Views about Bare Foot Trimmer Case

this forum is mainly for farriers - all are welcome but don't enter if you are easily offended!

Moderator: admin

john ford
Posts: 1052
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2002 7:20 pm
Location: Pucklechurch, Bristol.

Views about Bare Foot Trimmer Case

Postby john ford » Wed Sep 28, 2011 7:35 pm

48 hours ago I was contacted by a local colleague for advise about an incident which had just occurred at a large stable he shoes for in the Bristol area. A pony of which the farrier, together with the veterinary surgeon, were treating for a long term pedal bone fracture, had their work undermined by a Bare Foot Trimmer. The shoe on the foot had been ordered by the veterinary surgeon, and after the work was done it was also checked and passed by the same veterinary surgeon. Just two weeks later the farrier visited the stable yard and found that a Bare Foot Trimmer had removed the shoe on the pony and had replaced it with EQUI-CAST which encased the whole hoof. Both the Farrier and Veterinary surgeon are livid about the situation, and have both reported the incident to the FRC. I was speaking to the Veterinary surgeon this morning who informed me that he had spoken to the FRC and they were not sure if EQUI-CAST represented a horseshoe. My question and comment to the trade and the FRC is this: If an Equi-Cast wrapping that encases the whole hoof wall of a foot, is not the same as a horseshoe, then Bare Foot Trimmers are entitled to fit Imprint Shoes legally? It is in my opinion that this case must be followed through all the way to the courts. If not, it makes a complete mockery of the 1975 Act.

PNB
Posts: 2239
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Pedal Fractures Equitech Hoof Cast, [Video available online.

Postby PNB » Thu Sep 29, 2011 5:33 am

John,

I think FRC decided that a hoof cast was a shoe for the purpose of the Farriers Registration Act. So the fitting of one to a Horse's foot would be an act of FARRIERY.

I say this however bearing in mind ANYBODY can render first aid to any [suffering] animal, so is a cast on a fracture First Aid??.

Very interesting however, I hope this case goes all the way to a judge to enable clarification of Farriers Registration Act as to just what is a legal/illegal act of farriery.

John, The hoof cast is a very useful tool for Veterinary use with Equine Pedal Bone Fractures. I personal would suggest the risks of a farrier using one other than under veterinary super vision would be immense.

PNB.

PNB
Posts: 2239
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Postby PNB » Thu Sep 29, 2011 5:51 am

John,

See Equine Vet Education May 2011 Edition. Paper by Jessica Kidd.

PNB.

csc
Posts: 950
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 5:40 am
Location: berks

Postby csc » Thu Sep 29, 2011 5:58 am

i think you might find that apart from what you have discussed that suffering may have been caused i would have thought the rspca might have something to say

john ford
Posts: 1052
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2002 7:20 pm
Location: Pucklechurch, Bristol.

Postby john ford » Thu Sep 29, 2011 4:58 pm

An update on proceedings. The Farrier John Hodge DipWCF has received a letter today from the stable which I will now reveal as the RDA Bristol, to say that his services are no longer required because he blew the whistle. We await to see if the veterinary surgeon and his practice suffer the same fate. If this is what we farriers have to put up with in our day-to-day lives, who have to conform to rules and regulations from the FRC to practice our trade, all I can see in all of this is, keep our heads down, throw the professional guide rule book in the dustbin, and fight to get the 1975 Act abolished. Because it seems that we have a state of affairs here of every man for himself

admin
Site Admin
Posts: 679
Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 8:32 pm

photos

Postby admin » Thu Sep 29, 2011 7:23 pm


PNB
Posts: 2239
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Hoof Capsular Strangulations. Opinion based on experiences

Postby PNB » Fri Sep 30, 2011 4:59 am

John.

Used like the above will become an excercise in hoof capsular STRANGULATION, then definitely a future RSPCA matter. That is without some drastic remedial action, to release the increasing compression pressures of the descending hoof cone's expanding girth being constricted by the CUFF. This will compromise downward growth and compress then shut down the related blood vessels.

PNB.

john ford
Posts: 1052
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2002 7:20 pm
Location: Pucklechurch, Bristol.

Postby john ford » Fri Sep 30, 2011 7:52 pm

Friday update: Today I spoke to the registrar and was told that there is a meeting next Wednesday which will include this case and to ascertain what constitutes a horseshoe. When the 1975 Act was written up, we didn't have the alternative plastic shoes and bonding agents that we farriers regularly use today. Hopefully we will learn the answer, and where such matters as the above incident go from here? One thing I did point out to the registrar was, that all of us need to know where we stand and where these bare foot trimmers stand as to the law of this country?

PNB
Posts: 2239
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Postby PNB » Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:19 am

John,

I spoke the Registrars office Thursday.

I pointed out a cuff can be used as a total foot bearing surface with no intention of it having a shoe fitted, so then I feel a cuff maybe a shoe in its own right.

The way it is in our industry Farriery, a cast is mainly applied as a prosthetic hoof capsule, to replace/re-inforce the structure of a seriously degraded hoof wall, in itself THEN it I feel it then is not a SHOE within the registration acts definition.

HOWEVER:-

If a cast is fitted as part of the preparation process, as a pre-cursor of/for the "IMMEDIATE RECEPTION" reception of a shoe , then although it is not a shoe things change if is to have a shoe "IMMEDIATELY" fitted, as part of one process it seems the person so doing maybe/will have undertaken an "ACT OF FARRIERY".

In the other FRC, SCALE/Definition of The Registration Act's "DIRECT" [immediate/locality too], an alternative FRC definition [as needs must], Immediate then means a shoe is in direct contact with a hoof, but in that case applying a CUFF at first to the hoof IF it is deemed to be a shoe in its own right then does it not follow, nailing to a pre-fitted cuff and not directly onto a hoof, this could/may not be seen as an "ACT OF FARRIERY".

I suggest you leave this alone as where you are going if this ever goes before a JUDGE may not help "the doubtful definition cause as to what is farriery. You see we could end up with a cuff not being defined as a shoe which I feel may be the case [then doing so is free for all to do], or the nailing of a shoe to an earlier fitted cuff then not to be deemed "An Act of Farriery". A lose lose situ- for those us who are attempting to maintain The UK Farriers "Status Quo".

PNB.

csc
Posts: 950
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 5:40 am
Location: berks

Postby csc » Sat Oct 01, 2011 5:25 pm

so a vet tells a farrier put this type of shoe on this specific horse and and a trimmer turns up what a load of crap you need a hoof cast ( peter don't you endorse these) the vet and the farrier appear and oh my god are up in arms the farrier is sacked am i right so far

PNB
Posts: 2239
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

To clear that up!!!!

Postby PNB » Sat Oct 01, 2011 7:05 pm

CSC,

Equicasts are David Richards from the USA his product, that's what John reported as being used. Mr Richards has I understand been in the UK demonstrating this product.

Equitech Hoofcast is not FIBRE GLASS like equicast I understand is, the Equitech product is made from a Polyester Fabric which is a bit more durable. However it is a similar type of human health care derived product and both I understand are used similarly.

Yes Stuart, I fully endorse the Equitech Hoofcast , I feel that horses with degraded feet, those showing hoof cracks, trauma discomfort and wound damage [solar punctures], CASTS are the best thing since sliced bread far in advance of other products presently available to me in particular. I have recovered close to 150 horses to date, and am still doing so.

The differance here is, I am a Farrier and when using hoof casts I only do so under the direct supervision of a Veterinary Surgeon, maybe unlike Johns reported case. There are however a few barefoot trimming Vets out there, so who knows.

PNB.

john ford
Posts: 1052
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2002 7:20 pm
Location: Pucklechurch, Bristol.

Postby john ford » Sun Oct 02, 2011 7:38 pm

Well guys stop beating around the bush. I spent a day on Saturday at Stoneleigh together with the photos and the details of this case. From the Worshipful Company of Farriers across the board of different qualified farriers to School of Farriery teachers. This Eqi-Cast or any other fixed bonding to a horses foot is a shoe. To make it simple, anything placed on a horses foot to protect it from wear or any other means and can't be removed without special tools, is classed as a shoe and an act of farriery. I have asked the FRC to proceed in a prosecution regardless of cost, as we farriers have the right to know where we stand in relation to the 1975 Act and to make sure that these bare foot trimmers know exactly where they stand in the future. Just remember that the farrier who blew the whistle about this case, has now been fired from the RDA, which has cost him £10,000 per year.

PNB
Posts: 2239
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Clear Intentsions!!

Postby PNB » Tue Oct 04, 2011 4:17 am

Quote "I have asked the FRC to proceed in a prosecution regardless of cost.

Bully for you John, instructing FRC to proceed through the High Court is going to cost you £25K a day!! Win or lose. A very brave move indeed!!

PNB.

ferrador
Posts: 120
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2011 11:24 am
Location: europe

Postby ferrador » Tue Oct 04, 2011 5:16 pm

crap PNB ,the frc spend my/our money proscecuting unregistered foreign farriers who will never be there , so what is the difference ? .

john ford
Posts: 1052
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2002 7:20 pm
Location: Pucklechurch, Bristol.

Postby john ford » Tue Oct 04, 2011 6:15 pm

And what evidence do you have of cost Peter, and is that all that bothers you? For your information I have learned today of two other cases in the Cheshire area where Eqi-Cast has been used by bare foot trimmers, one case suffered from it. Neither case was reported, so Peter that's how you would like things to stay, well dream on mate because I intend to do whatever possible to get this case to court, for the reasons I have already stated. The FRC receive nearly £400,000 per year in retention fees, so they better spend it on what they are there for, that being upholding the 1975 Act.

ferrador
Posts: 120
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2011 11:24 am
Location: europe

Postby ferrador » Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:19 pm

PNB ,what is your definition of a horseshoe ? . who determines when a foot has been trimmed for the reception of a shoe ? , the whole act is a farce and the implementation of it even worse , all those employed by the frc and the egotistical cocks wanting to be part of the system are a joke
chris

john ford
Posts: 1052
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2002 7:20 pm
Location: Pucklechurch, Bristol.

Postby john ford » Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:28 pm

A Horseshoe is anything that is fixed to a horses foot to protect from wear or anything else, and can only be removed with specialist tools such as a rasp,cutters etc. Hoof boots can be removed by a buckle, poultice or bandages with a pair of scissors or normal knife

PNB
Posts: 2239
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Postby PNB » Wed Oct 05, 2011 5:41 am

John,

QUOTE "A Horseshoe is anything that is fixed to a horses foot to protect from wear or anything else, and can only be removed with specialist tools such as a rasp,cutters etc. Hoof boots can be removed by a buckle, poultice or bandages with a pair of scissors or normal knife".

Thats a very nice definition, but it didn't come from The Farriers Registration Act!!

Cuffs fitted by the client or bare footer will fall off themselves in about a month, even if they are glued [but not those screwed on]. With out a shoe nailed to a cuff it would be worn off in a month anyway, well mine come loose in a month anyway.

Any one can pull off a worn out cuff that is not screwed on using thier fingers, even if glued the bond is gone in about a month!!, pincers and pliers can do the same job more easily however, [SPECIAL TOOLS ??] - Balls, think on Fordy.

PNB.

ferrador
Posts: 120
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2011 11:24 am
Location: europe

Postby ferrador » Wed Oct 05, 2011 5:52 am

john ,that is not the definition you were given the other day . the frc do not have a written definition because the dickheads who shouted for the act were not intelligent enough to think of it . face facts is not an act to protect horses , it was bought in by egotistical farriers looking for power (ex military syndrome )and to get exclusive shoeing rights and cut out the competition
chris

jaimep
Posts: 121
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 5:20 pm
Location: 50 miles of Chesterfield, mid Wales, Cornwall, jaimeexup@hotmail.com

Re: Views about Bare Foot Trimmer Case

Postby jaimep » Mon Nov 28, 2011 9:54 pm

Did anything ever come of this? Clearly it would be a good thing for all concerned to once and for all get a legal definition of what is, or is not, a ' horse shoe'.

