotherapist are of the view that Miss Rees's mental health would deteriorate and undo a lot of the positive work undertaken to date."
What ‘positive work’?
Mr Williams then asked the court to consider a suspended sentence with a 12-month supervision order.

But chair of the bench David Owens ignored their advice, handing Rees a 16-week prison sentence.

He said: "We have listened to all the facts.

"We have been concerned, and still are concerned, of the extreme level of suffering of the dog, the use of the bag and the muzzle to bring about its extended death.

"And so our sentence is that you will be sent to prison for a total of 16 weeks."

Rees was also banned from being involved with the keeping of dogs or cats for 10 years.
She should have received a lifetime ban.

9 comments:

Jim said...

I think a reasonable punishment would be 10 minutes with her head in a plastic bag. If she can hold her breath, she gets off scot free. If not, well, hard luck.

ranter said...

What Jim said - BUT I am disappointed she wasn't sent on a THINKING SKILLS course which seem all the rage these days for mongtards.

Hexe Froschbein said...

Legally it's her dog and her decision to kill it or sell it, no different to a meat animal that gets slaughtered (often by worse methods).

Lots of people commit suicide this way -- there is a short panic struggle to get the bag off(and it's not clear that this is suffering as such, given that people do this voluntarily and manage to calmly deal with the panic) and kids sometimes kill themselves 'playing' this way and some kinksters and other silly people use it to get extra kicks, but once the oxygen is used up, the victim just passes out peacefully and that is it.

So in all honesty, whilst I don't like what she did, I can't see where the crime is supposed to be other than in people's imagination.

It would be more honest (and cheaper) if the UK had an asshole law that allows us to conveniently jail anyone we disapprove of.

(and there is a reason why we (or any other country) do not have such a law...)

Woman on a Raft said...

Prosecuting, Jon Tarrant said Rees had received a number of offers from friends and neighbours to look after the dog, and had been offered help by the council.

This is irrelevant and the bench's failure to recognize that shows why the CPS should take these prosecutions back from the RSPCA.

As Hexe Froschbein says, the dog was the owner's to destroy or sell as she saw fit with one limitation; the method of dispatch has to be the most humane available. Asphyxia cannot be used on vermin (except by accident, such as when a pigeon gets trapped in a water tank); the normal method for a dog would be captive bolt gun or injection.

As far as I can see we do have a law which allows us to conveniently jail anyone we disapprove of. Last week it was a twitterbug, this week it's someone who no longer wants their dog.

The court was told that the defendant had previously been unable to care for the dog and received notification from social services that they would help her rehome him.

However she chose to kill the dog as she couldn’t accept him passing into new ownership.


So what? And what has it to do with Social Services? They aren't there for the dog - they have more pressing matters, although there is a chance that Rees is one of their clients on her own behalf.

It may be coincidence but there is another Hilary Rees who was in the news, although that was Bristol. The ages are very close.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2017573/Parents-grandmother-pond-drowning-boy-Daniel-Rees-Smith-sentenced.html

If - BIG IF - it is the same Hilary Rees it is hardly surprising that she's completely lost it now. Sending a woman to jail for disposing of her own property, albeit incorrectly, while failing to jail her for accepting responsibility for a toddler when she was in no sense capable of doing so, sends out the stupid message that dogs are important whereas children aren't.

The emotionally over-wrought words of the RSPCA inspector demonstrate both immaturity and a lack of understanding of the law.

RSPCA inspector Hogben said: “In all my years of being an RSPCA officer, this is the worst kind of animal cruelty I have encountered.The defendant killed this poor dog in cold blood, tried to hide her crime and has shown no remorse whatsoever. The sentence sends a very strong signal that the court will not tolerate this kind of criminality.”

There is nothing criminal in disposing of one's own bloodstock, so long as it is done correctly. The RSPCA itself accepts that destruction of an animal is often necessary. They do it in cold blood; by far the best way of you don't want accidents whilst using the firearms, captive bolt or injection.

http://www.rspca.org.uk/ImageLocator/LocateAsset?asset=document&assetId=1232717667602&mode=prd

JuliaM said...

"I think a reasonable punishment would be 10 minutes with her head in a plastic bag. If she can hold her breath, she gets off scot free. If not, well, hard luck."

I favour that method too.. ;)

"Legally it's her dog and her decision to kill it..."

Yes indeed, but as WoaR points out, she still must consider animal welfare.

"And what has it to do with Social Services? "

Well, they've done such a bang-up job with vicious and unruly kids, they might as well move on to animals... ;)

Jim said...

"There is nothing criminal in disposing of one's own bloodstock, so long as it is done correctly. The RSPCA itself accepts that destruction of an animal is often necessary. They do it in cold blood; by far the best way of you don't want accidents whilst using the firearms, captive bolt or injection"

Absolutely. I am a farmer, and livestock often have to be put down, and pets too.

But anyone who owns animals has a responsibility of care to a sentient being that cannot do things for itself. Its why its the correct thing to do to have a sick animal put down to stop it suffering, even if that will cause you (as the owner) great emotional upset. You have to put the animals welfare ahead of your own.

This woman did not. She put her 'feelings' about someone else owning the animal, and what it had cost her, before its welfare. She acted like a spoilt child - 'If I can't have it, no-one can!'. She then added even more to her bad behaviour by causing the animal suffering while killing it.

Which means she deserves everything she got (and much more besides IMO).

Apart from which, it is a well known fact that people who are cruel to animals usually graduate on to being cruel to humans. If we stamped hard on animal cruelty, it might save a few people from abuse or death too.

JuliaM said...

"She acted like a spoilt child - 'If I can't have it, no-one can!'."

Spot on!

And...£700 for a dog? She must have a very well-paid job!

Hexe Froschbein said...

Julia and Jim,

And so what if the women wants £700? Looks like the other person's' feelings' didn't extend to that much cash methinks(talk about price discovery lol), if they really cared for the dog, they'd have coughed up the money. Instead, they chose to let the dog die and then go after the woman^Wwitch over a triviality which is a fraction of the offense that happens daily in halal slaughterhouses.

And all that sanctimonious stuff about mourning is tosh, if you breed animals then humane dispatch is part and parcel of the project, if that squicks you, collect stamps instead before you get yourself a psychosis.

And the stuff about people graduating to cruelty is true in some specific cases, but not really applicable here, it's a lame smear in this case to demonise the silly women, along the lines of 'all men are abusers'.

JuliaM said...

"And so what if the women wants £700? Looks like the other person's' feelings' didn't extend to that much cash methinks(talk about price discovery lol), if they really cared for the dog, they'd have coughed up the money."

Oh. OK. Blackmail should work? Really?

"And the stuff about people graduating to cruelty is true in some specific cases, but not really applicable here..."

Actually, we don't know that. Just from this case alone, she shows all the hallmarks of someone to whom animals are objects, and not living, feeling creatures.

I think she bears watching. That's not 'demonisation'. That's common sense.