mantra wrote on Aug 30
th, 2016 at 8:35am:
What a farce. The RSPCA goes into people's backyards without their permission on reports of cruelty, seizes the animal and charges them when necessary. Obviously private citizens report these incidents - so what's the difference in filming it even if it was on private property. The same could be said for any photographic evidence on cruelty to animals, regardless of where it was filmed.
I don't think even the legal profession fully understand the law. It's open to individual perceptions and precedents. In this case the Judge was swayed by a barrister's rhetoric. Perhaps graft played a part in this judgment.
mantra it depends on what you can AFFORD to have stand up for you in court..
simple as that..
do not tell me the legals fighting for the defence...believe what they are doing is justice???????
how else would anyone get this information???? which in fact means it is still going on......live bait.. terrific!..
the animals involved are DEAD just like the victim of murder.. why bother.. they are DEAD justice wont help them...
we live in funny times... here once again its been spelt out for others..
who wish to behave the same
the law is more on their side... than any victim...
if you are going to train dogs with live bait it stands to reason you would have a large expanse of land to do it on......the police wont act without proof.... how does a dead animal tell its story??....
the word
Justice needs to be struck from the law books..