Quite how a non metal, flexible, easily formable by hand, material such as a hoof wrap (or cast even) can be defined as a shoe I don't see. But as JF implies, where does that leave imprints and such like in the definition? I have to be honest, they look like shoes to me.

I guess only a judge can judge but maybe a 'horse shoe' is just that i.e. a traditional steel rim, nailed on to the underside and periphery of the hoof capsule, nothing more?

Personally I'd like to see the FRC pressing for a legal definition.

If one is to answer the question comprehensively one has to ask what was the original intention of the Farriery Act ? Was it to protect horses from poor workmanship by ill qualified people? Or was it to protect the livelihood of farriers? I don't know. If the former surely the logic should be that such things a equicasts should only be fitted by persons properly trained and qualified in their application (which would not necessarily require training as a farrier) ? If the latter one has to ask do modern farriers really need such protection? I've never met a farrier (good or not so good) who is short of work so is the legislation still necessary? It clearly need updating...

john ford
Posts: 1052
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2002 7:20 pm
Location: Pucklechurch, Bristol.

Re: Views about Bare Foot Trimmer Case

Postby john ford » Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:48 pm

The case is still on going, so no more further comment until such time that a decision has been made by the FRC or the courts.

jaimep
Posts: 121
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 5:20 pm
Location: 50 miles of Chesterfield, mid Wales, Cornwall, jaimeexup@hotmail.com

Re: Views about Bare Foot Trimmer Case

Postby jaimep » Tue Nov 29, 2011 8:16 pm

Thank you John. Please keep us informed.

Lindsay
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 12:50 pm

FACTS about Bare Foot Trimmer Case

Postby Lindsay » Sat Jul 07, 2012 2:00 pm

CORRECTION OF INACCURATE AND INFLAMMATORY COMMENTS MADE BY JOHN FORD AND JONATHON HODGE

The services of Jonathon Hodge were terminated due to his conduct in response to the change in hoof care provision to the pony in question. This included events leading up to his entry onto the site without a prior appointment and the subsequent actions he took without the authorisation of the RDA.

The RDA acted in response to the advice of their Equine Vet to change hoof care provision.

The Pony in question was not being treated for a fractured pedal bone confirmed by the vet during conversations with the above. Radiographs taken in connection with this historic event confirmed the fracture had completely healed. Hoof care provision was changed to address hoof imbalance, consequential uneven joint alignment and excessive removal of structure all evidenced by recent radiographs.

The Equine Vet involved has been supportive throughout and has not submitted any complaint to the FRC and was fully aware of the Poly Wraps used and the reasons why. An Equicast was not suitable in this instance or used.

The FRC attempted a test case by raising a Summons to be issued for alleged unlawful farriery. This Summons was subsequently withdrawn by the FRC’s solicitors.

John Ford and Jonathon Hodge have misled members of this forum and the public by fabricating the series of events leading to the termination of Jonathon Hodge’s services at the RDA with inaccurate, deliberately inflammatory and damaging comments.
http://www.appliedequinepodiatrist.co.u ... 4565879014

john ford
Posts: 1052
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2002 7:20 pm
Location: Pucklechurch, Bristol.

Re: Views about Bare Foot Trimmer Case

Postby john ford » Sat Jul 07, 2012 5:53 pm

Be very careful Miss Lindsay with your so called facts. You have no idea of events taking place and you only have information fed to you from the RDA. You are very small fry, and there are very good reasons why your case was dropped. In the farriery industry we even get to know the colour of your personal loo paper, so I shouldn't start rejoicing yet .

Lindsay
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 12:50 pm

Re: Views about Bare Foot Trimmer Case

Postby Lindsay » Sat Jul 07, 2012 7:15 pm

I am fully aware of the FRC's pending court case for alleged unlawful farriery.

I have to congratulate you on your foul attitude and manners, no doubt contributed to the original case being dismissed.

Your response was so predictable.

john ford
Posts: 1052
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2002 7:20 pm
Location: Pucklechurch, Bristol.

Re: Views about Bare Foot Trimmer Case

Postby john ford » Sat Jul 07, 2012 8:10 pm

So please tell us the difference between Polly Wraps and Equicast, apart from the brand name? And by the way I have no problem with your comments towards me or vice versa, as it is common knowledge that you have no respect towards any farrier regardless of their ability.

john ford
Posts: 1052
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2002 7:20 pm
Location: Pucklechurch, Bristol.

Re: Views about Bare Foot Trimmer Case

Postby john ford » Mon Sep 10, 2012 4:40 pm

We are still waiting for a reply from you Miss Lindsay from my last posting. As you have so much knowledge on farriery, I would have thought that an answer wouldn't have taken so long. Or maybe you have realised now that it is best to keep your mouth closed before you get yourself into more trouble by telling false stories on the internet

john ford
Posts: 1052
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2002 7:20 pm
Location: Pucklechurch, Bristol.

Re: Views about Bare Foot Trimmer Case

Postby john ford » Thu Sep 27, 2012 4:10 pm

Dear Miss Lindsay, you tried to advise us that the original case was being dismissed. Maybe in the courts yes because the RDA would not allow the FRC investigator in to view your work. But if you read today's Horse & Hound September 27th 2012, hopefully you will note that your cast has been proved to be a shoe in a court of law. And therefore I will advise you and all your Bare Foot Trimming gang, that if you try anything like this again you will find yourself in front of a judge without a leg to stand on.

PNB
Posts: 2239
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Re: Views about Bare Foot Trimmer Case

Postby PNB » Sat Sep 29, 2012 5:41 am

John,

An observation (1) regarding your latest posting, followed by a question (2).

May be you would suggest or could even find out :-

(1) When does a undefended plea of "GUILTY" by a person who for any reason was unable to or was not mindful to defend himself before a MAGISTRATES COURT, "PROVE" a "CRIMINAL CHARGE" was a VALID one. That is any CHARGE!! made by whoever, or whatever REGULATORY BODY chooses to frame a prosecution.

(2) When does a "PERMITTED" ACT of VETERINARY SURGERY, undertaken by an agent of the owner of any animal, that is one permitted act under the Current Veterinary Surgeons Charter become an offence AT LAW ??

Please, think outside the narrow BOX of BAREFOOTING today, and whilst you are thinking about this you may even feel the necessity consider what was considered to be "Farriery" before the ?1949 ? Veterinary Surgeons Charter came onto the Statute Book!!

PNB.

john ford
Posts: 1052
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2002 7:20 pm
Location: Pucklechurch, Bristol.

Re: Views about Bare Foot Trimmer Case

Postby john ford » Sat Sep 29, 2012 12:02 pm

Peter, I will answer your first question only at this stage. If one pleads guilty of an offence regardless of financial restrictions, that person has already admitted that they have broken the law. Secondly, this case was held in front of a judge in a court of law and the judge would have already done his/her homework of the case. By not pleading guilty it would have been up to the prosecution to prove otherwise regardless of the accused not being able to afford a lawyer to represent the other side, because the judge would have still had the last say and direction of the case in the end, as to prove that Equ Cast/Polly Wrap is, or is not determined as a shoe.

john ford
Posts: 1052
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2002 7:20 pm
Location: Pucklechurch, Bristol.

Re: Views about Bare Foot Trimmer Case

Postby john ford » Sat Sep 29, 2012 2:46 pm

After careful consideration Peter of your other two questions, I have now come to the conclusion that even after you came off the FRC council you still remain living in a completely different planet to the vast majority of the rest of us.

PNB
Posts: 2239
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Re: Views about Bare Foot Trimmer Case

Postby PNB » Sat Sep 29, 2012 4:51 pm

John

From a moon man that a great observation.

This was a summary offence heard by Welshpool Magistrates a court of summary jurisdiction. No judge, no jury, just some accused poor bugger choosing to plead guilty before 3 members of the public [magistrates] as a result of a complaint of a all powerful huge registration authority. Pleading guilty negates the normal protocol of a full the case being heard. A consequence and all due to the Guilty plea. Whether of benefit for registered farriers or not?? is that not a side issue anyway!!

So don't to feel safe within our little farriery CLOSED SHOP because we are not safe!! If our registration status is ever properly challenge before a judge, I feel farrier registration could well cease. When we were on Council we were advised any attempt change of the Farrier's Registration Act may have a very poor outcome and may even lead to a DEREGULATION of farriery!! Is that what you want??

As an aside, why are you bullying LINDSEY?? Is it something in you warped psyche a need to bully others. Come to think of it I have suffered from this abuse from you for a least 10 years [read all the above postings] if you need proof.

PNB.

john ford
Posts: 1052
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2002 7:20 pm
Location: Pucklechurch, Bristol.

Re: Views about Bare Foot Trimmer Case

Postby john ford » Sat Sep 29, 2012 6:57 pm

Don't comment on someone you don't know Peter. Lindsay Cotterell lives around here, and makes me sound like a pussy-cat. As far as your views are concerned, I remain agreeing with the majority of views which doesn't even include those on the FRC and WCF. Also if you still believe that your views are so correct why is it that (a) you achieved nothing whilst serving on council apart from getting on everyone's back, and (b) the UKHSA is now dead in the water due to your personal views that didn't have the backing of a majority.

PNB
Posts: 2239
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Re: Views about Bare Foot Trimmer Case

Postby PNB » Sun Sep 30, 2012 7:34 pm

Moonman,

STILL TRYING TO bully me by being outragiously offensive of both my efforts and the effort the RDA make in your area.

By giving Lindsey's FULL name out into the public view and the earlier linking of her with the Riding for the Disabled Organisation [RDA], something seemingly being done with the view of sullying an Excellent RDA Public Service Provision. [The RDA's Efforts/Services are directed towards those not as fortunate as ourselves]. The RDA helps the disadvantaged to have close experience and contact with equines, which otherwise would be outside their possible chance.

This linking seems to be an attempt to discredit Miss Lindsey and the RDA's huge charity effort and may well prove to be a craft disiplinary matter, who knows. Maybe Lindsey may care to respond!!

So if you feel so antagonistic about the efforts of a fellow farrier [ME] and that way about UKHSA's efforts to expose short comings within the current Farrier Registration Systems, why do you not post on another notice board other than UKHSA's.

PNB.

Big Iron
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 3:48 pm

Re: Views about Bare Foot Trimmer Case

Postby Big Iron » Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:20 am

Maybe Miss L shouldn't reply,,, and the FRC should bring this Fordy bozo into line with disciplinary action.

First in this thread there is slander, miss L replied with her sequence of events,,,which greatly differed from this Fordy bozo's sequence of events ,,, then there is threatening abusive stuff from Ford to the lady in mention,,,and towards the Riding for Dis Assoc. My boss told me to never bad mouth a client. No matter what.

All I can say is I'm a new farrier, Bath Bristol area,, and I'm barefoot friendly ( I learn from them) ,,, and I see the things they fix that farriers stuff up. time and time again.

I'm taking this fordy bozo's clients. And so are the bare footers around this area,,,they are busy.

john ford
Posts: 1052
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2002 7:20 pm
Location: Pucklechurch, Bristol.

Re: Views about Bare Foot Trimmer Case

Postby john ford » Mon Oct 01, 2012 5:23 pm

Please read above all of you and you will see that Lindsey Cotterall was the person who printed and exposed John Hodge and myself in this case. I would welcome each and everyone of you to report me to the FRC over this case, bring it on.

Big Iron
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 3:48 pm

Re: Views about Bare Foot Trimmer Case

Postby Big Iron » Tue Oct 09, 2012 11:07 pm

Ford,

no dude, you started this thread right at the top, go have a look, it was you.

You started it with a "cock and bull story" about a barefooter going into a place and tearing off a shoe prescribed by a vet and replacing it with a cast.

Then you revealed the place of business a couple of posts after,,,

Then you revealed the farrier who got the sack from that place as though it was some great tragedy, when really he got sacked for crap work and you fools coming onsite uninvited pontificating about acts of farriery.

Then you started giving legal definitions that were absolute rubbish.

Then the young lady you professionally slandered, defended herself with the truth, which exposed you as a bullshit artist fair and square.

Then you subtly threatened her, are you for real dude?

john ford
Posts: 1052
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2002 7:20 pm
Location: Pucklechurch, Bristol.

Re: Views about Bare Foot Trimmer Case

Postby john ford » Wed Oct 10, 2012 4:32 pm

Say what you like, at least I put my own name to all postings on the internet, unlike you and so many who haven't got the balls to look one in the eye and say what they think.

Italian stallion
Posts: 380
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 8:40 pm

Re: Views about Bare Foot Trimmer Case

Postby Italian stallion » Thu Oct 11, 2012 5:27 pm

Big iron,
You have I'm sure made some valid points in your above posting, on the other hand you presume to behave worst towards John and olso claim he bullied her with the word he used towards her.
One word you used in reference in your posting was lady were I come from a lady is a lady so don't waste good words on someone intent on failing to see the woods for the trees.

Regards,

E.w

PNB
Posts: 2239
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Re: Views about Bare Foot Trimmer Case

Postby PNB » Tue Oct 23, 2012 2:34 pm

Moonman,

You have stired the HORNET'S NEST ? Where will your efforts take UK Farriery in the near future ??
Who knows.

Please read:- "hoofcare+lameness" posted today!! On Fran Jurga's blog.

PNB.

georgesowner
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2012 10:26 am

Re: Views about Bare Foot Trimmer Case

Postby georgesowner » Tue Oct 23, 2012 5:30 pm

OMG! Having joined this discussion board today as an interested horse owner, I am mortified by the inflammatory language and undisguised threats on this thread.
My main observation, is that as a "customer" I believe that as I work hard for my wages, to keep my horses in the best way I possibly can, I have the right to choose who to pay and for what services. I also live in the South Glos area and have met good & not so good people working in all aspects of the equine industry over the last 20 years and if unsatisfied with any service I vote with my feet (no pun intended!) and go elsewhere, as is my right.
Whoever John Ford is, I hope he treats his customers in a better manner than he treats others on this discussion board cos I would definitely go elsewhere and give my hard earned cash to someone who treated me with much more respect.

Big Iron
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 3:48 pm

Re: Views about Bare Foot Trimmer Case

Postby Big Iron » Tue Oct 23, 2012 6:36 pm

The latest on the barefoot trimmer case is this, http://fightingforthebarefoothorse.com/

Its a challenge to the FRC, the next person they try to prosecute someone for applying a poly flex or an equicast sock to a foot, Its not a shoe, a whole band of owners and some top shelf legal help has banded togeather to expose the FRC bullshit. They are finished.

So what basically has happened is (symbolically) the FRC has gone for a pee on a tree, only to find there was a bear sleeping in the leaves by that tree.

The FRC is nobody's friend, it only serves its own existence and expansion at whatever cost, it is not a friend of the farrier, and it is certainly not a friend to the mighty horse.

Big Iron.

ps ( to be continued in a new posting with new subject matter)

pps, ( so Mr PNB was right, what have you done Ford, you dingbat)

Big Iron
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 3:48 pm

Re: Views about Bare Foot Trimmer Case

Postby Big Iron » Tue Oct 23, 2012 7:37 pm

Georges owner is absolutely right,

You can see the abuse from Ford on this forum, and not only on this post,,,, also, the vile rascism and tribal bashing from many towards barefoot hoof carers.

Who would want someone like Ford in their stables, invited home to care for their horses,, and all you get is cock and bull stories laced with abuse.
Lord only knows what he's spreading out there.

Whatever is coming to UK farriery, its come from self harm, Yes Mr PNB is correct when he says the industry has been hijacked by the "paper lords",,, but the tribalism, elitism, specialness, rascism, and the stone cold refusal to embrace the new will leave the general population of farriers in the cold. Guaranteed.
Its the ignorance of arrogance. I've committed acts of farriery in many countries, and 3 continents, the uk boys have bees in their bonnets.

Its important to note that good farriers have no care for this, they just get on with it. Good farriers are always reading, always questioning, always looking, always observing. Always asking,,,, does this horse really need a shoe?

Sincerely,
Big Iron

jaimep
Posts: 121
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 5:20 pm
Location: 50 miles of Chesterfield, mid Wales, Cornwall, jaimeexup@hotmail.com

Re: Views about Bare Foot Trimmer Case

Postby jaimep » Thu Oct 25, 2012 6:53 pm

Now I'm confused

JF
your cast has been proved to be a shoe in a court of law.


Is this correct John? If so where? when? Which court? Which judge?

Or have you fabricated that too?

Italian stallion
Posts: 380
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 8:40 pm

Re: Views about Bare Foot Trimmer Case

Postby Italian stallion » Thu Oct 25, 2012 8:21 pm

Jaimep,
So am I also confused, farriers or barefoot trimmer it should be remembered that above all else the welfare of the horse comes first.
John ford has pointed out that some people should seek out the correct training before they put the cart before the horse.

Regards,

E.w.

Italian stallion
Posts: 380
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 8:40 pm

Re: Views about Bare Foot Trimmer Case

Postby Italian stallion » Thu Oct 25, 2012 8:23 pm

Jaimep,
Horse and hound as reported it is a shoe.

Regards,

E.w.

jaimep
Posts: 121
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 5:20 pm
Location: 50 miles of Chesterfield, mid Wales, Cornwall, jaimeexup@hotmail.com

Re: Views about Bare Foot Trimmer Case

Postby jaimep » Thu Oct 25, 2012 9:14 pm

LoL. I miss you guys!

above all else the welfare of the horse comes first.
We should all agree on that, and act accordingly...

some people should seek out the correct training before they put the cart before the horse


Tremendous! Some people? Surely you mean all people? Or does the FRC grant exceptions?

I always thought the cart went behind the horse. Maybe I should do that farriery course after all?

jaimep
Posts: 121
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 5:20 pm
Location: 50 miles of Chesterfield, mid Wales, Cornwall, jaimeexup@hotmail.com

Re: Views about Bare Foot Trimmer Case

Postby jaimep » Thu Oct 25, 2012 9:18 pm

Hoise and hoind? That bastion of English legislation? That's it then, game over.

john ford
Posts: 1052
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2002 7:20 pm
Location: Pucklechurch, Bristol.

Re: Views about Bare Foot Trimmer Case

Postby john ford » Fri Oct 26, 2012 3:10 pm

So everyone, now you have all seen the result of this case, perhaps you may all agree that I did have all my facts correct in the first place. And I apologise to you all if you think my language or interpretation about Bare Foot Trimmers was unprofessional. Regardless of how I put it, the result was the same in the end. The case in Bristol was dropped due to the investigator not being allowed into the stable yard to confirm the action that took place, so the FRC went for the other case to make sure that they got a conviction, in order for everyone to now know that Bare Foot Trimmers stick to trimming feet and nothing more. Finally can I add that before I place postings on this board, I spend a lot of time speaking to other professionals be it the FRC, WCF, FTAB or BFBA, in order that my facts are correct.

jaimep
Posts: 121
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 5:20 pm
Location: 50 miles of Chesterfield, mid Wales, Cornwall, jaimeexup@hotmail.com

Re: Views about Bare Foot Trimmer Case

Postby jaimep » Fri Oct 26, 2012 7:24 pm

No John.


Return to “farriers discussion board”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest