[Cherry Christmas]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

Its amazing how many in this thread think they are better judges of character from a few lines in a crappy tabloid that most have deemed not be be given the title of a newspaper in other threads - than the judge that had all the relevant information in front of him ... you must be very clever

Indeed

[Cherry Christmas]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Yes absolutely, in fact I'd go so far as to say that scrutiny of the justice system are vital and what made it what it is today and what will help it to evolve as we do

She was sentenced to 18 weeks, will be out in 12 what's to scrutinise in this case, apart from whether she should receive some kind of counselling?

[Kizzy]

It was nothing more than a money making scam, she didn't care about the animals she wanted donations of cash or things she could sell for cash. There were blankets and beds generously given too and they were found in a skip, that's how the scam was discovered.

[DemolitionRed]

18 weeks and she will go back to being reclusive and attempting to hoard animals again.

[Cherry Christmas]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

It was nothing more than a money making scam, she didn't care about the animals she wanted donations of cash or things she could sell for cash. There were blankets and beds generously given too and they were found in a skip, that's how the scam was discovered.

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

18 weeks and she will go back to being reclusive and attempting to hoard animals again.

Hoarders don't put stuff in skips

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

It was nothing more than a money making scam, she didn't care about the animals she wanted donations of cash or things she could sell for cash. There were blankets and beds generously given too and they were found in a skip, that's how the scam was discovered.

What is this woman's history though Kizzy? Had she formerly been an animal lover who, for all the right reasons collected homeless beasties?

There certainly is a type who would hoard and neglect animals as a form of control and monetary gain but they tend to be a lot more sociable and live in uncluttered and relatively clean houses.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Hoarders don't put stuff in skips

She hoarded animals and she hoarded DVD's. We can't deny that.

[ChristmasNeeve]

Originally Posted by Cherie

She was sentenced to 18 weeks, will be out in 12 what's to scrutinise in this case, apart from whether she should receive some kind of counselling?

I was just responding to TS point about the justice system and whether or not it's ok to scrutinise it in a general sense

[bots]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

I was just responding to TS point about the justice system and whether or not it's ok to scrutinise it in a general sense

its great to scrutinise it, but it should be done from a position of knowing all the facts of the case .... not a paragraph and a few pics in a tabloid

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

What is this woman's history though Kizzy? Had she formerly been an animal lover who, for all the right reasons collected homeless beasties?

There certainly is a type who would hoard and neglect animals as a form of control and monetary gain but they tend to be a lot more sociable and live in uncluttered and relatively clean houses.

She's just the money grabbing type like those who churn puppies out for Ł400-600 a pop on gumtree all bred in squalor.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

She's just the money grabbing type like those who churn puppies out for Ł400-600 a pop on gumtree all bred in squalor.

Benefits scum, Kizzy.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Benefits scum, Kizzy.

dyawannafite?...

[Cherry Christmas]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Benefits scum, Kizzy.

when all your other baiting comments failed, time to fall back on old reliable

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Cherie

when all your other baiting comments failed, time to fall back on old reliable

What?

[ChristmasNeeve]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

its great to scrutinise it, but it should be done from a position of knowing all the facts of the case .... not a paragraph and a few pics in a tabloid

Well, I'm probably never going to know every fact of every case.....I will still give my opinion though

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

its great to scrutinise it, but it should be done from a position of knowing all the facts of the case .... not a paragraph and a few pics in a tabloid

Oh so this section of the forum is null and void.

NO COMMENTING ON THINGS YOU WERE NOT PERSONAL WITNESS TO!

[bots]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Oh so this section of the forum is null and void.

NO COMMENTING ON THINGS YOU WERE NOT PERSONAL WITNESS TO!

I've seen a lot of fantasy in this thread based on nothing more substantial than pure conjecture. In order to question the validity of a case and the appropriateness of its sentencing, one does need a certain level of factual information to base conclusions on

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

I've seen a lot of fantasy in this thread based on nothing more substantial than pure conjecture. In order to question the validity of a case and the appropriateness of its sentencing, one does need a certain level of factual information to base conclusions on

Nobody's come to "conclusions", they're discussing.

[ChristmasNeeve]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

I've seen a lot of fantasy in this thread based on nothing more substantial than pure conjecture. In order to question the validity of a case and the appropriateness of its sentencing, one does need a certain level of factual information to base conclusions on

Oh stop, people are just giving their opinions, I mean, imo it's not way out there to think that conclusion is a possibility when a person lives their life around that much filth and animal corpses. If someone I knew in real life lived like that I'd be pretty worried about their mental well being, wouldn't you?

[bots]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Oh stop, people are just giving their opinions, I mean, imo it's not way out there to think that conclusion is a possibility when a person lives their life around that much filth and animal corpses. If someone I knew in real life lived like that I'd be pretty worried about their mental well being, wouldn't you?

I see attributing something to mental health issues as a way of making something that is basically abhorrent capable of being understood/accepted, when 9 times out of 10, the person was just nasty. There are cases of course where mental health is a genuine reason, but this one doesn't strike me as one of them. Not least because she had a lawyer defending her who if they were half way competent would use that as the first line of defense. We will just have to agree to disagree.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

I see attributing something to mental health issues as a way of making something that is basically abhorrent capable of being understood/accepted, when 9 times out of 10, the person was just nasty. There are cases of course where mental health is a genuine reason, but this one doesn't strike me as one of them. Not least because she had a lawyer defending her who if they were half way competent would use that as the first line of defense. We will just have to agree to disagree.

So, you can make a conclusion based on your limited knowledge, but god forbid anyone else discuss anything else involved in cases like this?

[bots]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

So, you can make a conclusion based on your limited knowledge, but god forbid anyone else discuss anything else involved in cases like this?

The difference being that I am going with what the judge decided, not seeing anything wrong with that decision. I have no need to get into conjecture

[joeysteele]

I have sat in many courts and seen Judges and Magistrates make a fair number of bad decisions no matter what is in front of them.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

I've seen a lot of fantasy in this thread based on nothing more substantial than pure conjecture. In order to question the validity of a case and the appropriateness of its sentencing, one does need a certain level of factual information to base conclusions on

I've stated multiple times that it's possible to accept the validity of a case and the sentencing and still be interested in understanding the root causes of the offense.

This unfortunately doesn't fit the stock response of "OMG y u make excuse for such demon that kill dog" and has therefore been repeatedly overlooked.

As for conjecture, as always, everyone is more than happy to accept it if the conjecture happens to fit their own prejudice and gut reaction, and all the better if it can be conveniently backed up with a quick "But a judge sez, so lol lol lol"

You're perfectly welcome to read back through the thread and count how many times I've said that my interest in understanding this woman's mental state has absolutely nothing to do with absolving or excusing her as an individual, and everything to do with preventing individuals from becoming like her in the first place through early intervention. I doubt you will, so I'd invite you to accept my insurance that it's been stated numerous times, and in various ways.

NO ONE is "born bad". This person's abhorrent behaviour - her "nastiness" - has a cause. Happy, balanced individuals simply don't do these things and it baffles me that anyone fails to understand that.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

The difference being that I am going with what the judge decided, not seeing anything wrong with that decision. I have no need to get into conjecture

Oh, so your opinion puts you onside with the judge so only your input to the discussion is valid?

This forum never fails to amuse.