Woamn Fined For Having Animals Living In Her Car.

[Howl]

The story in the chronicle said the animals had no water or food. Water is free and readily available. So now we need to educate people that their pets need food and water?????? The world is in a sorry state.

Probably pointless fining her though - cat breeding is obviously not as lucrative as it was a few years ago.

I realise people don't agree and there is obviously some sort of vendetta against the RSPCA happening here. There are very few facts to go on but the fact is that the courts are usually quite lenient on animal cruelty cases so I just wonder whether there is more to this story than is reported. I mean, pretty extreme to go from living in a 1.5 million dollar mansion to your car! There may well be mental health issues and she deserves to receive whatever help she needs but I just don't believe that animals should suffer in the process.

No Vendetta, pure and simple lack of confidence in the organisation based on my own personal experiences and their track record.

No, of course the animals shouldn't suffer, but fining someone then washing your hands of it saying we have done our job is not good enough. Their job should be starting way back with education and assistance, not simply with prosecution.

People in dire straights with their animals should be able to call upon the RSPCA for help and assistance, but all too often when they do they are turned away or charged or have their animals removed.

Oh sheesh! And how do you know that the RSPCA didn't try and help her? Where have they washed their hands of it and pronounced the job done???

[Chocolatelover]

All anyone seems to care about is their right to "own" an animal (apart from you Angelina ). What about the animals "right" to a decent life? She didn't even give them water!!!!!! Some of the afflictions that the cats had that they talked about in the article did not happen overnight - burns from their urine and faeces, ring worm, fleas, malnutrition etc. They would probably be dead if the RSPCA had not been tippd off. I hate the way that everything is always someone else's responsibility now - teacher's are responsible for parent's failures, police are at fault for the actions of criminals, employers are responsible for worker's safety even when they disregard OH&S procedures, the RSPCA is responsible for our animals in times of hardship and the list goes on and on.

If I take on an animal - it is my responsibility to ensure that it is loved and cared for. I didn't get my dogs thinking "I've got the RSPCA to fall back on if things don't work out". People need to take responsibility for their decisions in life - maybe downsizing her house some time ago would have meant that she could have looked after her animals and kept her "children". There is not enough information to say why the court took the stance they did but there was obviously more to the story. I would bet that the cats were in this condiiton for a lot longer than the time she had been living in her car. What the hell does "successful breeder" mean anyway??

Yes the RSPCA as an organisation seems to rub people up the wrong way - but their are many individuals within that organisation that work tirelessly for the good of animals. Where were this lady's friends and family? Where were the community groups? No where to be seen - but of course the RSPCA should have been their digging her out of the whole she had gotten her self in to.

[Steve]

All anyone seems to care about is their right to "own" an animal (apart from you Angelina ). What about the animals "right" to a decent life? She didn't even give them water!!!!!! Some of the afflictions that the cats had that they talked about in the article did not happen overnight - burns from their urine and faeces, ring worm, fleas, malnutrition etc. They would probably be dead if the RSPCA had not been tippd off. I hate the way that everything is always someone else's responsibility now - teacher's are responsible for parent's failures, police are at fault for the actions of criminals, employers are responsible for worker's safety even when they disregard OH&S procedures, the RSPCA is responsible for our animals in times of hardship and the list goes on and on.

If I take on an animal - it is my responsibility to ensure that it is loved and cared for. I didn't get my dogs thinking "I've got the RSPCA to fall back on if things don't work out". People need to take responsibility for their decisions in life - maybe downsizing her house some time ago would have meant that she could have looked after her animals and kept her "children". There is not enough information to say why the court took the stance they did but there was obviously more to the story. I would bet that the cats were in this condiiton for a lot longer than the time she had been living in her car. What the hell does "successful breeder" mean anyway??

Yes the RSPCA as an organisation seems to rub people up the wrong way - but their are many individuals within that organisation that work tirelessly for the good of animals. Where were this lady's friends and family? Where were the community groups? No where to be seen - but of course the RSPCA should have been their digging her out of the whole she had gotten her self in to.

No one here is denying the need for the animals to be looked after but why take it to court?

[ILK]

All anyone seems to care about is their right to "own" an animal (apart from you Angelina ). What about the animals "right" to a decent life? She didn't even give them water!!!!!! Some of the afflictions that the cats had that they talked about in the article did not happen overnight - burns from their urine and faeces, ring worm, fleas, malnutrition etc. They would probably be dead if the RSPCA had not been tippd off. I hate the way that everything is always someone else's responsibility now - teacher's are responsible for parent's failures, police are at fault for the actions of criminals, employers are responsible for worker's safety even when they disregard OH&S procedures, the RSPCA is responsible for our animals in times of hardship and the list goes on and on.

If I take on an animal - it is my responsibility to ensure that it is loved and cared for. I didn't get my dogs thinking "I've got the RSPCA to fall back on if things don't work out". People need to take responsibility for their decisions in life - maybe downsizing her house some time ago would have meant that she could have looked after her animals and kept her "children". There is not enough information to say why the court took the stance they did but there was obviously more to the story. I would bet that the cats were in this condiiton for a lot longer than the time she had been living in her car. What the hell does "successful breeder" mean anyway??

Yes the RSPCA as an organisation seems to rub people up the wrong way - but their are many individuals within that organisation that work tirelessly for the good of animals. Where were this lady's friends and family? Where were the community groups? No where to be seen - but of course the RSPCA should have been their digging her out of the whole she had gotten her self in to.

No-one here is talking about the right to "own" an animal at all. Yes the animals have a "right" to a decent life, but so does the lady. What is the point of kicking anyone while they are already down?

[Chocolatelover]

The duty of care is based on the internationally-recognised ‘five freedoms’ of animal welfare.

Having a duty of care for an animal that you are in charge of means you are legally obliged to care for it by providing for its needs in a reasonable way for:

food and water

accommodation or living conditions

the display of normal behavioural patterns

treatment of disease and injury

handling the animal.

Why go to court? Because she broke the law. It's called consequences. I am not denying the woman's "right" to a decent life. But she has choices. The animals don't.

[ILK]

The duty of care is based on the internationally-recognised ‘five freedoms’ of animal welfare.

Having a duty of care for an animal that you are in charge of means you are legally obliged to care for it by providing for its needs in a reasonable way for:

food and water

accommodation or living conditions

the display of normal behavioural patterns

treatment of disease and injury

handling the animal.

Why go to court? Because she broke the law. It's called consequences. I am not denying the woman's "right" to a decent life. But she has choices. The animals don't.

Yes she broke the law, but don't you consider this to be an extreme circumstance. Why couldn't they just help all concerned woman and animals alike?

When a small boy steals a loaf of bread because his family is starving - is it fair to cut off his arm?

edit cause I can't spell today

Edited March 24, 2010 by ILK

[Chocolatelover]

I don't know if it's extreme circumstances - because I don't know all the facts. Every story I googled on this all had exactly the same detail - very little. I found no reference to mental health issues or the circumstances for her living in her car. And I may be missing something but I just don't get how you go from living in a 1.5 million dollar mansion to living in your car. Big gaps in the story I think.

Judges take into account things such as mental illness and extenuating circumstances when they impose penalties - so I would assume they knew a lot more about the case than we do. That is why we have a court system - otherwise we would just lock people away for x number of years if they committed a particular crime without having a trial first. Most people come on here complaining that the courts don't do enough to animal abusers - damned if they do and damned if they don't.

When I read the story I don't see the tragic story of the mentally ill woman having her animals torn away from her - I see a "successful breeder" determined at all costs to keep her breeding stock. Maybe I would be more sympathetic if I had all the facts as did the judge, or maybe not.

Hope all the animals get loving homes where all their needs are met.

[ILK]

I don't know if it's extreme circumstances - because I don't know all the facts. Every story I googled on this all had exactly the same detail - very little. I found no reference to mental health issues or the circumstances for her living in her car. And I may be missing something but I just don't get how you go from living in a 1.5 million dollar mansion to living in your car. Big gaps in the story I think.

Judges take into account things such as mental illness and extenuating circumstances when they impose penalties - so I would assume they knew a lot more about the case than we do. That is why we have a court system - otherwise we would just lock people away for x number of years if they committed a particular crime without having a trial first. Most people come on here complaining that the courts don't do enough to animal abusers - damned if they do and damned if they don't.

When I read the story I don't see the tragic story of the mentally ill woman having her animals torn away from her - I see a "successful breeder" determined at all costs to keep her breeding stock. Maybe I would be more sympathetic if I had all the facts as did the judge, or maybe not.

Hope all the animals get loving homes where all their needs are met.

I can see where you are coming from chocolatelover, I hope all the animals get loving homes too.

[Howl]

All anyone seems to care about is their right to "own" an animal (apart from you Angelina ). What about the animals "right" to a decent life? She didn't even give them water!!!!!! Some of the afflictions that the cats had that they talked about in the article did not happen overnight - burns from their urine and faeces, ring worm, fleas, malnutrition etc. They would probably be dead if the RSPCA had not been tippd off. I hate the way that everything is always someone else's responsibility now - teacher's are responsible for parent's failures, police are at fault for the actions of criminals, employers are responsible for worker's safety even when they disregard OH&S procedures, the RSPCA is responsible for our animals in times of hardship and the list goes on and on.

If I take on an animal - it is my responsibility to ensure that it is loved and cared for. I didn't get my dogs thinking "I've got the RSPCA to fall back on if things don't work out". People need to take responsibility for their decisions in life - maybe downsizing her house some time ago would have meant that she could have looked after her animals and kept her "children". There is not enough information to say why the court took the stance they did but there was obviously more to the story. I would bet that the cats were in this condiiton for a lot longer than the time she had been living in her car. What the hell does "successful breeder" mean anyway??

Yes the RSPCA as an organisation seems to rub people up the wrong way - but their are many individuals within that organisation that work tirelessly for the good of animals. Where were this lady's friends and family? Where were the community groups? No where to be seen - but of course the RSPCA should have been their digging her out of the whole she had gotten her self in to.

No one here is denying the need for the animals to be looked after but why take it to court?

I would think if the matter was frivolous or more of a requirement to get the lady some help, then the magistrate would have ruled so.

Obviously there is more to the case then a small newspaper report

[Are You Serious Jo]

After seeing first hand how the condition of some animals are described by the RSPCA and the reality I won't take their word for it that the animals were in the condition they stated. There is a good reason we have lost respect for them, enough people have enough bad experiences with them and it isn't just paranoia.

[justin19801]

The duty of care is based on the internationally-recognised ‘five freedoms’ of animal welfare.

Having a duty of care for an animal that you are in charge of means you are legally obliged to care for it by providing for its needs in a reasonable way for:

food and water

accommodation or living conditions

the display of normal behavioural patterns

treatment of disease and injury

handling the animal.

Why go to court? Because she broke the law. It's called consequences. I am not denying the woman's "right" to a decent life. But she has choices. The animals don't.

Of course none of the supporters of a corrupt system ever speed, understate their income for tax etc. The animals needed help, more than likely they or others will die to line the pockets of the lawyers and R$PCA staff.

[Chocolatelover]

After seeing first hand how the condition of some animals are described by the RSPCA and the reality I won't take their word for it that the animals were in the condition they stated. There is a good reason we have lost respect for them, enough people have enough bad experiences with them and it isn't just paranoia.

I am not saying that I agree with all of the actions and ideas of the RSPCA. But I would assume that the judge based his decision on evidence, such as photographs, that showed the animals when they were found.

[Chocolatelover]

I don't know if it's extreme circumstances - because I don't know all the facts. Every story I googled on this all had exactly the same detail - very little. I found no reference to mental health issues or the circumstances for her living in her car. And I may be missing something but I just don't get how you go from living in a 1.5 million dollar mansion to living in your car. Big gaps in the story I think.

Judges take into account things such as mental illness and extenuating circumstances when they impose penalties - so I would assume they knew a lot more about the case than we do. That is why we have a court system - otherwise we would just lock people away for x number of years if they committed a particular crime without having a trial first. Most people come on here complaining that the courts don't do enough to animal abusers - damned if they do and damned if they don't.

When I read the story I don't see the tragic story of the mentally ill woman having her animals torn away from her - I see a "successful breeder" determined at all costs to keep her breeding stock. Maybe I would be more sympathetic if I had all the facts as did the judge, or maybe not.

Hope all the animals get loving homes where all their needs are met.

I can see where you are coming from chocolatelover, I hope all the animals get loving homes too.

And I too see your point of view ILK I hope she gets her life back on track after all of this. I guess I am just a bit cynical about the motives of huimans after some seeing and reading some of the things they are capable of - makes me really love my dog though!!

[Christina]

Having just seen this thread via the other one on RSPCA I can hardly believe this.

No one lives in a mansion like that & loses everything in 1 day with no prior warning.

As a successful cat breeder, if true, she would be well known & have many contacts in the cat world.

Plenty of time to ask for help & make arrangements for her cats & dogs. She must have known this was coming even an eviction order takes a few weeks & can be stalled with appeals & dragged out for any flimsy excuse.

I agree the fine was a useless & impractical penalty given the circumstances. I hope they banned her from owning any animals for some period.

This is not love of your pets, it was sheer stupidity, neglect & very irresponsible.

I have sympathy for her losing her home & assets but not her cats & dogs.

She had time to do better than this for them & should have done so.

[Steve]

Having just seen this thread via the other one on RSPCA I can hardly believe this.

No one lives in a mansion like that & loses everything in 1 day with no prior warning.

As a successful cat breeder, if true, she would be well known & have many contacts in the cat world.

Plenty of time to ask for help & make arrangements for her cats & dogs. She must have known this was coming even an eviction order takes a few weeks & can be stalled with appeals & dragged out for any flimsy excuse.

I agree the fine was a useless & impractical penalty given the circumstances. I hope they banned her from owning any animals for some period.

This is not love of your pets, it was sheer stupidity, neglect & very irresponsible.

I have sympathy for her losing her home & assets but not her cats & dogs.

She had time to do better than this for them & should have done so.

Agreed - but I still say that its sad and that if anyone knows of anyone in a similar position please give them our contact details before the things gets to a point where someone has to be charged.

Before the animals get to being neglected or suffering.

[furballs]

I read about this story a few weeks ago and when I was reading it I thought how could anyone keep animals confined like that, but then when I read further about the RSPCA not only siezing the animals but then fining her I was absolutely disgusted. My belief was that the RSPCA was there to protect animals from cruelty. I would certainly prefer to see them help the owner to keep the animals if they love them, rather than putting the animals through the stress of being rehomed or put down.

[Swiss Girl]

All anyone seems to care about is their right to "own" an animal (apart from you Angelina ). What about the animals "right" to a decent life? She didn't even give them water!!!!!! Some of the afflictions that the cats had that they talked about in the article did not happen overnight - burns from their urine and faeces, ring worm, fleas, malnutrition etc. They would probably be dead if the RSPCA had not been tippd off. I hate the way that everything is always someone else's responsibility now - teacher's are responsible for parent's failures, police are at fault for the actions of criminals, employers are responsible for worker's safety even when they disregard OH&S procedures, the RSPCA is responsible for our animals in times of hardship and the list goes on and on.

If I take on an animal - it is my responsibility to ensure that it is loved and cared for. I didn't get my dogs thinking "I've got the RSPCA to fall back on if things don't work out". People need to take responsibility for their decisions in life - maybe downsizing her house some time ago would have meant that she could have looked after her animals and kept her "children". There is not enough information to say why the court took the stance they did but there was obviously more to the story. I would bet that the cats were in this condiiton for a lot longer than the time she had been living in her car. What the hell does "successful breeder" mean anyway??

Yes the RSPCA as an organisation seems to rub people up the wrong way - but their are many individuals within that organisation that work tirelessly for the good of animals. Where were this lady's friends and family? Where were the community groups? No where to be seen - but of course the RSPCA should have been their digging her out of the whole she had gotten her self in to.

She would have known way before losing her house that she was in trouble, if she really loved her animals should would have been slowly rehoming them, and not being selfish. Where were her family or friends in all of this? Why is it the RSPCA's job to help her?