In interview, Mr Bates, 46, claimed he didn't have much to do with the dog, but accepted he was partly responsible.
He also revealed that Lulu had been limping for at least a month.
Mrs Bates accepted that she was primarily responsible for the dog’s welfare and told how Lulu’s leg had started swelling a couple of months earlier.
She claimed that transport problems, a lack of money and the knowledge that Lulu was likely to be put down had deterred her from calling a vet.
Until the poor beast was literally howling in agony, whereupon they suddenly decided to call...the RSPCA! Not the PDSA, or the other animal charities that help out
genuine cases of people unable to afford veterinary care...
Bob Topping, defending both Mr and Mrs Bates, claimed they did not want to cause unnecessary harm to the dog.
He said both Mr and Mrs Bates were “remorseful, ashamed, embarrassed and upset”.
Yes. Aren't they always?
The couple pleaded guilty to causing unnecessary suffering to an animal and magistrates handed both defendants suspended eight-week jail sentences and banned them from owning any animals for 10 years.
Mr Bates must also complete a six-week curfew and Mrs Bates 80 hours of unpaid work. Both must also pay £700 each in costs.
Anyone want to bet where that money will be coming from?
Anyone want to bet where that money will be coming from?
ReplyDeleteMore pertinent; does anyone want to guess where that £1400 is GOING to?
A successful prosecution results not only in oodles of free publicity for the RSPCA but a handsome pay off too. And uniquely, should a prosecution fail, the defendant's costs are awarded from public funds not from RSPCA coffers. Literally, no win no fee. I will come back to the money in a moment.
According to the RSPCA, the animal was "literally howling in agony" and that "Lulu was in such agony that call-handlers could hear her moaning in the background during the course of the phone call." So what did they do? RSPCA inspector Claire Fisher was quickly dispatched to the scene. An inspector! Not a vet or someone qualified and equipped to deal with an animal in obvious distress. Although we aren't told, I wonder how much time the inspector spent on the scene collecting evidence and completing the paperwork?
And here's the money again. A quick search reveals this in the Liverpool Echo: Cat with painful skin disease left to suffer by owner. Similar circumstances, similar time frame, same RSPCA inspector and same outcome... "Fiona Kirkham, of Manica Crescent, Fazakerley, must also pay £1,613 to the RSPCA after she pleaded guilty to causing unnecessary suffering to her cat."
Not a bad living is it?
No Community work going then ?
ReplyDeleteAre the towns pavements spotlessly clean of various human and animal body fluids then ?
Beats me why they even bother to hand down suspended sentences. The courts aren't even operating on the level of "seen-to-be-done" anymore.
It's "we've done fuck all about it AGAIN, suckers !!!"
"A successful prosecution results not only in oodles of free publicity for the RSPCA but a handsome pay off too. "
ReplyDeleteOh, I hold almost as little brief for the RSPCA as I do for animal abusers, to be sure..
"No Community work going then ?"
Well, the judges are just anticipating that too being ruled 'slavery' by our wonderful justice system, I expect.