How the hell did he get away with this? Man involving in dog abuse not prosecuted, but woman is?

[DishingOutDone]

I'm not suggesting for a moment that she should haven't been prosecuted too but FFS if they had enough evidence to prosecute the woman who didn't act to save the dog, how could there not have been any evidence against the man who tied the dog to a stone and threw it in the river?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-56322272

That's bizzare.

Because she admitted it and he didnt. Therefore it would have been her word against his* in HIS trial, but with hers there was no issue around establishing what she did.

*Dont get me started....

She pleaded guilty, he didn't.

It literally says in the top of the article "the RSPCA did not have enough evidence to prosecute Mr Johnson".

I mean, how much clearer do you need it to be?

She admitted her guilt, he didn't. There wasn't enough evidence to prove it. Simple as that.

She confessed. He didn't. Simple.

@TakeTheCuntOutOfScunthorpe

She admitted her guilt, he didn't. There wasn't enough evidence to prove it. Simple as that.

It does feel unfair though - she was lower hanging fruit because she was presumably sorry for what she had done (and from the sounds of it quite traumatised as well.) While he was an unrepantant bastard so got away with it. It also reminded me of another thread here where someones son had been caught driving without a license and while some people were saying "hes bang to rights, he should admit it" the more knowledgeable were saying "dont say anything until hes talked to a good lawyer." It just goes to show - always no comment until you have a SHL lawyer beside you.

Can easily see how it happened, but it’s a great injustice. At least one of the pair of them got the punishment they deserved, but it’s a terrible travesty that he wasn’t properly prosecuted. That poor dog - thank goodness someone was around to rescue her.

Let’s re-write this in the likely actual story.

Abused woman with a controlling and violent partner, sees her dog murdered but darent say anything to abusive partner in fear.

Admits her actions as she is actually a good person and didn’t want it to happen. Gets done in court, abused more my strangers and has to leave her home and area.

Abusive controlling lying partner lies and walks away happy and free to hurt other people and animals.

@Sstrongth All I would add is "PREGNANT abused woman with a controlling and violent partner..."
It also shows that, sadly, people get more enraged about the mistreatment of animals than women (and I say that as someone who loves animals particularly dogs).

And she pleaded with him not to kill the dog apparently. Plus, can you really blame her for lying to te police initially when she may well have had no reason to trust that they would protect her from him if she told the truth (a key reason why women often lie the police when they themselves have been physically abused).

So the lesson here is 'never admit anything and you'll get away with it'.

The police only want the easy wins like a woman pleading guilty. Having to collect evidence against someone who denies it is so difficult and time consuming...

@Sstrongtn

Let’s re-write this in the likely actual story.

Abused woman with a controlling and violent partner, sees her dog murdered but darent say anything to abusive partner in fear.

Admits her actions as she is actually a good person and didn’t want it to happen. Gets done in court, abused more my strangers and has to leave her home and area.

Abusive controlling lying partner lies and walks away happy and free to hurt other people and animals.

Do you know her personally?

@haveapieceoftoast To be fair, that write up does meet with the details reported. Admittedly, defence would want to downplay her own culpability as much as possible but it doesnt sound as if the prosecution argued against their version of events much - only said that This is someone who left that dog in the river and did not seek any attempt to get help, and lied to the police when they came round the next morning." Essentially both defence and prosecution seemed largely in agreement of the facts (which fit with the narrative Sstrongn wrote). I suppose "she is actually a good person" is technically subjective.
Not that I disagree with the punishment necessarily - " a 12-month community order and told to pay an £80 fine, £32 victim surcharge, and £200 in costs" seems reasonable, but the framing on social (and mainstream) media that presents her as holding in any way the same level of culpability as him is wrong. I also think that it shows up a more general flaw in the strategy of "pursuing easy wins".