egafd.com

A Cornish farmer was given a 2 year prison sentence yesterday at Taunton Crown Court for holding a female vet's head under the surface of a slurry pit for some considerable time (very pleasant!). The sentence seems to me to be unduly lenient anyway, but it is especially so when one considers this individual has an absolutely appalling criminal record dating back over thirty years. The offences were mainly for extreme animal cruelty. He was disqualified from keeping any animals but was allowed to do so openly on his farm even though he made no attempt to look after them. Regarding the assault on the vet. He was found guilty of affray. I believe this offence carries very heavy penalties. Some may wonder why the judge did not impose a much lengthier sentence.

Probably because the actual harm done was so little (apart from the smell, and the hurt feelings), although I agree there must probably have been a more serious intent.
Wasn't this the guy that the RSPCA said was the worst animal cruelty offender they'd ever come across?
And wouldn't it be interesting to draw the conclusion that the way we treat animals parallels the way we treat (or would like to treat) humans?

Yes he is the guy labelled 'the cruellest farmer in Britain'. I am surprised that as the judge had the opportunity to put him out of circulation for a long time, he did not take it.

They probably belonged to the same Lodge.

Mart

If you apportion the sentence to "the ammount of harm done" then it was indeed a harsh sentence when compared to the recent incident, where an illegal immigrant was given 6 months for causing the death of a young boy by dangerous driving. No licence, tax, mot or insurance.
The initial charge of manslaughter remains against the other 2 illegals. But surprisingly they've fled the country whilst on bail!
Punishment to fit the crime? It's a joke........but who's laughing?

And let me guess...she's probably going out with him now and saying " He doesn't mean to hurt me. Its only cause he loves me so much. "

Dean
( a dead loss with the chicks )

Although I agree with you regarding this particular case because there were many aggravating circumstances such as no insurance, one has to be careful regarding sentences that result from fatal accidents. Because someone dies as a result of an accident does not necessarily mean that the driving which resulted in that accident was particularly bad although a charge of causing death by dangerous driving would tend to indicate that the driving was dangerous. Some organisations, notably ACPO, have difficulty accepting that there is such a thing as an accident, but plainly there is. If someone is delibrately killed by use of a motor vehicle then the appropriate charge is murder. I am far from sure that attempted murder would not have been a more suitable charge for the farmer. Also he was a serial offender who, I understand, had previous for assault as well as animal cruelty. Therefore I maintain his sentence was unduly lenient.

I agree that accidents do happen, although someone/something is usually culpable in that accident.
As for the farmer in the opening thread, I must agree with you that as he was a convicted serial violent offender I'm also puzzled as to why the charge wasn't attempted murder. So yes, the sentence was far from fitting the crime.

Going back to my earlier point- there does seem to be a tenuous connection between animal cruelty and subsequent sadism- e.g. your archetypal psychopath is fond at an early age of pulling the wings off flies, graduating to torturing kittens, as an apparent rehearsal for later misdeeds...........