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

Postby PNB » Mon Apr 23, 2007 11:22 am

John,

They were simply illegal!! There was considerable concern, obviously not from you, that this was an invasion of PRIVACY something with which the government and the bureau seemed to agree, otherwise CRBs in this instance would have been legal to apply to all 2,500 farriers.

PNB.

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

Postby Jenny Todd » Wed Apr 25, 2007 8:48 pm

Peter and John. You have every right to be concerned about human rights. As long as you don't want to be put in a position of trust then you have every right to your privacy. As soon as you cross the line and put yourself in the position of tradesman, professional, call it what you will, then you have to accept that you will be subject to certain checks. If a man can't look at the pictures he wants to in his own home, whatever your opinion of his sexual mores, and be allowed to follow the profession/trade of his choice then all other people who wish to follow that trade/profession must be willing to have their personal lives examined. Unfortunately I think that, because of the nature of a farrier's work, the CRB should be compulsory. I don't think that Miles Noble should have appointed himself to be judge and jury, any more than I think that Peter Baker or Martin Humphries should. I think that there should be clear guidelines and one of the cornerstones of these guidelines should be that anyone - ANYONE - who has been placed on the reigster of sex offenders, should be considered a risk to the public and as such should be debarred from being a farrier. Clear guidelines make good rules. Perhaps the time has come to be OBJECTIVE. Peter you are devisive and less than generous with the truth. You knew all the details of the rapist and although James did his best to bring the matter to the attention of farriers - you, and the UKHSU did nothing to support him because you considered it a domestic matter. Giles seems to be of the same opinion - if he wants a persistent offender perhaps he should call James and find out exactly what happened with this individual. Where was the union - busily polishing their shoes to be on parade at the RAF Club - suitably booted and suited according to Miles Noble's instructions - PATHETIC! What, as a horseowner, I want to hear, is do you care about the safety of me and my family or do I have to rely on pot luck - I am expected to accept a rapist but not a person who looks at pictures of young children - given the coice I know what I think but I don't want either! So wake up and come into the 21st century.

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

Postby csc » Thu Apr 26, 2007 5:52 am

jenny i hear where you are comming from and agree with you exept with your middle paraghraph putting it into context the rapist was a domestic affair between man and wife the peadophile was a public affair therefore it would be unfair to compair them as equals the latter being a threat to the public, the first not.
i do not agree with what the rapist did nor condone it
engish law says that after sentence has been passed and time served then everyone has a right to earn a living.
whould it be a responsible action for the rapist to work with his wife the, victim
likewise the peadiophile with children
i think we both agree on that point
no body has the right to say a person cant be a farrier,
but common sence and reasnobleness must not put a offending person in a place of temptation as in the peadiophiles would be if he was out shoeing especialy on his own

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

Postby PNB » Sun Apr 29, 2007 1:10 pm

Quote Jenny ,

"I am expected to accept a rapist but not a person who looks at pictures of young children".

No Jenny, you are being made to accept a man who pays for pictures of very young children being photographed in a sexually explicit manner. The cost of the purchase are for the benefit of the pervert taking the photographs [X 400+ views of helpless young children!! It is reported as young as one].

Jim was on FRC when this matter was dealt with and the other matter you refer to, not me, I didn't hear any plea for help then. By dam UKHSU are appealing for help now to do the job they feel that should have been done 3 years ago!! and all for the safety of clients children.

I was interest to read a note that the convicted man was considered not to be a danger to children when he was transferred from one ATF to another. I personally go with the expert THE JUDGE who is reported to say the man shouldn't take a job that brings him into contact with children. THE JUDGE patently considered the man was in real terms a danger.

PNB.

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

Postby Jenny Todd » Mon Apr 30, 2007 11:21 am

Peter - I am not quite sure what you are saying but I have re-read your postings on this thread and you seem to be very selective about what should and shouldn't be 'acceptable behaviour' for a farrier. You are a hypocrite Peter - but you won't find yourself before the Disciplinary Committee for that.
Stuart - I read what you wrote and it made me nauseous! I quote from a source far better informed than either you or me
"When a woman suffers rape from her husband or a man she may have known for a long time, it is hard to call him a rapist because she will feel that no one will believe her. She fears people will accuse her of corrupting a respectable man. This is because people don't realise what rape involves."
You either have no respect for women, don't understand what rape really means or are an out and out dinosaur who still believes that a wife is a chattel to be used as and when required! But all this is a distraction - I can only assume that it is a military thing that you share with Miles Noble. The victim in the case in question was, in fact, separated/estranged from the offender and the judge deemed the offence serious enough to place the farrier on the sex offenders register for an indefinite period and send him to prison for 3 years. Hardly a domestic matter. In fact the only reason that anyone thinks of this particular offence as 'domestic', is that Miles Noble referred to it as such after seemingly over-riding the court's decision that the woman should remain anonymous.
Like I said - I don't think either person is fit to be on the register but it looks like things won't change until all the old farts have moved over to make way for the 21st century.
Jenny

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

Postby PNB » Mon Apr 30, 2007 9:20 pm

Jenny,

Do you have any more back ground about this case it seems far worse than I recollect, I don't even remember seeing an official report it is difficult to recollect as that was along time ago. There is no referance to the detail recorded anywhere on the information boards as far as I can find, certainly not from Jim anyway, did he inform those that elected him?? I would like to see a copy please.

As far as I can remember the matter was concluded, done and dusted even before the Craft became aware of any circumstances. I dare say you will acquaint us if I am wrong.

PNB.

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

Postby csc » Tue May 01, 2007 5:50 am

jenny i made it quite clear that i did not condone rape
as you are well informed of this case in question and the judicial outcome you have kept this to yourself as peter says this is a new revalation can you expand on this

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

Postby Jenny Todd » Thu May 03, 2007 10:42 am

Peter and Stuart. My information is nothing to do with James - the trial was reported in the Southampton Echo, Saturday 22 December, 2001 under the headline "Sex fiend caged for three years after brutal rape" - perhaps you should get a copy and read it before you pass the judgements you have. I am a horseowner and member of public and resent your continued insinuations that I know what I know because of James - my information is all in the public domain.
Stuart - surely it is worse to be raped by someone known to you - albeit you are estranged from them? Rape is as much to do with power as sex - and rapists are just dangerous bullies.

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

Postby csc » Fri May 04, 2007 5:25 am

i dont know jenny you seem to know everything

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

Postby Jenny Todd » Sat May 05, 2007 8:46 am

If it is something that I'm really concerned about I spend a lot of time researching before I take any action. It is amazing the information that is in the PUBLIC domain - which is why I resent the snide comments about how I know things. And tittle tattle is very dangerous Stuart, which is why I don't go there.

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

Postby PNB » Sat May 05, 2007 10:45 am

Jenny,

Please send me your link address to the Southampton Echo for the 22nd Dec 2001. Google can't help!! More detailed searches of the net don't throw up anything either. It may help if you could send me the specific items address as it is not list on 22nd Dec 01 on the papers web site.

I have located A Southern Evening Echo at Southampton, but the office that deals with back issues is never open.

Best send details by email please, as this man has servered his sanction!! and I do not wish to get involved in a "WITCH HUNT".

pnbaker@tiscali.co.uk

Thanks.

PNB.

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

Postby Jenny Todd » Sun May 06, 2007 9:22 am

Please explain Peter - you're not making any sense.

Best send details by email please, as this man has servered his sanction!! and I do not wish to get involved in a "WITCH HUNT".

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

Postby PNB » Sun May 06, 2007 11:39 am

Quite simply Jenny, the man has done his time and served his lawful sanction!! To post his name on the Internet would be preposterous.

The decision that Jim was involved in to allow him to stay on the register is another matter however. It is that decision that should be judged the offender having already been dealt with through the courts by way of the law of the land and sentenced by a JUDGE!!

Absent background information on the detail of your complaint is needed before any assessment of the decision for him to continue to be a farrier can be advanced. I cannot find the detail in the Southampton Echo to which you refer, you could always post it to UKHSU by snail mail.

The other alternative would be by way of a formal complaint direct to FRC about this decision directed from a member of the public. A complaints avenue that didn't exist until very recently.

PNB.

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

Postby Jenny Todd » Sun May 06, 2007 3:39 pm

Peter - what a load of rubbish you write! James was not involved in any decision regarding this farrier, the matter was 'dealt with' as you put it, by the Investigating Committee. My complaint was lodged with the FRC under the appropriate procedures. I am not complaining to you Peter - why would I - I'm just highlighting your lack of depth of knowlege and unwillingness to get off your backside and find out the truth? I am merely pointing out that you are a hypocrite with dual standards, as is Martin Admin Humphreys. You do not want a man who has been convicted of looking at child pornography on the register but you are content that a violent rapist is! I call that callous as I do the continued mention of James - it's nothing to do with him.
As far as the article is concerned, I drove down to the Southampton area and found the information there - perhaps you should try that, after all there is life outside the internet. Or perhaps you should write to the Southampton Echo and ask for a copy of that edition. Don't call me a liar Peter - you, of all people. We all know who pulls your strings and he isn't even a registered farrier.

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

Postby PNB » Tue May 08, 2007 4:51 am

Jenny,

Thank you for your postings and outlines of this matter, which gives all the readers of The Horses Mouth an insight into the distressing way you regard this.

I would be grateful for a photostat copy of the Southampton Echo press report you refer to in order to think about what further action is required.

Your comments have been placed before another elected member of FRC as I feel your personal attitude in my regard will prohibit me from forming a constructive over view of this matter.

PNB.

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

Postby Jenny Todd » Fri May 11, 2007 6:11 pm

Peter - I can't think why you should say that. I am not complaining to you - I am highlighting the hypocracy of you and Martin (Admin) Humphreys with regard to sex offenders. If you say you didn't know the full circumstances regarding the rapist then I wonder what else you have not fully understood before you go into print and start attacking people. What I am saying is that you are an ill informed fool who is unable to view issues objectively. You are so busy with your personal attacks on the likes of me (remember calling me a bunny boiler?) that you fail to see the true importance of what is going on around you. Miles Noble may be a thorn in your side but you do neither yourself or the UKHSU any favours when you start ranting and spluttering. I am a member of public - it would be improper of you, or any other member of the FRC to act on my behalf. I have complained and received the answer. I don't need YOU to help ME, however, your inability to establish contact with a local newspaper, seems to indicate to me that YOU need MY help. GOOGLE it Peter - you'll find what you're looking for.

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

Postby csc » Sat May 12, 2007 5:52 am

jenny you always start with a thought provoking topic for discussion but end up throwing your toys out the pram You are the hypocrit and the one that ends up slagging everyone else off chill babe

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

Postby Giles » Sat May 12, 2007 6:02 am

Jenny,
What we seem to have from you is a lot of vindictive carping. You don’t have to attack individual people to highlight a subject, but it seems to me and I am sure others that it is your whole reason for posting. I don’t know what a bunny boiler is but you seem to remember the phrase rather well probably long after the words were uttered, which after some mind searching were said by Stuart so I have been reliably informed. The ranting a raving and spluttering on your part does your case no good, that is if you have one, one would be hard pushed to know if there is any substance in amongst all the innuendo and irrelevant sarcasm. Your help would indeed be appreciated, if indeed that is what it is intended to be, but I have my doubts about this. I think you have another agenda, and attacking anyone seems to be part of it. What you see as hypocrisy is just a different point of view, the fact that it is not yours seems to upset you and excessively so it seems, perhaps before you continue this vendetta it would be best to examine what is driving you.

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

Postby Jenny Todd » Mon May 14, 2007 6:03 pm

Stuart and Gile - no toys, no pram. I raised this issue because I think it is wholly unacceptable to have a convicted rapist on the register, and because I was incensed by Miles Noble's breaking of confidence in publicising the relationship (albeit defunct) of the victim with the rapist in the original H & H article. What made me revive the discussion was the hypocritical comments made by Martin (Admin) Humphreys and Peter Baker - seems that they are selective in their condemnation of sex offenders. I HATE any hypocrite and am not one. I have never altered my opinion or comments. REGISTERED SEX OFFENDERS SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM THE REGISTER OF FARRIERS - where do you all stand, Peter, Giles and Martin. Let's just have a straightforward answer. It is entirely your opinion and if you disagree, that's your perogative but you cannot be judge and jury on all things - neither can you sit on the fence and jump either way to try to score some quasi-political points. I don't carp, I get on and do something - perhaps you should all try stepping outside your comfort zone sometimes, its quite invigorating!

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

Postby csc » Tue May 15, 2007 5:35 am

all sex ofenders are a possible risk to the public and you have a good point .a sex offender is a sex offender whether rapist or peadiophile
you want to take a black and white view of this others think each case should be taken on there merrit.
on one hand we have a farrier that has comitted a sex crime and been found guilty on the other hand we have someone that is a member of the public again guilty of a sex crime beeing activly encouraged and sponsered to start a course in farriery
the law of the land says everyone is entitled to work
is it therefore responsible to activly encorage someone who is sexully turned on by a situation that he will possibly encounter on a daily basis openly knowing that this will be a temptation whether peadiophile or rapist

kitty
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 11:13 am
Location: South Glos

Postby kitty » Mon May 21, 2007 5:41 pm

Quite a worrying article, especially for parents of young children. Perhaps this person should have to inform his clients of his offence so they can judge for themselves or take precautions rather than leaving it too late.

Unfortunately, unlike other crimes, paedophiles are always paedophiles, it's not something that is treatable or goes away. :cry:

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

Postby Jenny Todd » Thu May 31, 2007 5:41 pm

Kitty
You are quite right in what you say however, the same applies to most violent sex offenders as well. I am sure that if Stuart did his research he'd realise that just as some people are turned on by children and young people, others get their rocks off by bullying, dominating and hurting others, sometimes to the point of death. I can't see that either can have a defence or an excuse. Perhaps the rapist has been practising his perversions for years but it took one brave woman to stand up to him. I can't see what the date of the offence has to do with anything. A sex offender is a sex offender and we don't need them to have the opportunity to be put in a position of trust with our families - however good a farrier they may be.

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

Postby Jenny Todd » Wed Jun 13, 2007 10:04 pm

Peter

You said 'Your comments have been placed before another elected member of FRC as I feel your personal attitude in my regard will prohibit me from forming a constructive over view of this matter.'
I never heard a word!! But you have a healthy disdain for horseowners unless they are racehorse owners - but there again you're just a plater aren't you?
Jenny Todd

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

Postby Giles » Thu Jun 14, 2007 5:23 am

Please jenny,
Your remarks are very sad and from what I can see a very sad person. If you havesomething constructive to say, then say it, if not shut up and take your ball home.

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

Postby Jenny Todd » Sat Jun 30, 2007 8:33 pm

Well its not usually my style Giles but this one is too good to miss. I have no ball - but it strikes me that neither has Peter or most of his other cronies and at least I have an excuse! Lol x

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

Postby Giles » Sun Jul 01, 2007 5:42 am

Jenny,
You may have an excuse; I wouldn’t know or care really without the facts, and before you give them, don’t. Anyway, biased and one sided opinions are no help, and convince no one. Your assumptions that all others are wrong because you have an excuse hardly makes you convincing. In fact judgement that is clouded by a perceived injustice that apparently only you know about hardly adds weight to your arguments, or makes you an authority, just the oposite in fact.

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

Postby Jenny Todd » Tue Jul 03, 2007 8:04 pm

Giles - you seem to have entirely missed my point - never mind, phone a friend. I have an opinion as I am entitled to, the facts are that the judge in the case of the rapist and clearly the jury, also seemed to agree - in this case the offender was sent prison and put on the sex offenders register. I think it is you who believes you are the one who knows best (oh and Peter Baker and the other cronies). It doesn't matter how hard you try to justify it - the man is a convicted rapist, on the register of sex offenders but not now on the register of farriers - but that certainly won't mean that he is no longer shoeing! Perhaps the farrier representatives should pursue that avenue. But I forget, you are not on the register either now that you are 'retired'!
Quite straightforward really - no secrets - no bullying - you should try it sometime.
Jenny


Return to “horseowners discussion board”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest