- This topic has 19 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
One of the criteria for judging whether a person is "fit and proper" to hold a trainer’s licence, revealed by the BHA today, is "whether the applicant has been convicted of a criminal offence".
Sir Mark Prescott was recently convicted of a criminal offence – http://www.racingpost.com/news/horse-ra … ge/626883/ – so the question is "will his licence be renewed, and, if so, will this set a precedent that will immediately make it very difficult for the BHA to enforce its own guidelines?"
The wording of the appropriate rules states:-
I don’t think being a spectator at a sporting event would fall into that category.Especially bearing in mind the prosecution was a private prosecution and the "punishment" from a District Judge, not a part time magistrate, was an absolute discharge.
The rules also say
So presuming he declares it – I cannot see any issue.Anyway if any trainer convicted of a criminal conviction automatically lost their licence because of said conviction there would, I suspect, be very few trainers left in business.
- Total Posts 17716
There is nothing more degrading than people knowing you’ve been convicted of crime in which you’ve served your time but people still hold that conviction to drag you down, I know there are crimes and then there are CRIMES like Murder and Rape but come on leave Sir Mark alone, this rule is absolutely discriminating against a mans freedom BHA should be ashamed Marks one of the best in the game no one can do what he does as effectively
I wish we could have less of this Sir Mark this and Sir Mark that, the title was inherited from a dead relative that wasn’t even his father.
The wording of the appropriate rules states:-
Thanks for pointing out the animal welfare bit, Paul.The wording of the appropriate rules states:-
Thanks for pointing out the animal welfare bit, Paul.The "conviction" was for attending a supposed illegal event not for participation – so how could he be guilty of animal cruelty, which is what I believe you are implying? That assumes of course you take the view hare coursing is indeed cruel.
Are you suggesting anyone who attends a boxing match should be considered to be aiding and abetting a case of assault with intent?
How about banning any horse which has been ridden at hunt?
As the judge pointed out in her ruling the particular law under which the prosecution was bought is actually a mess anyway – which is what happens when a knee-jerk, vindictive law based solely on spite, prejudice and “class hatred” is introduced. Hopefully after next May the law will be repealed.
The comparisons with boxing are slightly flawed as, to the best of my knowledge, it isn’t illegal.
I don’t agree with prufrock on this and there are more heinous people to have passed ‘fit and proper’ tests, but it is a point worthy of discussion.
- Total Posts 17716
What ever Prufrock’s implication may have been, Paul, are you seriously trying to compare the attendance of a human being (capable of independent thought and decision making) at an
illegal
hare coursing event, to a horse (incapable of independent thought and decision making, other than ‘I’m not jumping over that little fella’ of course) being unknowingly ridden at a hunt and a sanctioned bout between registered boxers?
I presume the word ‘lawyer’ never appeared on your list of potential careers
What ever Prufrock’s implication may have been, Paul, are you seriously trying to compare the attendance of a human being (capable of independent thought and decision making) at an
illegal
hare coursing event, to a horse (incapable of independent thought and decision making, other than ‘I’m not jumping over that little fella’ of course) being unknowingly ridden at a hunt and a sanctioned bout between registered boxers?
Actually now you mention it there is a difference – I actually see no problem whatsoever attending a hare coursing meeting be it legal or illegal yet I do find it morally offensive to attend a boxing match where two individuals are doing their utmost to inflict grievous bodily harm on one another.
The comparisons with boxing are slightly flawed as, to the best of my knowledge, it isn’t illegal.
Strange isn’t it that a government introduces a law to destroy a sport which they perceive as being one supported by the upper classes and social elite, yet they are happy to allow a barbaric sport like boxing – then again the latter is perceived to be a "working class" sport.
You seem to be making a lot of assumptions about what you think I implied. Perhaps it would be best to stick to what I actually wrote.
Here is a bit more.
Being convicted of an offence is considered to be an important issue where deciding whether a person is "fit and proper" to hold a licence to train or to own horses. Sir Mark Prescott has recently been convicted of an offence.
If, at some later stage, someone were to be considered NOT fit and proper by the BHA, due to having had a conviction, it would be understandable if that person were to challenge the ruling on the grounds that others with convictions have not even had questions asked of them.
You (and at least one person at the BHA for sure) might regard a conviction for attending an illegal course inconsequential. But it is a conviction, and the law is (and lawyers are) unlikely to view kindly a governing body that picks and chooses which transgressions it takes seriously.
I would welcome clarification from the BHA which laws it feels it is okay to break.
I think the ‘upper-class sport’ which Paul is referring to is hunting/coursing, rather than horseracing, marble. Not that it makes the introduction of the class angle any less amusing.
Marb / Smithy – agreed it was a mistake to bring "class" into this debate and I apologise unreservedly.
Use of class was meant as a dig at Government policy – ironically I don’t hold with this class nonsense, I think it is a false divide created to cause trouble – I was making a very poor attempt at irony and I apologise if you have taken those comments the wrong way.
I admit I do feel strongly about the Governments hunting bill and although I have no particular opinion one way or the other on Sir Mark – I can see why he probably did as he did. Given the opportunity I would do the same.
Wouldn’t Mick Quinn better serve the role of test case in matters of animal welfare?
AP
Wouldn’t Mick Quinn better serve the role of test case in matters of animal welfare?
AP
There are always plenty of examples of non-enforcement of the rules for anyone wanting to claim discrimination by The Rabble.
Marb / Smithy – agreed it was a mistake to bring "class" into this debate and I apologise unreservedly.
Use of class was meant as a dig at Government policy – ironically I don’t hold with this class nonsense, I think it is a false divide created to cause trouble – I was making a very poor attempt at irony and I apologise if you have taken those comments the wrong way.
I admit I do feel strongly about the Governments hunting bill and although I have no particular opinion one way or the other on Sir Mark – I can see why he probably did as he did. Given the opportunity I would do the same.
I am sure you are well aware that the said person has previous and that did not involve spectating.
Whilst it can be argued that fox hunting has a purpose and a beneficial outcome, the purpose or benefit of hare coursing is what?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.