Insist

There was a case a few months back in which a guy went to prison for not getting his dog veterinary treatment for a massive tumour. You may even remember it. His reason for not doing seemed to be born out of a fear that the vet would advise that the dog be PTS.

I’d have to dig back on the case to fully remind myself but I remember thinking at the time how strange it was that he should go to prison when so many like Frankish do not. Surely we must try to make a distinction here between what is abuse, what is neglect and what is sadism?

I think intentions are extremely important. When person A does thing B -what was their intention, what was their motive? In the case of the guy whose dog had that tumour it could be said that while his actions were certainly neglectful that his intentions were not cruelty or sadism.
I’ve heard of cases where someone attached to an elderly relative has been unable to altert authorities right away as they psychologically cannot let go of the body.

Someone who is neglectful is not always sadistic and they may not even always be all bad. They may just be lazy, a bit stupid, they may never have been shown the right way or a better way. Not to mention the fact that neglect itself is a very broad church.
There is a vast difference between person A) Their dog has a good life but they neglect to walk it as much as they could and person B) The person goes off partying for a week and neglects to make provisions of food, water and care for their pets.

B is pretty much bordering on sadism in that example since there is a foreknowledge that staying out for a week and not feeding pets is going to cause direct and immediate suffering.

I would imagine that a large % of cases the RSPCA deal with relate to something in the range of B.
However, even that is in itself distinct from what I can only describe as zoosadism. I have spent months looking around for the thing that best fits the sort of actions carried out by Frankish and the only thing that really ticked the boxes was this thing called zoosadism.

There is actually a dearth of information and data about this particular and specific pathology but it does exist – it is a real thing. There are probably those who to this day never witnessed the video evidence. If you did then you will realise why I place what they did into this distinct category.
I would like to see a great deal more study and time put into this phenomenon. You can greatly slow something down with a good range of punishments and preventions, but to defeat the problem you must  comprehend it.
Place different levels of neglect to one side for a second. Neglect can always be dealt with by a combination of measures. If you raise the quality of owner you will get less neglect. If you educate society into seeing having a dog as a privilege that they have to show they are able to safely own, then you get less neglect.

Most cases of neglect happen when people buy pets on a whim, imo. The results and outcomes of it can be devastating but for now lets leave conventional neglect to one side and agree its a problem.
Because there aren’t really fine distinctions in ‘pet abuse’ it is very hard to determine what % of them fall into what we could fairly agree as a definite examples of zoosadism. However, I would conservatively estimate that perhaps 2-3% of all cases that the RSPCA deal with might fall into that bracket.

In the murky world of pet abuse the flat out zoosadist is a minority within it. With that being said, if the RSPCA are dealing with 150,000 cases every year and 2-3% of those were indeed zoosadists then it would still be a disturbingly large minority. You’re still looking at two or three thousand individuals each year whose acts are specifically that of a zoosadist. And that is only those who come to light.

When you see how deeply disturbing the zoosadist is by way of seeing the video evidence then a person would have to be brain dead to allow such a person to just walk among normal people.

The pathology of the zoosadist isn’t some one off thing any more than the pathology of a paedophile is a one day deal. In both cases there is something deeply and inherently wrong with how that person was wired up and how they developed. Genetics probably play a part and environment will play a part, but the end result is that it produced these absolute monsters whose actions are so off the scale abhorrent that I did not even realise such actions existed.

The specific and sole aim of the zoosadist is only to cause suffering. Directly. The zoosadist is not neglectful as such. They can be but its not their main motive.
They are also not a victim of circumstance, perhaps taking on too many pets and just getting overwhelmed by it all.

They do not even have the excuse that there is some financial motive. Not that such a thing would be a valid excuse but in the case of dog fighting circles it is clear that vast betting is the main motive for these brutal fights. If you removed the money from dog fights then they’d probably be putting their money on something else, anything else.
Of all the different kinds of animal abuser I would strongly suggest that the most dangerous of all is the zoosadist. It is for that reason I would love to see many more studies done on that specific pathology and it is for that reason that I would even argue for zoosadism being a distinct charge from neglect, bad decision making, etc.
Once you spend a bit of time reading up what studies do exist out there on the subject you soon see why it is a matter of national urgency that general sentences aren’t just increased but that special emphasis is placed on this phenomenon.
Since the numbers of outright zoosadists would make up the smallest % of overall pet abuse it really would be no stretch for them to be treated as a distinct group and at least begin out by giving them the most years and the most post prison monitoring.

There is just something so dangerously insane about these individuals that you cannot possibly just lump it in with general neglect and less serious types of abuse.

I think that when we do so we almost permit future child killers and murderers go free without ever fully understanding that’s what they are.

If it is understood that zoosadists are a distinct and pernicious category of their own then early intervention in cases of it + serious consequences could prevent a greater tragedy further down the line.

As far as I am aware a criminal record does not remain with you for life unless perhaps the crimes fall into certain categories. But if you did a small burglary back in 1998 then I think you are then entitled not to declare it, I believe it is formally a case of the slate being clean.

