Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13

Thread: Horrible, Horrible, Horrible!!

  1. #1

    Default Horrible, Horrible, Horrible!!

    Ugh, just when I think I've seen the lowest of the low... things like this pop up.
    Last edited by Candidheartbeat; 07-25-2012 at 08:56 AM. Reason: Fixing Link

  2. #2


    The link is broken I think

  3. #3

  4. #4


    Unfortunately this is what happens when you turn any animal into a consumer product to be bought and sold in a store. I would say that under current laws she has a pretty strong case.

  5. #5


    Doesn't make it any less wrong, or horrible. I'm not talking from a legal standpoint, I'm talking about from a morale standpoint. At least I find it to be wrong, and heartless.

  6. #6


    Yeah, the woman is clearly a psychopath. I don't believe pets should be subject to different laws though, cruelty to animals should always be severely punished.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2010


    This is clearly going to be a test case, and will probably make it all the way to the top of the legal tree with appeals from either side, depending upon the outcome.

    Unfortuantely, there is an argument that if puppies are her 'commodity', then in order to dispose of unwanted stock, she has the right to decide what manner of destruction she uses in order to achieve the disposal.

    {And that sentence just made me want to gag}

    However, she will have to produce significant, justifiable evidence that her income is derived solely from the 'manufacture' of puppies... tax returns, proof of like prior 'disposals' {jaysus}, write down of 'assets' etc... I'm not sure that this argument is one she can win, but it will certainly stymie the legality of her prosectution until the Courts decide on her rights to her 'stock in trade'... possibly for years.

    And then there will be the appeals, if she wins her claims, or if she doesn't.

    Luckily, the law does give Justices some discretion in the way that statutes, legislation and tax law are applied {her insistance that the puppies are her stock will involve the ATO as they will need to rule on whether or not puppies are 'livestock' under the current Tax Act. However, she would still be bound by livestock trading methods for ethical destruction of animals... If they do rule in that manner, then her case will have merit, and a Court will hear the case accepting of her defense, making succesful prosecution extremely unlikely).

    Then a further problem comes in the form of precendent. If there is a precedent for a similar defence being upheld by the judicial system either here or in Britain, then there is a far higher chance that her defence will be upheld... the hope is that her case will be heard by a Justice who is familiar with animal cruelty cases and a track record of offender consequnces.

    Even with an ATO ruling on livestock, she would be bound by the code of practise applicable to livestock and specifically the ethical destruction of same... it will be up to her to be able to demonstrate that death by drowning is a sound method of destruction as applicable to the puppies being livestock, and on this point alone I think she will have great difficulty finding any expert willing to back her in a Court, as they would probably be committing professional suicide.

    Then there is also the legislatve amendments that would occur to the livestock {Live Animal Trade} legislation to protect against future acts of a similar nature.

    I just can't see her argument winning.

    I hope, anyways.

    All in all, this woman needs to be removed from the gene pool... preferably sooner rather than later.
    Last edited by Pinkest; 07-25-2012 at 11:42 AM.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Sunshine Coast


    Someone should tie a brick to her neck and throw her in the river!!

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Victoria, Australia


    Thats not cool
    No one loves you like your dog does.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2009


    Unfortuantely, there is an argument that if puppies are her 'commodity', then in order to dispose of unwanted stock, she has the right to decide what manner of destruction she uses in order to achieve the disposal
    Not in Australia. The manner has to be considered "humane" and not in violation of the various animal welfare acts around the country. So drowning is out. Starving to death is also out.

    The ideal is lethal injection of anaesthetic (or equivalent) by a qualified vet. But shooting in the head is still allowed - as per a recent problem with a hunter valley council where they were shooting dogs at the dump by way of "humane" killing. About as much fun as what they do overseas to our live animal exports.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts