Sentencing Oram to 18 weeks in prison, Chairman of the Magistrates Mr Russell Watson said that Tyson had suffered in the minutes before his death.Further details emerged about just why he decided to do it, too:
Callous Robert Oram, 25, drowned his pet after the Staffordshire bull terrier turned and attacked him instead of chasing the gang who were burgling his flat in Corby.
Tyson initially barked and chased the thieves into the street but then became confused and rounded on his master, biting his foot.
Oram admitted he didn’t sustain any serious injuries when the dog bit his trainer but decided he had to 'get rid' of the animal, especially because his girlfriend was expecting a baby.Looking at his criminal record, the magistrates were clearly unwilling to give him the benefit of the doubt, which makes a nice change:
'This was an intentional act and we must also take into account your numerous previous convictions.
'Our starting point is 26 weeks but you did make an early guilty plea so you are entitled to have that lowered to 18 weeks of immediate custody.'Incidentally, his defence may have given us the answer to WoaR’s earlier question as to why the girlfriend is facing charges:
John Whiston, mitigating, said: 'In Mr Oram’s view the dog no longer did what it was trained to do, to protect his master and property, so he says he and his partner decided to drown it.'Whoops!
The RSPCA weren’t happy – they wanted a longer sentence and a life-ban:
Speaking outside court, Inspector Davies said: 'When lenient sentences like this are handed out it sometimes sends the wrong messages.'
'When I see his girlfriend laughing and joking in the foyer of the court with her mate, bragging that he will be out in nine weeks that just shows the message isn’t getting through.'Well, actually, his numerous previous convictions show no messages are getting through.
9 comments:
Staffies aren't guard dogs so they shouldn't be blamed if they don't do a guard dogs job.
I recently had a 5 year old staffordshire terrier foisted on me. My daschund of 13 years passed on, and my vet though that this retarded slobber bucket would make a good companion for me going forward.
One of the things I read over and over on the web was that staffies are useless as guard dogs. Unless they have been severely brutalised, all they ever really want to do is love people and cuddle them.
I need to post some more videos of this 'evil viscous killer' dog that I've inherited, because all you ever see is her being great with people, other dogs, children and most shocking of all, me!
The other morning I was out walking our dog (a Cavalier King Charles who only ever growls and barks at much bigger dogs) and came across a lady who was rather upset.
Her whippet had caught a grey squirrel and then got bitten by the squirrel. As a result there was a squirrel with paralysed hind legs and a whippet who would not go near it. The squirrel was on the tarmac road surface.
I told her to look the other way and stamped hard on the squirrel's head. It was very quick. The lady seemed quite upset, as I threw the squirrel into the hedge bottom.
I spent the rest of the day in mild apprehension of a visit by the RSPCA or police . It did not happen. Yet I think in this touchy-feely, sentimental age, I could have been in serious trouble if she had grassed me up.
Some years ago, I found a nest of feral kittens in our factory site. The RSPCA were conspicuous by their officious, offhand lack of prompt response. So I said "All right. I'll drown them". I was threatened with the most condign punishment if I did any such thing. Yet that was what my late mother used to do, keeping only the most attractive kittens - or we would have been overrun.
This was in the days when people did not expect "caring professionals" to be available for every problem.
The RSPCA weren’t happy – they wanted a longer sentence and a life-ban
Or a life sentence and a longer ban.
he says he and his partner decided to drown it.
For the purposes of a s.4 conviction they'll have to bring her within the s.3 definition of someone responsible for the dog.
That she may have wanted it dead is irrelevant; all that matters is if her legal relationship to the dog amounted to responsibility. I doubt that; she was simply in the house with it. They are attempting to equate 'dog' with 'child'.
Since Oram has already been established as the owner of the dog, and therefore responsible for it, and the one who did the drowning, and has pleaded guilty, it is time the charge against her was discontinued; it's an abuse of process.
Besides, the CPS need to take this over and discontinue it for reasons of public policy. The RSPCA have misapplied the act in an effort to impose a general duty rather than a specific one; if they are allowed to continue it could have severe public policy consquences.
If the police believe that the baby is at risk (and there is no reason from Ms Barker's care of her older son to assume that) then they should put the matter in the hands of the social services, quickly, and avoid further exposing the children to a risk of attack.
We could do with a big dose of Best Interests of the Child here. Lawfare is bad enough; putting children at risk through it is despicable.
"Unless they have been severely brutalised, all they ever really want to do is love people and cuddle them. "
I've met lots of Staffies. Never yet seen one that didn't flop over to have its tummy tickled.
But I have to say, that's more a reflection on the owner than the dog. In the wrong hands, they are lethal.
"Yet I think in this touchy-feely, sentimental age, I could have been in serious trouble if she had grassed me up."
Yes, indeed you would have been.
Oh, and despite that incident, there'd have been no problems finding a jobsworth PC to assist the RSPCA in it, either.
"The RSPCA have misapplied the act in an effort to impose a general duty rather than a specific one; if they are allowed to continue it could have severe public policy consquences. "
There appears to be no brake on the RSPCA's ambitions. Certainly, there won't be any from the CPS, who probably reckon they can use this to their advantage in the future.
As for the 'death threats' he claims to have received, has anyone asked the defence to provide evidence of these?
I know you take a dim view of the RSPCA. Perhaps now is the time for a detailed, public and continuous examination of what they get up to with their charitable donations?
'Well, actually, his numerous previous convictions show no messages are getting through.'
That isn't true. The message being relayed is that you will face no punishment if you stick to stabbing humans or breaking and entering. But touch a pooch and you are for it.
A friend of mine is involved with the Countryside Alliance. At one time he had to visit the RSPCA HQ several times on matters related to the campaign.
He said he had never seen a staff car park so lavishly stocked with top of the range BMWs etc.
Another animal-related charity, Guide Dogs for the Blind, was rolling in cash some years ago. It was reported that they were spending much of it on things like subsidised mortgages for staff etc. If I remember rightly, the Charities Commission gave them a direction to stop fund raising until they could demonstrate that they were spending more of their resources on the actual objectives of the charity.
Post a Comment