As things stand the actions of the zoosadist today need not be declared by them if asked by a future employer etc, once a certain period of years passes. Why? Because I do not think you can currently be convicted of zoosadism, even if zoosadism is what has been done. I am certain that the most you’d get charged with is general animal cruelty or weflare violations and that allows the zoosadist to sort of blend in with the general scum.

Law can be really slow to catch up in this way. The crime of rape is a good example. When is rape not a rape? When the victim is male. Scottish and English law are different and things may have changed now, but I am sure that for long enough there was no crime of rape against a man. Even when a man was clearly raped!
Even ‘paedophile’ is a bit misunderstood. You cannot be convicted for ‘being’ a paedophile as such. You can be convicted of sexual offences against children, you can certainly be convicted of rape and molesation but as far as I am aware you cannot be convicted just for having the pathology that a paedophile would have. You need to somehow turn the pathology into some sort of action before it crosses over into a crime.
I actually think ‘paedophile’ is perhaps one of the most over used and misunderstood words of the past ten years.

A true paedophile is someone who has a twisted interest in pre pubescent children. I think I see where confusion comes in because you are technically a child in this country until you are about 17.

A true paedophile tends not to have an interest in targets that ‘old’. A true paedophile is not creeping around trying to win over some 15yr old girl. As a rule a true paedophile is only interested in targets aged 12 or much younger.

I think that when we over use and misuse the term we may somewhat do a disservice to the distinct victims of paeodphilia. When society calls some guy of 25 a “paedo” for trying to get himself a g/f that is 15 I cannot help but to think it detracts somewhat from the toddler being abused that night.
That’s why I say these distinctions should be made clear. A zoosadist is not just a pet abuser. They are something more (or something less, depends how you view it).

An individual whose victims are children (as an example) aged four is clearly and obviously distinct from some chancer trying his luck with a girl of 15.
That is not to excuse the general pet abuser or those guitly of neglect, nor is it to excuse the creep trying it on with girls that are clearly under age.

But there could be some hope for the creep that tries to chat up girls of 15. Its entirely possible that they may end up with a g/f and forget all about chasing such young girls. They may even get a g/f that is 16 and that would be fine for them. They are light years removed from the true paedophile who targets small children that cannot possibly have the cognitive skills to understand what the hell is going on. That latter group are the absolute scum of the earth and it disgusts me that they are EVER allowed to be free. I would give all of them life and they are fortunate to be granted that.

There might be hope for the clueless moron whose neglect wound him or her in court on an animal welfare charge.

Why not just open their eyes and LOOK at the cases. Its not exactly rocket science to determine whether something is zoosadism or neglect. Maybe the latter could gradually and ever so slowly be a more responsible person in time. Maybe in about ten years, once they really sort their life out, they could start off small with a goldfish – see how that goes.
The zoosadist? No. That is a deep part of them that cannot be coached back out. I would challenge any psychiatrist in the UK to show me a zoosadist that they have cured and how they know he is cured.
There is something so uniquely disturbing that motivates them that it is imperative that a responsible Government would reflect this dinstinction in law.

I see no reason why you cannot have generally tougher sentences for neglect and general abuse and then special attention given to anyone convicted of zoosadism.

I see no reason why zoosadists cant be deemed criminally insane and held for longer on those grounds. How are they NOT insane? Their actions and motives by definition are insanity manifest. This means they are walking around with that insanity not far below the surface. And you don’t even know who most of them are. For every Frankish zoosadist that dominated the press for months there have been thousands whose faces and names would be totally unknown to you now. Even if they appeared at the time they soon were forgotten.

Where do they all go, where do all those that didn’t get this focus vanish back to? If there are 3,000 cases of zoosadism each year then precisely where are those 3,000+ offenders going if not to prison?

The answer is very clear and very easy.
They are your neighbours
They are your tenants
They are your postmen and delivery drivers

In fact they can be anywhere, even volunteers at some animal rescue centre. Checks can be done on volunteers on some level, but it is not so hard for them to slip through the net. There is no state database to consult with. The welfare centre may do criminal background checks but some may just be grateful to get what appears to be a willing pair of hands (while really being something else).
These are the people who take on new identities and who date your daughter and who you may let into your home, unbeknown as to what or who they really are.

I am being extremely conservative when I say that 3,000 cases per year are flat out zoosadism. But even at 3,000 per year that is one hell of a lot of very dangerous and very twisted people presently being allowed to roam free.

I think the real insanity is knowing this and yet accepting it.
You cannot go through your life knowing these figures, their implications and just meekly accept it and hope for the best.
If you do not want to take the chance of letting 3,000 zoosadists melt back into your town every year then take action and avoid tragedy.
Don’t think insanely bad people cant suddenly stain your life – they can and do. By allowing them such freedom we are playing a sick game of Russian roulette each time one is allowed to walk free and vanish into the ether.

If I were to isolate one group within the broad sphere who are most deserving of especially strict treatment it would be those convicted of zoosadism.

I would regard them as they most dangerous of all. They are more dangerous than the neglectful or plain stupid. They are more dangerous than the financially motivated.

Something can be cruel but not necessarily the actions of a zoosadist. DIY euthanasia would be an example of something which is wholly cruel but not always the actions of a zoosadist.

This distinction does make a difference. In any crime or action motive is extremely important. Motive can certainly be used as an obvious measure of whether or not a person is a viable danger.
The actions of Daniel and Andrew Frankish were those of a zoosadist. They are a perfect example of what I believe must be made almost a distinct thing in of itself.

The actions of those four mutants in the ‘Chunky’ case were those of zoosadists. It was staggering to me that when I had a look at their FB pages one time, at least one of them (still using his own name) was in some relationship with a girl.

She cannot claim ignorance, no way. Quite what any girl is doing getting together with a vile specimen like that is beyond me, but its easier to see how you later have tragedies like Peter Connelly.

What are this girls family thinking ALLOWING her to date a creature like that? They must know since photos were openly on FB. S’cuse the language but what the f*** is her dad or brothers doing letting her go out with that?
I wouldn’t give a toss if my daughter was 17, 27, or 107. All of hell would freeze over before I would allow her to see something like that. If I couldn’t get through to her then I would 100% get through to him, by hook or by crook and with no methods off the table.

I wouldn’t even give it weeks or days. On the same day I knew all hell itself would break loose. Phone calls would be getting made, favours would be getting called in, but whatever else happened the end result is that HE definitely would NOT be on her scene.

I have no idea how any man can let their daughter date something like that, it sickens me. They surely cant be all orphan annies with zero family watching over them? You have to nip something like that in the bud on day one and in a way that leaves no possible misunderstanding that maybe there is a way back in.

The reason why a guy should go full on in such a case is what happens if that fruit loop gets her pregnant? What happens if one day he murders her or the baby? Why risk it? I would never ever tolerate it. I almost felt like trying to contact that girls dad to ask him what sort of pussy bitch he was. Shameful.
I have been asked before if I believe a zoosadist is this way with all animals or is it possible for a zoosadist to target some and not others. There’s not a massive amount of specific data out there but I think it is probable that the latter could be true.

There are men who appear to have normal relations with a normal wife and in his secret life he has been out raping strangers. There are paedophiles who only target unknown children and there are those who only target those within a family.

I don’t think that its impossible that a Jack Whiting and co could do what they did while owning a pet of their own that they wouldn’t do that to. I don’t fully understand the science or psychology of why this would be so, but I suspect that in many cases it is so. With that being said, in most cases the pet is likely to be the most common target of the zoosadist. Just not always.
Have a think about my conservative estimate of 3000 or so people like that walking free with a fine and a little ban every single year. Have a think about them in a mundane context, as your next neighbour, as the friendly seeming new person in the community, as the new delivery guy.

Then ask yourself this.

Do you want to leave behind a Britain for your children to inherit in which THAT roams free and easy? Or do you want a Britain that quits behaving like some fussing old Nan and shows some leadership, strength and at least pretend they care about putting you at risk.

(Britain – Like a fussing old Nan)

curt

(This is no use)

curt1

 

When its one of their own who falls victim to some nut then the country stands still. What about ALL the victims of these absolute nutters that are routinely waling in and out of court as if it were a telling off from the teacher?

(Of use)

curt4
If the nation can virtually stop when one nut case takes the life of one politician then it sure as hell best stop and think about all the victims who are preyed upon by vermin and all the time, and often without proper punishment when caught.

It is disgusting and weak that we find ourselves in these circumstances as a nation.
The weakness makes me sick to my stomach.
I know I am not alone in feeling disgust at this weakness in the pit of my stomach. It gnaws away at me that this weakness doesn’t even need exist. The powers that be have it within their means to change the dynamic and every hour that passes only further serves illustrate their vile weakness.
So here is what I say. I say we need to reject their weakness and demand they show strength. If they cannot or will not show strength then they have no business being paid by the public purse. Period.

We need to all really kick on this year. It comes down to this.

Are the people in Government on the side of the people or are they on the side of child abusers and zoosadists? Time will tell and there shall be no denial of the outcome. They cannot be in the middle or neutral on this. No one can but they are the Government so they cannot be neutral.
If they are on the side of the victims and the people then we wont have to guess. We’ll see it. It will be reflected in their actions and within an ASAP time frame as well. If they start to make the right noises and do the right things, then fine, that is good. If they do not? Then they’ve have freely chosen their side and they will have formally sided with child abusers and zoosadists. No matter what weasel words they might use to say otherwise, it would be evident that they were on their side.
Get on the right side. Get on the side of the people that want to push this as far as they can and that wont take no for an answer from these pompous ‘public servants’.
If you can endeavour to do that this year then I can assure you that you will eventually be part of the transformation from the current badlands where these freaks run free to a nation that unapologetically puts the people first over these dangerous and demented creatures.

We demand them OFF our streets – period. They can do what they like with them, May and Truss can house them all at their place for all I care.

But we want them all off the streets as the new norm.

This is not too much to ask, but lets not ask anymore.
Lets insist.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s