|
|
Post by aghast on Mar 16, 2016 21:09:15 GMT
You weren't "merely asking". You were denigrating him and his well-respected source, which has been documenting cruelty issues for almost 30 years now, which is in itself condescending.
|
|
|
|
Post by darkbluegas on Mar 17, 2016 0:22:52 GMT
You weren't "merely asking". You were denigrating him and his well-respected source, which has been documenting cruelty issues for almost 30 years now, which is in itself condescending. I'm sure Thomas is capable of speaking for himself on the matter. I merely sought to bring my first hand experience and feelings on the matter to the fore. In the principe of "best evidence" , that is, first hand knowledge, I thought it only fair to make the point in defence of the allegation of cruelty. I was hoping some similar views from Thomas may be forthcoming. All to often it's thought that the second hand experience others, if displayed on a website makes it the undeniable truth. It would then be interesting to hear first hand accounts of cruelty and how those allegations were dealt with. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2016 6:31:47 GMT
What I find interesting about horse racing is that you're allowed to beat a horse with a whip till it cant run anymore, and dies of a heart attack. Then a few years back a jockey head-butted a horse because the horse wasn't listening to him, the jockey then got a ban!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2016 6:34:01 GMT
Just had a look and the jockey was Paul O'Neil.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Mar 17, 2016 8:31:52 GMT
You weren't "merely asking". You were denigrating him and his well-respected source, which has been documenting cruelty issues for almost 30 years now, which is in itself condescending. I'm sure Thomas is capable of speaking for himself on the matter. I merely sought to bring my first hand experience and feelings on the matter to the fore. In the principe of "best evidence" , that is, first hand knowledge, I thought it only fair to make the point in defence of the allegation of cruelty. I was hoping some similar views from Thomas may be forthcoming. All to often it's thought that the second hand experience others, if displayed on a website makes it the undeniable truth. It would then be interesting to hear first hand accounts of cruelty and how those allegations were dealt with. First hand evidence isn't always the best and most reliable. It depends on the source and how it's first hand. Look at how many different opinions you get of a single incident at a football match. I would suggest that at times 1st hand evidence can be more unreliable than a gathering of evidence that is then disseminated 3rd hand. If I ask a PETA member who watches a race and a jockey who also watches a race I will get 2 very different stories of the same event. It's entirely possible that things that you think are fine because you are surrounded by like minded people may be considered cruel by onlookers right? The same goes for the onlookers. They may think it's cruel, but in reality it's not a problem. |
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Mar 17, 2016 9:40:08 GMT
Another 80ks of sausage you mean? Don't laugh, it's not funny. That photo looks as though it was taken when she was in a good mood.  If you look closely you can just about see the fez under what's left of the stool. |
|
|
|
Post by darkbluegas on Mar 17, 2016 18:48:47 GMT
I'm sure Thomas is capable of speaking for himself on the matter. I merely sought to bring my first hand experience and feelings on the matter to the fore. In the principe of "best evidence" , that is, first hand knowledge, I thought it only fair to make the point in defence of the allegation of cruelty. I was hoping some similar views from Thomas may be forthcoming. All to often it's thought that the second hand experience others, if displayed on a website makes it the undeniable truth. It would then be interesting to hear first hand accounts of cruelty and how those allegations were dealt with. First hand evidence isn't always the best and most reliable. It depends on the source and how it's first hand. Look at how many different opinions you get of a single incident at a football match. I would suggest that at times 1st hand evidence can be more unreliable than a gathering of evidence that is then disseminated 3rd hand. If I ask a PETA member who watches a race and a jockey who also watches a race I will get 2 very different stories of the same event. It's entirely possible that things that you think are fine because you are surrounded by like minded people may be considered cruel by onlookers right? The same goes for the onlookers. They may think it's cruel, but in reality it's not a problem. I would dispute the fact that first hand evidence isn't always the best evidence. It being an established principle in English Law. Hopefully you will maintain your sanguine view should you ever find yourself on trial answering charges based on hearsay evidence. Thankfully my views on the matter haven't come from me surrounding myself with like minded people but discussing the matter with people from both sides of the argument. if people feel so strongly on the matter you will no doubt feel it's appropriate to encourage supporters to petition our board to seek the removal of skybet as a sponsor of the league we play in. |
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on Mar 17, 2016 19:27:10 GMT
First hand evidence isn't always the best and most reliable. It depends on the source and how it's first hand. Look at how many different opinions you get of a single incident at a football match. I would suggest that at times 1st hand evidence can be more unreliable than a gathering of evidence that is then disseminated 3rd hand. If I ask a PETA member who watches a race and a jockey who also watches a race I will get 2 very different stories of the same event. It's entirely possible that things that you think are fine because you are surrounded by like minded people may be considered cruel by onlookers right? The same goes for the onlookers. They may think it's cruel, but in reality it's not a problem. I would dispute the fact that first hand evidence isn't always the best evidence. It being an established principle in English Law. Hopefully you will maintain your sanguine view should you ever find yourself on trial answering charges based on hearsay evidence. Thankfully my views on the matter haven't come from me surrounding myself with like minded people but discussing the matter with people from both sides of the argument. if people feel so strongly on the matter you will no doubt feel it's appropriate to encourage supporters to petition our board to seek the removal of skybet as a sponsor of the league we play in. So for clarity, if one of our players gets sent off and you were not there would you believe one of your mates at the game if they said it was unfair or a different mate who was also there but he said the player deserved to go? Or do you accept that all first hand evidence is reliable and believe both? I don't feel particularly strongly about horse racing personally since I do not have enough information or knowledge about it either way and certainly not enough to petition our board about sponsorship. |
|
|
|
Post by darkbluegas on Mar 17, 2016 19:56:55 GMT
No, I would assess the views of both if they had both attended the game. Establish who had the best view and the state of their eyesight and then come to a balanced view. What I wouldn't do is assess the matter based on what somebody, who didn't see the incident, tells me, but recounts the original witnesses view. That would be hearsay and isn't contestable as that third party can't be cross examined.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2016 19:57:38 GMT
First hand evidence isn't always the best and most reliable. It depends on the source and how it's first hand. Look at how many different opinions you get of a single incident at a football match. I would suggest that at times 1st hand evidence can be more unreliable than a gathering of evidence that is then disseminated 3rd hand. If I ask a PETA member who watches a race and a jockey who also watches a race I will get 2 very different stories of the same event. It's entirely possible that things that you think are fine because you are surrounded by like minded people may be considered cruel by onlookers right? The same goes for the onlookers. They may think it's cruel, but in reality it's not a problem. I would dispute the fact that first hand evidence isn't always the best evidence. It being an established principle in English Law. Hopefully you will maintain your sanguine view should you ever find yourself on trial answering charges based on hearsay evidence. Thankfully my views on the matter haven't come from me surrounding myself with like minded people but discussing the matter with people from both sides of the argument. if people feel so strongly on the matter you will no doubt feel it's appropriate to encourage supporters to petition our board to seek the removal of skybet as a sponsor of the league we play in. Just listen to two different accounts of the same accident. The police will tell you quite often they will get two different stories. I once read that during bank jobs, with numerous witnesses, you would get numerous different accounts of the same crime. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2016 19:58:13 GMT
Don't laugh, it's not funny. That photo looks as though it was taken when she was in a good mood. If you look closely you can just about see the fez under what's left of the stool. ** speechless ** |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2016 21:16:34 GMT
Don't laugh, it's not funny. That photo looks as though it was taken when she was in a good mood. If you look closely you can just about see the fez under what's left of the stool. She couldn't see where she was parking her arse, she sat on the fez, you can clearly see it on her ass. |
|
