H & H article

especially for horse owners to ask advice, from farriers or from other owners, all welcome, also please post details of lost or stolen horses here
Guest

H & H article

Postby Guest » Sat Aug 21, 2004 9:21 am

I was a bit bothered by the article in H & H (page 9) about a farrier who is a convicted rapist. Is there a way for us horse owners and parents to check that people coming into our yards are not a potential danger.

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

Postby john ford » Sat Aug 21, 2004 1:31 pm

Your concerns are correct, yet I have inside knowledge that this issue is being dealt with by the Farriers Registration Council at their meeting in September 2004. It looks as if any farrier convicted with a sexual offence, could find themselves struck off the register.

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

Postby admin » Sat Aug 21, 2004 3:53 pm

If he was considered a potential danger then he would not have been allowed back into society. He has served his time and paid his debt to society and has a right to earn a living. Horses need farriers.

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

Postby john ford » Sat Aug 21, 2004 8:31 pm

Ian Huntly was released on the basis that he wasn't a threat to society. Dr Shipman was overlooked for many years. Both these cases were similar, as the public put their complete trust in them, just like horse owners put their complete trust in us farriers.

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

Postby admin » Sat Aug 21, 2004 9:11 pm

Neither of these people had been convicted of any offence had they?

Why would anyone put their complete trust in their farrier? Who is that stupid? Just because someone has never been convicted of a crime doesn't mean that they won't commit one, there is always a first time. You don't know that your milkman, builder or riding instructor isn't a convicted rapist or a potential rapist, your priest might be a paedophile, so how on earth can you know that someone is not a "potential danger". You can't, you have to be sensible, and it is no good starting witch-hunts against unfortunate fellow farriers.

Guest

Postby Guest » Sun Aug 22, 2004 9:18 am

I understand what both of you are saying but aren't farriers meant to be registered like dentists and vets and therefore professionals. I don't spend time or leave my children in the company of the milkman so I think it isnt quite the same.
I would really like to hear from other horse owners and parents because I think you two have a vested interest.

T.

Postby T. » Sun Aug 22, 2004 10:30 am

So you would leave your child in the care of any tradesman [ tinker, tailor or candlestick maker ], without a deep knowledge of him, to do so I suggest would mean falling down on ones parental care obligations.

It is not with out precedent, have a thought for those who entrusted the care of their elderly relatives to a much respected highly qualified member of one of the true professions one Harold Shipman.

As far as I am concerned, I would think hard about leaving one of my young children with anyone.

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

Postby john ford » Sun Aug 22, 2004 12:47 pm

On this issue every farrier should realise that they have to be licensed by the Farriers Registration Council before they are able to shoe horses. That said, the Farriers Registration Council have a duty to protect not only the horses that are shod by us, but also a duty to protect the public we serve. Therefore if a farrier has been convicted in a court of law for a crime that could put the public in danger at a later date, the Farriers Registration Council have every right to strike that farrier off the register. If you overstep the line, for what ever reason, you must suffer the consequences.

Finally Admin you are not preventing that person from working, as there are other jobs these persons can do as long as they are supervised. If you take the time to look at many of these sexual crimes, you will find that those persons have something implanted in their brain that triggers them off to do the same again. Just because they are not caught, does not mean that they have been cured.

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

Postby admin » Sun Aug 22, 2004 2:38 pm

The Farriers Registration Act was passed to promote the proper shoeing of horses. It was not designed or intended to protect the public, there are laws of the land to do that. If a person was considered to be a danger to the public then he would not be allowed into society, or not without supervision at least. You have no right to condemn someone or seek to stop them from following their career.

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

Postby john ford » Sun Aug 22, 2004 3:02 pm

If the Farriers Registration Council were not a licensing authority I could in a way agree with you to a small degree. But they are, and they have to be deemed responsible in that department. You Admin are a Veterinary Surgeon, and are controlled by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. Am I correct that your controlling body struck off a Veterinary Surgeon for miss use of drugs when it was found that he killed his wife. Tell me what is the difference?

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

Postby admin » Sun Aug 22, 2004 4:02 pm

The Veterinary Surgeons Act is very different from the Farriers Registration Act. The Farriers Registration Act was passed to promote the proper shoeing of horses and the FRC is not a Professional Body much as it pretends to be.

Veterinary Michael Symons did not kill his wife, he had some drugs in his house which she got hold of, she was a drug addict, and died of an overdose I believe. I think that it was unworthy of the RCVS to strike him off as the police took no action over the tragedy.

Do farriers want the FRC to pass judgement on our private conduct? If they do all well and good, but personally I think that they should limit themselves to cases involving animal welfare and competence to shoe horses.

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

Postby john ford » Sun Aug 22, 2004 4:57 pm

Admin quote: Do farriers want the FRC to pass judgement on our private conduct?

As a farrier myself, yes I do.
I and the vast majority of farriers in this country are trusted implicitly by horse owners, whenever or wherever we shoe their horses. Tack rooms left open, houses left open, and children left un-attended with us etc etc. I feel proud and honoured that these people put so much trust in us. If we went down your road Admin, the trust will be lost, and it would make our working life intolerable. Farriers who abuse this trust are the pits of society, and have no place in the farriery industry. The Farriers Registration Council are there to protect the horse and the client. If there wasn't the FRC we wouldnt be having this discussion, as there wouldn't be a law to protect anyone or anything we do as farriers

P N B

Postby P N B » Sun Aug 22, 2004 8:53 pm

"Do farriers want the FRC to pass judgement on our private conduct? If they do all well and good, but personally I think that they should limit themselves to cases involving animal welfare and competence to shoe horses", quote.

Thats the top and bottom of it, any judgement on a farriers conduct should relate to their work and be by ones peers and not by a non democratic, non accountable appointed group.

A good example of this type of justice that was nothing to do with work was referred to in the HH article, you will see reference to a case the truth of which was a farrier removed a horse owned by his step daughter from from the teather where it was effectively starving and transported it to open common land where there was plentiful grazing. A bit of a dodgy move never the less, but the domestic family circumstances demonstrated at his hearing seemed to make any other action really not feasable. The farriers reward for his efforts, he was convicted of theft and removed from his trade register for life!!

John, I have to ask you, how does that sanction compare with a family double rape conviction with no removal from the register? I don't know but comparison of the two sanctions doesn't quite pan out to me.

PNB.

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

Postby admin » Sun Aug 22, 2004 9:29 pm

A farrier who abused the trust of his customers would lose his business, and if he broke the law he would be held accountable for it. The FRC are not meant to be the Spanish Inquisition. They are there to promote the proper shoeing of horses, that is what the Act lays down. There are laws against crimes and the police are there to enforce them.

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

Postby john ford » Mon Aug 23, 2004 5:10 am

Answer to your question PNB. The farrier who raped his wife should have been struck off. The farrier who was struck off for stealing a horse is something I will not discuss on the web, as there was a lot more to that case than what was reported, and generally known amongst the farriery trade. Answer to your statement Admin, if you look at page 1 of Statutes in Force FRC Act 1975, at the end of the first paragraph it say's: to prohibit the shoeing of horses by unqualified persons: and for purposes connected therewith.
That last bit gives the FRC every right to be concerned with a farriers conduct towards horse owners, I would have thought.

PNB
Posts: 2238
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Postby PNB » Mon Aug 23, 2004 6:31 am

" The farrier who was struck off for stealing a horse is something I will not discuss on the web, as there was a lot more to that case than what was reported, and generally known amongst the farriery trade".Quote John Ford.

Interesting comment, so we take it you are not prepared to support a fellow farrier who found himself in the middle of a domestic situation.


John I can't remember seeing you at the hearing. Where or from whom did you learn this not publically know information?? So did you have access to the papers of the case?? or are you just posturing??

PNB.

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

Postby john ford » Mon Aug 23, 2004 7:08 pm

Peter, learn to read dear man, my lips remain sealed on that subject. And that is final.

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

Postby admin » Mon Aug 23, 2004 7:40 pm

"if you look at page 1 of Statutes in Force FRC Act 1975, at the end of the first paragraph it say's: to prohibit the shoeing of horses by unqualified persons: and for purposes connected therewith.
That last bit gives the FRC every right to be concerned with a farriers conduct towards horse owners, I would have thought."

Don't think so - learn to read perhaps?

PNB
Posts: 2238
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Old Posting By John Ford

Postby PNB » Thu Aug 26, 2004 8:48 am

John.

"Your concerns are correct, yet I have inside knowledge that this issue is being dealt with by the Farriers Registration Council at their meeting in September 2004. It looks as if any farrier convicted with a sexual offence, could find themselves struck off the registrer". Quote from John Forde.

Dear Boy, Please explain the above posting regarding the September meeting of FRC ? If you have access to the agenda of this meeting I am sure UKHSU would like to have a copy. It seems quite a regular thing now that you are quoting inside confidential data coming from an FRC source, let us share it!

I suppose you lips are still sealed no matter I feel its not your mouth that the words are coming from.

PNB.

Guest

Postby Guest » Mon Aug 30, 2004 4:59 pm

In the equine world where females are in abundant supply farriers will dabble YABA DABA DOO :D

Disgusted of Tunbridge

Postby Disgusted of Tunbridge » Mon Sep 27, 2004 3:42 pm

Very encouraging! Perhaps if the farriers who have commented on this topic ON THE HORSEOWNERS BOARD, could just button it for once, we could hear what other people think. In every group it seems that there are always one or two who insist on having their say (or should it be way!) despite what other people want. I've always called them bullies.

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

Postby john ford » Mon Sep 27, 2004 4:55 pm

Dear Disgusted of Tunbridge, no one is stopping other horse owners from having their say on this board. This is a very interesting and complex topic, so the more airing their views the better one would have thought. It may interest you to note that whilst reading these postings you will see that farriers and vets have a different point of view, so you can be assured that you will not be joining a click or club when posting.

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

Postby admin » Mon Sep 27, 2004 4:56 pm

Dear D of TW,

No-one had posted on this topic for 4 weeks, farrier or otherwise, so if there are any owners who want to comment, and they are very welcome to do so, it is safe now.

It may be of interest to know that if an owner was concerned that a farrier might be a sex offender and contacted the Farriers Registration Council they would be told: "As responsible organisations, the Farriers Registration Council and the Farrier Training Service are expected to observe normal codes of confidentiality and to abide by legislation such as that relating to the protection of data. We, therefore, have no intention of debating with you as an individual confidential matters relating to any individual."

You may find this reassuring, but I doubt it.

T. [ A parent]

Postby T. [ A parent] » Mon Sep 27, 2004 6:54 pm

Admin, I simply do not believe you, this can't be right. Was the response in regards to the double rapist? or is the pervertion problem more wide spread than this? Do your council not have an obligation to safeguard the public ? Should take this to my MP. T.

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

Postby john ford » Mon Sep 27, 2004 7:08 pm

Admin, you have just opened a bigger can of worms than you expected.

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

Postby admin » Mon Sep 27, 2004 7:29 pm

"Admin, I simply do not believe you, this can't be right."

I am quoting from a letter from the FRC.
I can send you a copy if you give me your contact details.

T. [mother].

Postby T. [mother]. » Mon Sep 27, 2004 8:54 pm

This isn't good enough is it?. Admin can you copy it here for us all to see? T.

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

Postby admin » Mon Sep 27, 2004 9:05 pm

It doesn't seem very good to me.

I can't copy letters to the message board, you'll have to take my word for it.

D of Tunbridge

Postby D of Tunbridge » Wed Sep 29, 2004 7:15 am

This isn't good enough is it?.

I agree with you T but once again it seems that the horse owners views are not to be considered. Perhaps it would help if we all felt more able to demand explanations and information. How does your farrier react when you question him about his actions or his qualifications? Personally I don't care what mine looks like (recent H & H survey)as long as we can have sensible discussions about what he is doing and I feel comfortable about him being in my yard plus he keeps my horses sound without robbing me blind. Hard to find one who fits the bill isn't it?

Guest

Postby Guest » Tue Oct 19, 2004 4:11 pm

Surely this kind of thing has to be assessed on an individual case-by-case basis.
I have some sympathy with the view that if the person has paid his debt, he should be allowed another chance - one, but no more.
I can also see the views of parents wanting the best for their children's well being. I am a parent, and fully understand this.
I cannot possibly see that anybody who has been convicted of such an offence would be able to make a living shoeing. Horse people are world champion gossips - this news would spread rapidly among them and nobody would touch the bloke, let alone leave him with their child. Remember, this trade is built on reputations, which are very hard to build, but very easy to destroy.
But if it is a complete ban people want, bear this in mind. Being convicted of a sexual offence and put on the offenders register can happen much more easily than we may think.
I am reminded of somebody I knew some years ago, a young man who met a girl in a club. A very beautiful young lady who told him she was - and looked - nineteen. They chatted and got along famously, and he invited her back afterwards to his flat, where one thing led to another and they finished up in bed.
In the morning, she told him her real age - fourteen.
This lad had clearly broken the law - and should he have been prosecuted, which he wasnt, he would have been convicted of having unlawful sex with a minor, (which we commonly call child abuse), and have his name placed on the sex offenders register for up to eight years.
There but for the grace of god.
The FRC may not be the most perfect body to decide what happens to farriers who are involved in these kinds of cases, but I think a complete ban is somewhat harsh.

Guest

Postby Guest » Tue Oct 19, 2004 5:27 pm

What a sensible person. A situation that is all too common regarding young girls looking and acting older than they are. In my town their is a teenie night in a local pub for kids from 12 to 18 but no kid over 15 would be seen dead in the place. They are all in the proper pubs drinking and getting fixed up and it amazes me that their parents allow them to go out dressed in such provocative attire at 12 years of age.

D of Tunbridge

Postby D of Tunbridge » Wed Oct 20, 2004 11:11 am

I couldn't agree with you more but the farrier mentioned on H & H wasn't convicted of having sex with a minor - he was convicted of double rape which is a very violent crime and somewhat different I think. It seems though that another farrier who was found guilty of having sex with an under age girl was stopped from shoeing by the Farriers Council. So I can't see the logic.

Guest

Postby Guest » Wed Oct 20, 2004 5:31 pm

D of Tunbridge I agree with you. I didnt see the H&H article but if this man is as hideous as he sounds the FRC will agree too. I just dont think blanket bans work in all cases.

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

Postby admin » Thu Oct 21, 2004 7:01 am

My understanding is that the man was convicted for raping his wife, which would seem to be a domestic matter however unpleasant, and would not necessarily make him a threat to the horseowning public.

D of Tunbridge

Postby D of Tunbridge » Sun Oct 31, 2004 2:12 pm

And my understanding of the law and the newspaper coverage of the case in question says that the victim cannot be named - have you just overstepped the mark. And does your wife (if you are married) have fewer rights than other women as far as you are concerned? If so I
think you are a dinosaur.

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

Postby admin » Sun Oct 31, 2004 2:16 pm

All I am looking at is the danger to horseowners, that is the point.

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

Postby john ford » Sun Oct 31, 2004 2:57 pm

I feel if a man can rape his own wife twice, he is capable of doing the same to any women when his sexual feelings are aroused to that extent.

slowhand
Posts: 302
Joined: Sun May 16, 2004 6:28 pm

Postby slowhand » Sun Oct 31, 2004 4:38 pm

Please allow the courts and judicial system to handle this sad affair in the best way they can as there will undoubtably be evidence put by both sides and it is not for us as farriers or horseowners to comment!
Please take admins reply in the honest way it was intended as it may have nothing to do with farrier/client relations.

Jenny Todd
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 6:19 pm

Postby Jenny Todd » Wed Apr 18, 2007 7:26 am

Quotes from HorseandHound article 12/4/07

In an article headed "Miles smiles on paedophiles", the UKHSU states: "Farriers are left in a position of trust on clients' premises where children live and play."

"The council, through its disciplinary committee, has the power to suspend or remove from the register a farrier guilty of serious misconduct in a professional respect," said Mr Williamson-Noble. "When this matter came to light, the interpretation of 'professional respect' did not relate to an individual's private life."

He added: "Parents have a responsibility for supervising their children and the circumstances they are in. When is a farrier different to any other tradesman?"

Previous postings on this board:

Admin-21/8/04 If he was considered a potential danger then he would not have been allowed back into society. He has served his time and paid his debt to society and has a right to earn a living. Horses need farriers.

Admin 21/8/04 Why would anyone put their complete trust in their farrier? Who is that stupid? Just because someone has never been convicted of a crime doesn't mean that they won't commit one, there is always a first time. You don't know that your milkman, builder or riding instructor isn't a convicted rapist or a potential rapist, your priest might be a paedophile, so how on earth can you know that someone is not a "potential danger". You can't, you have to be sensible, and it is no good starting witch-hunts against unfortunate fellow farriers.

Admin 22/8/04 The Farriers Registration Act was passed to promote the proper shoeing of horses. It was not designed or intended to protect the public, there are laws of the land to do that. If a person was considered to be a danger to the public then he would not be allowed into society, or not without supervision at least. You have no right to condemn someone or seek to stop them from following their career

Admin22/8/04 Do farriers want the FRC to pass judgement on our private conduct? If they do all well and good, but personally I think that they should limit themselves to cases involving animal welfare and competence to shoe horses.

PNB 22/8/04 Thats the top and bottom of it, any judgement on a farriers conduct should relate to their work and be by ones peers and not by a non democratic, non accountable appointed group

Slowhand 31/10/04 Please allow the courts and judicial system to handle this sad affair in the best way they can as there will undoubtably be evidence put by both sides and it is not for us as farriers or horseowners to comment

As the original author of this particular topic (August 2004) which related to a previous article published H & H concerning the continued registration of a convicted sex offender and the refusal of the FRC to act, I am interested to review comments made by UKHSU committee members (assuming that Martin Humphreys is still ‘ADMIN’) who appeared at that time to be of the opinion that a farrier’s private life should remain his business alone. Whilst I am encouraged that their views seem now to support mine, I am more than a little suspicious of the reasons for this u-turn. I can’t help thinking that it is more subjective than objective!

Jenny Todd (nee Macintosh)

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

Postby john ford » Wed Apr 18, 2007 8:42 pm

Well spotted Jenny, my thoughts exactly. I can't understand where anyone is coming from on this issue, my postings on another board have made me think that I had read the artical in H&H wrong. It will always be my opinion that this apprentice should have been thrown out on his neck, and anyone else who could be a danger to the horse owner. And MWN should be the second to go as he has done nothing to protect the horse owner.

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

Postby csc » Thu Apr 19, 2007 5:51 am

this article if i am correct was about a domestic situation man and wife . the later

in h @ h is about another situation completely different from the previous the first was a man qualified the second was a person wanting to qualify.
i agree with jenny on the fact that the f.r.c is only responsible for animal welfare
but would it be good for a recovering alcaholic to get a job in threshers one may argue that there is nothing wrong with that as the individual is responsible for his own actions on the other hand if that was the case why whould that indervidual want to put himself in temptations way
and whould it be wise to assist

BY THE WAY CONGRADULATIONS JENNY AND JAMES

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

Postby john ford » Thu Apr 19, 2007 6:23 pm

Stuart, I must be getting very old and blind. Can you remind me where Jenny said:
"The fact that the FRC is only responsible for animal welfare"
I can't see anywhere that Jenny was standing up for the FRC on this issue.

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

Postby csc » Fri Apr 20, 2007 5:22 am

john i was refering to admin 22/8/04 a point highlighted by jenny

Jenny Todd
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 6:19 pm

Postby Jenny Todd » Fri Apr 20, 2007 6:16 pm

Stuart - thank you ---- and John - my God you look hairy in those photos!! Or should I say OLD and hairy!!
My only reason for posting the message was to highlight the fact that the Miles Noble (we don't really need the pretentious middle bit do we) was re-iterating what Martin Humphries and Peter Baker said about the case of the convicted rapist. My views are that anyone convicted of crimes of such gravity, should not be registered and thereby endorsed by the FRC, and given the status that would suggest some kind of responsibility and duty of care to the public. Either there should be no police checks etc - or there should be a level of responsibility that can give the public confidence. Why should it be any different whether the offender is registered or not - the danger is the same.
Jenny Todd

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

Postby Italian stallion » Sat Apr 21, 2007 4:48 pm

To all,
The person in question is not on the register, he is an apprentice and as this has a great bearing on the case MWN would not wish to loose any such funding which keeps him in a job conflict of interest or what he should never have had a say in the first instance being the director of training.

Regards

E.W.

Jenny Todd
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 6:19 pm

Postby Jenny Todd » Sun Apr 22, 2007 9:23 am

Italian stallion - I don't think that funding is an issue - and, as I understand it, the person in question is a mature apprentice. I have read and re-read Peter Baker's opinions and it seems that he doesn't believe domestic matters should be viewed as grounds for disciplinary proceedings. As the majority of child abuse cases involve a family member - I guess he considers these offences none of the FRC's business. Wasn't the apprentice in question viewing images in his own home - a domestic setting! To me an abuser is an abuser much the same as a rapist is a rapist and a murderer is a murderer - regardless of the victim's relationship with him or her. I think that Peter Baker and Martin Humphreys are being less than honest regarding their own motives in this matter. They have already stated their position in the postings quoted above - now they have done an about turn just to attack Miles Noble. Cheap points scoring when there are so many more important matters concerning us horse owners - personal safety being one of them.
Jenny Todd
AND THIS LADY IS NOT FOR TURNING EITHER!!!

Giles
Posts: 283
Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 4:41 am
Location: Wales
Contact:

Postby Giles » Sun Apr 22, 2007 9:40 am

Jenny, All,
I believe that anyone who has served their sentence have done just that, and cannot and should not be punished again for the same offence. BUT in this case although he had served the majority of his sentence he did not comply with all of it. He should have reported any change of address to the police, this was part of his sentence, and he failed to complete it deliberately. If he deliberately did not comply with the judges order, what do you think he will do when he has no supervision? This is what should have been taken into account by our friend Mr. Miles Williamson-Noble. And he did not do so. Bad judgement, bad decision, so like the apprentice how many more bad decisions will MWN make or has made? What the apprentice does when he has finished his sentence is up to him, but he has not finished it has he. Naughty boy tsk tsk.

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

Postby john ford » Sun Apr 22, 2007 7:51 pm

Giles, Gary Glitter served his time for sex offences and did that stop him?
Sex offenders don't stop they just get crafty and find another way to get their fix. Does farriery need these people, my answer is a NO at any price.

PNB
Posts: 2238
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Postby PNB » Sun Apr 22, 2007 9:14 pm

Jenny,

I know there was a issue with a rapist but Jim Todd dealt with it when he was on the FRC.

I know nothing about the back ground of that case. The quote you have cited above as being mine relates to an FRC proposal regarding CRB checks being forced on all 2500 working farriers in 2004 and does not reflect on any specific cases. The craft in fact got CRB checks which we were later told were actually illegal, it is difficult to see how illegal CRB checks would make a difference to the out comes of the two cases you are speaking about.

Again this was dealt with when Jim Todd was on FRC he would know far more than I about this.

PNB.

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

Postby john ford » Mon Apr 23, 2007 8:53 am

And what is the problem with CRB checks, if one has nothing to hide then we shouldn't have anything to worry about. A CRB check is not trying to stop you shoeing horses because of driving offences, it's there to make sure we don't have sex offenders, drug pushers, and thieves, going into yards and horse owners properties to do what the hell they like until they are caught AFTER the event has taken place. I find it appalling that so many people suffer from these people before any action is taken. Another word for this so called human rights act is ANARCHY.


Return to “horseowners discussion board”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest