Kurt Zouma | Fined £250k by club and cats removed by RSPCA

[Mr Kobayashi]

It's necessary as hopefully it gives both of the animal abusing tossers a criminal record and stops them owning animals for a few years. West Ham to their shame might want to brush it under the carpet and wish it would disappear, this ensures it won't.

That isn't something that comes automatically with a conviction it is at the discretion of Magistrates/District judge. And would more likely be for a defined period rather than from owning animals for life.

They probably got their noses put out of joint because they weren't one of the animal charities who received Zouma's fine as a donation.

 

[mexico1970]

Bang on, I would deport the fuckers too, pieces of shit.

If you do it to animals it a short walk to humans.

Born in London mate :)

I see what you mean though, maybe we should deport them to the isle of Dogs?

 

[paulchapo]

Bang on, I would deport the fuckers too, pieces of shit.

If you do it to animals it a short walk to humans.

Well I wouldn't go as far as deporting them but yes animal abusers aren't normally nice people and often go on to abuse humans. The disturbing thing is they thought it was funny and acceptable, that's why they felt safe posting it

 

[paulchapo]

That isn't something that comes automatically with a conviction it is at the discretion of Magistrates/District judge. And would more likely be for a defined period rather than from owning animals for life.

They probably got their noses put out of joint because they weren't one of the animal Charities who received a fine.

I never said for life but I would imagine if convicted it's almost mandatory a banning order is given.

They brought the charge because they're both on film terrifying and hitting a defenceless animal, that's good enough for me. I'm surprised it took them so long though.

 

[ganganvince]

Born in London mate :)

I see what you mean though, maybe we should deport them to the isle of Dogs?

Thought he was born in Lyon?

 

[mexico1970]

Thought he was born in Lyon?

Same difference mate, some foreign place :)

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

I never said for life but I would imagine if convicted it's almost mandatory a banning order is given.

They brought the charge because they're both on film terrifying and hitting a defenceless animal, that's good enough for me. I'm surprised it took them so long though.

No it isn't. It is at the discretion of the court as I've told you numerous times.

Here is an example.

Barker v RSPCA - Guidance on Animal Welfare Act disqualification orders | Ashfords

Cases involving animal welfare evoke strong emotions in those who hear about them, and they regularly appear in the news.

www.ashfords.co.uk

 

[paulchapo]

No it isn't. It is at the discretion of the court as I've told you numerous times.

Here is an example.

Barker v RSPCA - Guidance on Animal Welfare Act disqualification orders | Ashfords

Cases involving animal welfare evoke strong emotions in those who hear about them, and they regularly appear in the news.

www.ashfords.co.uk

If you read the part you've highlighted from my post it says ALMOST mandatory, not IS. I go on local cases I've read over the years, thankfully not plentiful. Most of those involved the convicted person being banned from keeping animals for a period of time.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

If you read the part you've highlighted from my post it says ALMOST mandatory, not IS. I go on local cases I've read over the years, thankfully not plentiful. Most of those involved the convicted person being banned from keeping animals for a period of time.

Which makes no sense, so I ignored it. Unless you have been studiously reading all court reports (even those not reported in the press but listed online) then that probably gives you a false picture, as you would be unlikely to read the less severe offences as they are less likely to receive attention.

 

[paulchapo]

Which makes no sense, so I ignored it. Unless you have been studiously reading all court reports (even those not reported in the press but listed online) then that probably gives you a false picture, as you would be unlikely to read the less severe offences as they are less likely to receive attention.

Mate, I really can't be bothered to delve so deeply into all the court cases and results it's not that important to me. You've pulled a case up and posted it, I said I've seen plenty where the convicted were banned from keeping any animals for a period of time. Like all court cases nothing is cut and dried.