http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-17567956

 LL.B (Hons) - University of Derby
LOT (Lord of Time) - University of Gallifrey

idiots? you're being generous ...

Be true to yourself. That way happiness lies...

piattj wrote:

idiots? you're being generous

They can be filed with the couple this week

who called the police because their £10k cannabis plant stash got stolen

Last edited by npinks on 30th Mar 2012 7:53 pm. Edited 1 time in total

I wouldn't be quite so harsh. I adore dogs and my collie joins me where ever possible, so I'm never going to condone cruelty, but this looks more like the sad consequences of someone's heart being in the right place, but turning into a misguided, stupid and very sad end - rather than deliberate cruelty.

Such a shame for all concerned

Tigger is right, they probably have the best of intentions, very quickly gets out of control and then they don't know any way out and just cope.
Doc, your studying law, a man lays slain on the ground, another man stands over him with a knife in his hand, what is he guilty of? Need all the facts first

Valid points and my comment was of course exaggerated. In fact this story did not annoy me anywhere near as much as some which I have read about before.

Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea

An act is not necessarily a guilty act unless it is accompanied by a guilty mind.

Enough guilt here to prosecute them with though. Very sad state of affairs. LL.B (Hons) - University of Derby
LOT (Lord of Time) - University of Gallifrey

Exaggerated?
I see.
Clarior et Tenibris. Another member of the failed FL2 clutch/DMF club, twice.

Indeed Sir  LL.B (Hons) - University of Derby
LOT (Lord of Time) - University of Gallifrey

It seems, on the basis of the article, that this couple caused harm, suffering & risk to a lot of animals and seemed not to take any actions to mitigate the situation. It's sad, and they may not have had ill intentions, but they don't seem to have managed this menagerie well. The law is right to step in and prevent them doing it again. ...

Be true to yourself. That way happiness lies...

Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea

An act is not necessarily a guilty act unless it is accompanied by a guilty mind.

Does that mean that, if caught speeding, one can claim not to have had a guilty mind, and thus evade punishment? ...

Be true to yourself. That way happiness lies...

I haven't covered speeding as a subject but my answer to that would be no. It seems to me that it would be a strict liability offence. The responsibility is on the driver to drive safely and within the speed limits and if a speed camera proved excessive speeding then saying I didn't intend to speed wouldn't cut it.

The phrase says 'not necessarily' as opposed to definitely

Same would apply to excess alcohol offences I would expect LL.B (Hons) - University of Derby
LOT (Lord of Time) - University of Gallifrey