Monday, 17 June 2019

Compare And Contrast. Again.

Appalling cruelty resulting in a 10 year ban on keeping animals:
A dog owner has been banned from keeping animals for 10 years after he tried to kill a terrier by shooting it four times in the head with an air rifle before dumping the animal in a bush.
Microchip details revealed Hancock's former partner owned the dog and an RSPCA investigation found Hancock, from Hedge End, brutally attacked the dog and dumped him.
He was convicted of causing unnecessary suffering to an animal following a trial and banned from keeping pets for 10 years, ordered to carry out 200 hours community service and pay £1,621 in costs.
Appalling cruelty resulting in....wait, what?
Paul Oliver was handed a 16-week suspended jail term for allowing his hounds to kill four cubs, causing their “painful, terrifying” deaths.
However, Oliver, who was master of the now-disbanded South Herefordshire Hunt, was not barred from keeping animals because he would have lost his job at a stud yard.
District Judge Joanna Dickens also imposed a 12-week suspended sentence on Hannah Rose, the hunt’s kennel maid
Explaining her reasons for not banning the couple from keeping animals, she added: “I think the chance of any reoccurrence is minimal.
“I also take into account that to disqualify them from being in control of animals would cause them to lose their current employment and any hope of future work, as this is their livelihood.”
Those are what we call 'consequences', judge. Aren't they?


Ted Treen said...

It certainly adds credence to the oft-heard mantra that complete removal of the cerebral cortex is a pre-requisite for appointment to the judiciary.

JuliaM said...

"...a pre-requisite for appointment to the judiciary."

I think they just move it to the posterior.