Antonio Tiberi Cat Killer

First.Aspect

ugo.santalucia said:

First.Aspect said:

How does the cat owner feel about all of this?

4k better off?
I do not know, but a bit of restorative justive would probably go a long way. Learn to forgive is something that would benefit society a great deal.

Unrelated, but from 1999 a public prosecutor in Italy decided that Pantani had to become the example, to eradicate doping practice from sport.
The result is that he developed severe mental health issues and was found dead five years later… in 2004 the sport was not cleaner than it was in 1999… maybe things should have been handled differently and maybe in this case the guy should be
eft alone, before he decides to turn the gun on himself…

You see connections where there are none.

£4k would be an insult, snd will not go to the cat owner anyway.

Perhaps I am imposing my own values on the situation in wishing for terrible things to befall this vile young person, but I am okay with that.

ugo.santalucia

First.Aspect said:

ugo.santalucia said:

First.Aspect said:

How does the cat owner feel about all of this?

4k better off?
I do not know, but a bit of restorative justive would probably go a long way. Learn to forgive is something that would benefit society a great deal.

Unrelated, but from 1999 a public prosecutor in Italy decided that Pantani had to become the example, to eradicate doping practice from sport.
The result is that he developed severe mental health issues and was found dead five years later… in 2004 the sport was not cleaner than it was in 1999… maybe things should have been handled differently and maybe in this case the guy should be
eft alone, before he decides to turn the gun on himself…

You see connections where there are none.

£4k would be an insult, snd will not go to the cat owner anyway.

Perhaps I am imposing my own values on the situation in wishing for terrible things to befall this vile young person, but I am okay with that.

4k is what the judge awarded… complain with the judge… he could have awarded a million, but the owner would have never seen the money, so what is the point?

First.Aspect

ugo.santalucia said:

First.Aspect said:

ugo.santalucia said:

First.Aspect said:

How does the cat owner feel about all of this?

4k better off?
I do not know, but a bit of restorative justive would probably go a long way. Learn to forgive is something that would benefit society a great deal.

Unrelated, but from 1999 a public prosecutor in Italy decided that Pantani had to become the example, to eradicate doping practice from sport.
The result is that he developed severe mental health issues and was found dead five years later… in 2004 the sport was not cleaner than it was in 1999… maybe things should have been handled differently and maybe in this case the guy should be
eft alone, before he decides to turn the gun on himself…

You see connections where there are none.

£4k would be an insult, snd will not go to the cat owner anyway.

Perhaps I am imposing my own values on the situation in wishing for terrible things to befall this vile young person, but I am okay with that.

4k is what the judge awarded… complain with the judge… he could have awarded a million, but the owner would have never seen the money, so what is the point?

The fine is irrelevant. I am just hoping the sponsors pressure the team to let him go, whereas you don't think that is proportionate.

We differ on this. I'm right, you aren't.

ugo.santalucia

First.Aspect said:

ugo.santalucia said:

First.Aspect said:

ugo.santalucia said:

First.Aspect said:

How does the cat owner feel about all of this?

4k better off?
I do not know, but a bit of restorative justive would probably go a long way. Learn to forgive is something that would benefit society a great deal.

Unrelated, but from 1999 a public prosecutor in Italy decided that Pantani had to become the example, to eradicate doping practice from sport.
The result is that he developed severe mental health issues and was found dead five years later… in 2004 the sport was not cleaner than it was in 1999… maybe things should have been handled differently and maybe in this case the guy should be
eft alone, before he decides to turn the gun on himself…

You see connections where there are none.

£4k would be an insult, snd will not go to the cat owner anyway.

Perhaps I am imposing my own values on the situation in wishing for terrible things to befall this vile young person, but I am okay with that.

4k is what the judge awarded… complain with the judge… he could have awarded a million, but the owner would have never seen the money, so what is the point?

The fine is irrelevant. I am just hoping the sponsors pressure the team to let him go, whereas you don't think that is proportionate.

We differ on this. I'm right, you aren't.

you just put more value in the life of a pet than I do.

ugo.santalucia

personally, I am against the sale of domestic pets, as it is an unregulated market full of scammers, but more importantly, life should not be exchanged for money, but… it appears that these things have a market value, which is typically lower than 4k, so one could argue that, IF the life of a cat has a monetary value, then 4k is generous

First.Aspect

ugo.santalucia said:

personally, I am against the sale of domestic pets, as it is an unregulated market full of scammers, but more importantly, life should not be exchanged for money, but… it appears that these things have a market value, which is typically lower than 4k, so one could argue that, IF the life of a cat has a monetary value, then 4k is generous

Radical policy to prohibit companion animals after about 50,000 years of them being allowed, I must say.

Like I say, I'm okay with my position on this.

ugo.santalucia

First.Aspect said:

ugo.santalucia said:

personally, I am against the sale of domestic pets, as it is an unregulated market full of scammers, but more importantly, life should not be exchanged for money, but… it appears that these things have a market value, which is typically lower than 4k, so one could argue that, IF the life of a cat has a monetary value, then 4k is generous

Radical policy to prohibit companion animals after about 50,000 years of them being allowed, I must say.

Like I say, I'm okay with my position on this.

i did not say that… I would ban the sale… you can get a pet from a shelter or from a private who cannot look after them… but no breeding and money making out of living creatures.
Would it be OK to sell children? So why is it OK to sell puppies?

redvision

First.Aspect said:

ugo.santalucia said:

personally, I am against the sale of domestic pets, as it is an unregulated market full of scammers, but more importantly, life should not be exchanged for money, but… it appears that these things have a market value, which is typically lower than 4k, so one could argue that, IF the life of a cat has a monetary value, then 4k is generous

Radical policy to prohibit companion animals after about 50,000 years of them being allowed, I must say.

Like I say, I'm okay with my position on this.

I'm with you and I imagine most people today would be.

Ugo, sorry but your thinking is outdated and prehistoric. I'm assuming you aren't a pet owner and from your comments it would appear you have no respect for animals or place any value (other than monetary) on their lives.

First.Aspect

ugo.santalucia said:

First.Aspect said:

ugo.santalucia said:

personally, I am against the sale of domestic pets, as it is an unregulated market full of scammers, but more importantly, life should not be exchanged for money, but… it appears that these things have a market value, which is typically lower than 4k, so one could argue that, IF the life of a cat has a monetary value, then 4k is generous

Radical policy to prohibit companion animals after about 50,000 years of them being allowed, I must say.

Like I say, I'm okay with my position on this.

i did not say that… I would ban the sale… you can get a pet from a shelter or from a private who cannot look after them… but no breeding and money making out of living creatures.
Would it be OK to sell children? So why is it OK to sell puppies?

Because they are animals not children? To reimburse the responsible breeder for time and effort, that sort of thing? Because its illegal tp sell children, following the abolition of slavery?

Besides, you were arguing it's not that bad to shoot one earlier. Make your mind up. Or change the battery, or update and re-boot, or something for the love of God.

slowmart

Regardless of lawful consequences when you take the cash from a public role which is driven solely by sponsors you have to be rather dim to see actions have consequences. Arguably he’s failed the temperament test for professional athletes. Who is going to invest in this guy now?

It’s a pity this idiot isn’t French, According to article 113-6 of the French Penal Code, a French citizen can be prosecuted for criminal acts carried out abroad.

Tough new animal protection laws were introduced in France in 2021, meaning that the "mistreatment of animals" is now punishable by up to four years in prison and a fine equivalent to £50,000.

I’d be happy to see this guy lose his job as a professional rider. He lost the right to ride when he shot and killed the cat.

His career as a rider is as dead as the cat he killed. It may not be as quick but no sponsor will want the association with their brand. And who could blame them.

Oh and I’d have sacked the Cnut if he worked for me. “:brining the company into disrepute “ in the employment contract could have sealed his fate if the investigation found grounds.

In terms of application, lawful and social consequences can still be potent outcomes.

slowmart

Anyone want to bet some animal lover takes it upon themselves to acquire an air rifle and shoot this idiot?

I wouldn’t condone this but on the other hand I wouldn’t be surprised to read about it happening

RichN95.

slowmart said:

Regardless of lawful consequences when you take the cash from a public role which is driven solely by sponsors you have to be rather dim to see actions have consequences. Arguably he’s failed the temperament test for professional athletes. Who is going to invest in this guy now?

It’s a pity this idiot isn’t French, According to article 113-6 of the French Penal Code, a French citizen can be prosecuted for criminal acts carried out abroad.

Two things to digest here in comparison with Kurt Zouma (disclosure I'm a West Ham fan).

West Ham were never going to bin off a £30m asset for a cat. They fined him the maximum they could (football has an excellent union). But West Ham lost two sponsors as a result and Zouma lost his boot sponsorship. So it was important to sponsors.

Also Zouma is French and they didn't prosecute. Admittedly Zouma's cats were OK and rehoused and not executed like Joe Pesci in Goodfellas.

DeVlaeminck

Yes what Zouma did was more like shove his cat with his foot.

What does Tiberi need an air rifle for anyway? These things were more common when I was a kid and I always thought ownership of them (this was a suburban upbringing) marked people out as budding psychopaths. The kids down the road used to own one which they shot at us when we played on their dad's land (he ran gardening and cigarette vending machine businesses and owned a strip of undeveloped land part of which he used as a smallholding behind the houses on our street). There were still pellets embedded in the shed door when my parents sold the house about 10 years ago. I remember them capturing one of my older brothers mates and torturing him - my mum had to go out and rescue him. As revenge we ended up setting fire to an old car they drove about there.

ugo.santalucia

First.Aspect said:

ugo.santalucia said:

First.Aspect said:

ugo.santalucia said:

personally, I am against the sale of domestic pets, as it is an unregulated market full of scammers, but more importantly, life should not be exchanged for money, but… it appears that these things have a market value, which is typically lower than 4k, so one could argue that, IF the life of a cat has a monetary value, then 4k is generous

Radical policy to prohibit companion animals after about 50,000 years of them being allowed, I must say.

Like I say, I'm okay with my position on this.

i did not say that… I would ban the sale… you can get a pet from a shelter or from a private who cannot look after them… but no breeding and money making out of living creatures.
Would it be OK to sell children? So why is it OK to sell puppies?

Because they are animals not children? To reimburse the responsible breeder for time and effort, that sort of thing? Because its illegal tp sell children, following the abolition of slavery?

Besides, you were arguing it's not that bad to shoot one earlier. Make your mind up. Or change the battery, or update and re-boot, or something for the love of God.

but. that is exactly my point… there should not be commercial breeding. If there is no commercial breeding, then there is no need for reimboursement… you are in fact alleviating the maintenance costs by picking a puppy from the litter.
Commercial breeding of domestic pets on the scale it is going on now is a relatively recent thing.
When I grew up, there were no labradors or cockapoos or pugs for example.
Buying life is something I am not comfortable with… if you buy them, then they are property… and property has a commercial value, which is probably the interpretation of the law in this case. If money can’t buy life, then life has a completely different value.
To give you a different perspective. Let’s say that Tiberi destroyed someone’s car and the owner was emotionally attached to the car… the law makes no distinction… it is a car, it has a commercial value. But I can see how someone might be more attached to their vehicle (or Colnago) than they are to their pet… and both have a commercial value.

First.Aspect

You need to untie the knots you are in Ugo.

webboo

ugo.santalucia said:

First.Aspect said:

ugo.santalucia said:

First.Aspect said:

ugo.santalucia said:

personally, I am against the sale of domestic pets, as it is an unregulated market full of scammers, but more importantly, life should not be exchanged for money, but… it appears that these things have a market value, which is typically lower than 4k, so one could argue that, IF the life of a cat has a monetary value, then 4k is generous

Radical policy to prohibit companion animals after about 50,000 years of them being allowed, I must say.

Like I say, I'm okay with my position on this.

i did not say that… I would ban the sale… you can get a pet from a shelter or from a private who cannot look after them… but no breeding and money making out of living creatures.
Would it be OK to sell children? So why is it OK to sell puppies?

Because they are animals not children? To reimburse the responsible breeder for time and effort, that sort of thing? Because its illegal tp sell children, following the abolition of slavery?

Besides, you were arguing it's not that bad to shoot one earlier. Make your mind up. Or change the battery, or update and re-boot, or something for the love of God.

but. that is exactly my point… there should not be commercial breeding. If there is no commercial breeding, then there is no need for reimboursement… you are in fact alleviating the maintenance costs by picking a puppy from the litter.
Commercial breeding of domestic pets on the scale it is going on now is a relatively recent thing.
When I grew up, there were no labradors or cockapoos or pugs for example.
Buying life is something I am not comfortable with… if you buy them, then they are property… and property has a commercial value, which is probably the interpretation of the law in this case. If money can’t buy life, then life has a completely different value.
To give you a different perspective. Let’s say that Tiberi destroyed someone’s car and the owner was emotionally attached to the car… the law makes no distinction… it is a car, it has a commercial value. But I can see how someone might be more attached to their vehicle (or Colnago) than they are to their pet… and both have a commercial value.

Did you and your wife not buy a designer dog 🐩 but were unable to cope with the responsibility of looking after it.

pblakeney

First.Aspect said:

You need to untie the knots you are in Ugo.

This debate is very polarised and nobody is going to change their position. For the record, I care a shed load more about my Colnago than I do about next door's cat.

First.Aspect

pblakeney said:

First.Aspect said:

You need to untie the knots you are in Ugo.

This debate is very polarised and nobody is going to change their position. For the record, I care a shed load more about my Colnago than I do about next door's cat.

I'm afraid that says more about you than me.

pblakeney

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

First.Aspect said:

You need to untie the knots you are in Ugo.

This debate is very polarised and nobody is going to change their position. For the record, I care a shed load more about my Colnago than I do about next door's cat.

I'm afraid that says more about you than me.

Hey ho.

ugo.santalucia

webboo said:

ugo.santalucia said:

First.Aspect said:

ugo.santalucia said:

First.Aspect said:

ugo.santalucia said:

personally, I am against the sale of domestic pets, as it is an unregulated market full of scammers, but more importantly, life should not be exchanged for money, but… it appears that these things have a market value, which is typically lower than 4k, so one could argue that, IF the life of a cat has a monetary value, then 4k is generous

Radical policy to prohibit companion animals after about 50,000 years of them being allowed, I must say.

Like I say, I'm okay with my position on this.

i did not say that… I would ban the sale… you can get a pet from a shelter or from a private who cannot look after them… but no breeding and money making out of living creatures.
Would it be OK to sell children? So why is it OK to sell puppies?

Because they are animals not children? To reimburse the responsible breeder for time and effort, that sort of thing? Because its illegal tp sell children, following the abolition of slavery?

Besides, you were arguing it's not that bad to shoot one earlier. Make your mind up. Or change the battery, or update and re-boot, or something for the love of God.

but. that is exactly my point… there should not be commercial breeding. If there is no commercial breeding, then there is no need for reimboursement… you are in fact alleviating the maintenance costs by picking a puppy from the litter.
Commercial breeding of domestic pets on the scale it is going on now is a relatively recent thing.
When I grew up, there were no labradors or cockapoos or pugs for example.
Buying life is something I am not comfortable with… if you buy them, then they are property… and property has a commercial value, which is probably the interpretation of the law in this case. If money can’t buy life, then life has a completely different value.
To give you a different perspective. Let’s say that Tiberi destroyed someone’s car and the owner was emotionally attached to the car… the law makes no distinction… it is a car, it has a commercial value. But I can see how someone might be more attached to their vehicle (or Colnago) than they are to their pet… and both have a commercial value.

Did you and your wife not buy a designer dog 🐩 but were unable to cope with the responsibility of looking after it.

my wife did…
I tried to persuade her otherwise for almost one year… in the end, she had it her way and predictably it did not end up well. Like many, she prioritised looks over substance. My point was that if we really wanted a dog, and I did not want one, then we should have got a rescue, preferably a greyhound, or someother breed easy to live with…
so, basically, I am saying what I am saying based on my experience and that of people I see around.

ugo.santalucia

pblakeney said:

First.Aspect said:

You need to untie the knots you are in Ugo.

This debate is very polarised and nobody is going to change their position. For the record, I care a shed load more about my Colnago than I do about next door's cat.

pets issues aside, it would be nice if people recognised that social media haters are not going to achieve any positive outcome, ever, and these issues are best left to the law…

First.Aspect

ugo.santalucia said:

webboo said:

ugo.santalucia said:

First.Aspect said:

ugo.santalucia said:

First.Aspect said:

ugo.santalucia said:

personally, I am against the sale of domestic pets, as it is an unregulated market full of scammers, but more importantly, life should not be exchanged for money, but… it appears that these things have a market value, which is typically lower than 4k, so one could argue that, IF the life of a cat has a monetary value, then 4k is generous

Radical policy to prohibit companion animals after about 50,000 years of them being allowed, I must say.

Like I say, I'm okay with my position on this.

i did not say that… I would ban the sale… you can get a pet from a shelter or from a private who cannot look after them… but no breeding and money making out of living creatures.
Would it be OK to sell children? So why is it OK to sell puppies?

Because they are animals not children? To reimburse the responsible breeder for time and effort, that sort of thing? Because its illegal tp sell children, following the abolition of slavery?

Besides, you were arguing it's not that bad to shoot one earlier. Make your mind up. Or change the battery, or update and re-boot, or something for the love of God.

but. that is exactly my point… there should not be commercial breeding. If there is no commercial breeding, then there is no need for reimboursement… you are in fact alleviating the maintenance costs by picking a puppy from the litter.
Commercial breeding of domestic pets on the scale it is going on now is a relatively recent thing.
When I grew up, there were no labradors or cockapoos or pugs for example.
Buying life is something I am not comfortable with… if you buy them, then they are property… and property has a commercial value, which is probably the interpretation of the law in this case. If money can’t buy life, then life has a completely different value.
To give you a different perspective. Let’s say that Tiberi destroyed someone’s car and the owner was emotionally attached to the car… the law makes no distinction… it is a car, it has a commercial value. But I can see how someone might be more attached to their vehicle (or Colnago) than they are to their pet… and both have a commercial value.

Did you and your wife not buy a designer dog 🐩 but were unable to cope with the responsibility of looking after it.

my wife did…
I tried to persuade her otherwise for almost one year… in the end, she had it her way and predictably it did not end up well. Like many, she prioritised looks over substance. My point was that if we really wanted a dog, and I did not want one, then we should have got a rescue, preferably a greyhound, or someother breed easy to live with…
so, basically, I am saying what I am saying based on my experience and that of people I see around.

Still struggling to reconcile this laudable position with its not that bad to shoot a cat.

ugo.santalucia

First.Aspect said:

ugo.santalucia said:

webboo said:

ugo.santalucia said:

First.Aspect said:

ugo.santalucia said:

First.Aspect said:

ugo.santalucia said:

personally, I am against the sale of domestic pets, as it is an unregulated market full of scammers, but more importantly, life should not be exchanged for money, but… it appears that these things have a market value, which is typically lower than 4k, so one could argue that, IF the life of a cat has a monetary value, then 4k is generous

Radical policy to prohibit companion animals after about 50,000 years of them being allowed, I must say.

Like I say, I'm okay with my position on this.

i did not say that… I would ban the sale… you can get a pet from a shelter or from a private who cannot look after them… but no breeding and money making out of living creatures.
Would it be OK to sell children? So why is it OK to sell puppies?

Because they are animals not children? To reimburse the responsible breeder for time and effort, that sort of thing? Because its illegal tp sell children, following the abolition of slavery?

Besides, you were arguing it's not that bad to shoot one earlier. Make your mind up. Or change the battery, or update and re-boot, or something for the love of God.

but. that is exactly my point… there should not be commercial breeding. If there is no commercial breeding, then there is no need for reimboursement… you are in fact alleviating the maintenance costs by picking a puppy from the litter.
Commercial breeding of domestic pets on the scale it is going on now is a relatively recent thing.
When I grew up, there were no labradors or cockapoos or pugs for example.
Buying life is something I am not comfortable with… if you buy them, then they are property… and property has a commercial value, which is probably the interpretation of the law in this case. If money can’t buy life, then life has a completely different value.
To give you a different perspective. Let’s say that Tiberi destroyed someone’s car and the owner was emotionally attached to the car… the law makes no distinction… it is a car, it has a commercial value. But I can see how someone might be more attached to their vehicle (or Colnago) than they are to their pet… and both have a commercial value.

Did you and your wife not buy a designer dog 🐩 but were unable to cope with the responsibility of looking after it.

my wife did…
I tried to persuade her otherwise for almost one year… in the end, she had it her way and predictably it did not end up well. Like many, she prioritised looks over substance. My point was that if we really wanted a dog, and I did not want one, then we should have got a rescue, preferably a greyhound, or someother breed easy to live with…
so, basically, I am saying what I am saying based on my experience and that of people I see around.

Still struggling to reconcile this laudable position with its not that bad to shoot a cat.

I never said it is not that bad… I just said that the law in Italy is different from the law here, which is probably different from the law somewhere else.

For what is worth, there is a problem with stray cats in Rome and people are urged not to feed them, or if you prefer, they are advised to starve them… I suspect over here they would be prioritised over rough sleepers and homeless.
Horses for courses… which is appropriate, as in Italy it is quite common to eat horse meat… which is very nice, by the way

MidlandsGrimpeur2

pets issues aside, it would be nice if people recognised that social media haters are not going to achieve any positive outcome, ever, and these issues are best left to the law…

First off, as most on this thread have pointed out, the killing of any animal in this manner is abhorrent and on a personal level I would have sacked this arseh*ole and made sure he never got another cycling contract again.

On the trial by social media point, as this seems to be a key part of your argument Ugo. In my view, if you are in a position of public interest and your job is closely related to public perception and interest such as in professional sports, then you have to accept that public pressure, when you commit a crime or do anything deemed unethical or incompatible with your role or image, will have an impact.

The point was made up thread that his team have issued a punishment and deemed the crime not worthy of firing, therefore we should just let it lie. This does not make their decision correct (it is reprehensible in my view). The rider is an asset to them and the team's ability to make an ethical decision is compromised due to this, Sometimes the public, whether via social media, or other means, needs to apply pressure and hold others to account.

How often do we see corporations, institutions, politicians etc. fail to address improper and/or illegal behaviour correctly? It is often when these things are uncovered and public opinion gathers momentum that we see bad behaviours properly challenged and dealt with.

First.Aspect

ugo.santalucia said:

First.Aspect said:

ugo.santalucia said:

webboo said:

ugo.santalucia said:

First.Aspect said:

ugo.santalucia said:

First.Aspect said:

ugo.santalucia said:

personally, I am against the sale of domestic pets, as it is an unregulated market full of scammers, but more importantly, life should not be exchanged for money, but… it appears that these things have a market value, which is typically lower than 4k, so one could argue that, IF the life of a cat has a monetary value, then 4k is generous

Radical policy to prohibit companion animals after about 50,000 years of them being allowed, I must say.

Like I say, I'm okay with my position on this.

i did not say that… I would ban the sale… you can get a pet from a shelter or from a private who cannot look after them… but no breeding and money making out of living creatures.
Would it be OK to sell children? So why is it OK to sell puppies?

Because they are animals not children? To reimburse the responsible breeder for time and effort, that sort of thing? Because its illegal tp sell children, following the abolition of slavery?

Besides, you were arguing it's not that bad to shoot one earlier. Make your mind up. Or change the battery, or update and re-boot, or something for the love of God.

but. that is exactly my point… there should not be commercial breeding. If there is no commercial breeding, then there is no need for reimboursement… you are in fact alleviating the maintenance costs by picking a puppy from the litter.
Commercial breeding of domestic pets on the scale it is going on now is a relatively recent thing.
When I grew up, there were no labradors or cockapoos or pugs for example.
Buying life is something I am not comfortable with… if you buy them, then they are property… and property has a commercial value, which is probably the interpretation of the law in this case. If money can’t buy life, then life has a completely different value.
To give you a different perspective. Let’s say that Tiberi destroyed someone’s car and the owner was emotionally attached to the car… the law makes no distinction… it is a car, it has a commercial value. But I can see how someone might be more attached to their vehicle (or Colnago) than they are to their pet… and both have a commercial value.

Did you and your wife not buy a designer dog 🐩 but were unable to cope with the responsibility of looking after it.

my wife did…
I tried to persuade her otherwise for almost one year… in the end, she had it her way and predictably it did not end up well. Like many, she prioritised looks over substance. My point was that if we really wanted a dog, and I did not want one, then we should have got a rescue, preferably a greyhound, or someother breed easy to live with…
so, basically, I am saying what I am saying based on my experience and that of people I see around.

Still struggling to reconcile this laudable position with its not that bad to shoot a cat.

I never said it is not that bad… I just said that the law in Italy is different from the law here, which is probably different from the law somewhere else.

For what is worth, there is a problem with stray cats in Rome and people are urged not to feed them, or if you prefer, they are advised to starve them… I suspect over here they would be prioritised over rough sleepers and homeless.
Horses for courses… which is appropriate, as in Italy it is quite common to eat horse meat… which is very nice, by the way

Yes, thanks Ugo, I once went abroad and it was nice.

You did say it's not that bad, by virtue of asserting that it was not relevant to his public facing job, that he was young and no one had told him its not okay to go around shooting peoples companion animals, because the law said its only worth a fine so we should all stop the pile on, and because some people eat cats anyway.

Have I missed anything?

ugo.santalucia

First.Aspect said:

ugo.santalucia said:

First.Aspect said:

ugo.santalucia said:

webboo said:

ugo.santalucia said:

First.Aspect said:

ugo.santalucia said:

First.Aspect said:

ugo.santalucia said:

personally, I am against the sale of domestic pets, as it is an unregulated market full of scammers, but more importantly, life should not be exchanged for money, but… it appears that these things have a market value, which is typically lower than 4k, so one could argue that, IF the life of a cat has a monetary value, then 4k is generous

Radical policy to prohibit companion animals after about 50,000 years of them being allowed, I must say.

Like I say, I'm okay with my position on this.

i did not say that… I would ban the sale… you can get a pet from a shelter or from a private who cannot look after them… but no breeding and money making out of living creatures.
Would it be OK to sell children? So why is it OK to sell puppies?

Because they are animals not children? To reimburse the responsible breeder for time and effort, that sort of thing? Because its illegal tp sell children, following the abolition of slavery?

Besides, you were arguing it's not that bad to shoot one earlier. Make your mind up. Or change the battery, or update and re-boot, or something for the love of God.

but. that is exactly my point… there should not be commercial breeding. If there is no commercial breeding, then there is no need for reimboursement… you are in fact alleviating the maintenance costs by picking a puppy from the litter.
Commercial breeding of domestic pets on the scale it is going on now is a relatively recent thing.
When I grew up, there were no labradors or cockapoos or pugs for example.
Buying life is something I am not comfortable with… if you buy them, then they are property… and property has a commercial value, which is probably the interpretation of the law in this case. If money can’t buy life, then life has a completely different value.
To give you a different perspective. Let’s say that Tiberi destroyed someone’s car and the owner was emotionally attached to the car… the law makes no distinction… it is a car, it has a commercial value. But I can see how someone might be more attached to their vehicle (or Colnago) than they are to their pet… and both have a commercial value.

Did you and your wife not buy a designer dog 🐩 but were unable to cope with the responsibility of looking after it.

my wife did…
I tried to persuade her otherwise for almost one year… in the end, she had it her way and predictably it did not end up well. Like many, she prioritised looks over substance. My point was that if we really wanted a dog, and I did not want one, then we should have got a rescue, preferably a greyhound, or someother breed easy to live with…
so, basically, I am saying what I am saying based on my experience and that of people I see around.

Still struggling to reconcile this laudable position with its not that bad to shoot a cat.

I never said it is not that bad… I just said that the law in Italy is different from the law here, which is probably different from the law somewhere else.

For what is worth, there is a problem with stray cats in Rome and people are urged not to feed them, or if you prefer, they are advised to starve them… I suspect over here they would be prioritised over rough sleepers and homeless.
Horses for courses… which is appropriate, as in Italy it is quite common to eat horse meat… which is very nice, by the way

Yes, thanks Ugo, I once went abroad and it was nice.

You did say it's not that bad, by virtue of asserting that it was not relevant to his public facing job, that he was young and no one had told him its not okay to go around shooting peoples companion animals, because the law said its only worth a fine so we should all stop the pile on, and because some people eat cats anyway.

Have I missed anything?

you have missed that he is a young guy, probably a bit of a dixxhead, who should not have had given a licence. to own a shooting rifle… so this is the very first mistake.
We have all been idiots, I certainly was and have done regrettable things, including murdering vatious small animals, thankfully nobody’s pets, but I can see how these things might have happened in different circumstances. Does it make it right? No, but equally, we were never drawn a clear line between what is murder and what is not… as I said, my gran murdered dozens if not hundreds of kittens and never faced any legal consequence, so what kind of message should I have learned about how worth the life of a cat is?
In the UK you have always had a different attitude towards pets, except you went around shooting wildlife, but that is a different matter, as we all know cats have a soul, whereas pheasants, deer and badgers do not.
Where I grew up and probably where Tiberi grew up, dogs being mistreated was the norm… dogs at a chain, dogs kicked around… it is not pretty, but it was the norm. So, if you grew up there, rather than here where people spend more money in pet grooming than in cancer research, you might have developed a different view.
My point is… don’t cast your British eyes on someone who does not share the same upbringing and crucially committed a crime in another country.


That’s all… and it is plenty, so I am done with this thread

First.Aspect

Good.

I hope he gets fired by his team though. Might help bring some parts of rural Italy out of the dark ages.

It is illegal to shoot most wildlife in the UK under most circumstances. Most of the exceptions are agricultural, most of which I strongly disagree with, and most of which are routinely ignored by the harris tweed wearing neanderthals who live out here.

yorkshireraw

First.Aspect said:

ugo.santalucia said:

First.Aspect said:

How does the cat owner feel about all of this?

4k better off?
I do not know, but a bit of restorative justive would probably go a long way. Learn to forgive is something that would benefit society a great deal.

Unrelated, but from 1999 a public prosecutor in Italy decided that Pantani had to become the example, to eradicate doping practice from sport.
The result is that he developed severe mental health issues and was found dead five years later… in 2004 the sport was not cleaner than it was in 1999… maybe things should have been handled differently and maybe in this case the guy should be
eft alone, before he decides to turn the gun on himself…

You see connections where there are none.

£4k would be an insult, snd will not go to the cat owner anyway.

Perhaps I am imposing my own values on the situation in wishing for terrible things to befall this vile young person, but I am okay with that.

How do you feel about older rich people paying to shoot pheasants and stags? Esp in the case of game birds most of which are just disposed of.

Do you advocate them losing their jobs?

yorkshireraw

slowmart said:

Regardless of lawful consequences when you take the cash from a public role which is driven solely by sponsors you have to be rather dim to see actions have consequences. Arguably he’s failed the temperament test for professional athletes. Who is going to invest in this guy now?

It’s a pity this idiot isn’t French, According to article 113-6 of the French Penal Code, a French citizen can be prosecuted for criminal acts carried out abroad.

Tough new animal protection laws were introduced in France in 2021, meaning that the "mistreatment of animals" is now punishable by up to four years in prison and a fine equivalent to £50,000.

I’d be happy to see this guy lose his job as a professional rider. He lost the right to ride when he shot and killed the cat.

His career as a rider is as dead as the cat he killed. It may not be as quick but no sponsor will want the association with their brand. And who could blame them.

Oh and I’d have sacked the Cnut if he worked for me. “:brining the company into disrepute “ in the employment contract could have sealed his fate if the investigation found grounds.

In terms of application, lawful and social consequences can still be potent outcomes.

From the nation that promotes and vigorously defends the production of Foix Gras....

yorkshireraw

yorkshireraw said:

First.Aspect said:

ugo.santalucia said:

First.Aspect said:

How does the cat owner feel about all of this?

4k better off?
I do not know, but a bit of restorative justive would probably go a long way. Learn to forgive is something that would benefit society a great deal.

Unrelated, but from 1999 a public prosecutor in Italy decided that Pantani had to become the example, to eradicate doping practice from sport.
The result is that he developed severe mental health issues and was found dead five years later… in 2004 the sport was not cleaner than it was in 1999… maybe things should have been handled differently and maybe in this case the guy should be
eft alone, before he decides to turn the gun on himself…

You see connections where there are none.

£4k would be an insult, snd will not go to the cat owner anyway.

Perhaps I am imposing my own values on the situation in wishing for terrible things to befall this vile young person, but I am okay with that.

How do you feel about older rich people paying to shoot pheasants and stags? Esp in the case of game birds most of which are just disposed of.

Do you advocate them losing their jobs?

fair play I see you answered just above my post.