Uk: (26/05/10) – ‘On the Run’ Horse Trader Jamie Gray Has Been Caught

Recent SAV Post link:

Google news link 26/05 :

By Andy Carswell

HORSE trader James Gray is back in police custody two weeks after he disappeared from court as he was due to be sentenced for animal cruelty offences.

Gray was arrested by police officers following a random spot-check on the northbound stretch of the M5 near Bromsgrove, Worcestershire, at 10.35am today.

He is to due back in court in Aylesbury tomorrow.

Gray, the owner of Spindles Farm in Hyde Heath, disappeared from Aylesbury Crown Court on Wednesday May 12 during a lunch break just as he was to be sentenced for nine offences under the Animal Welfare Act.

He had originally been convicted of the offences and appealed – but had his sentence of 26 weeks in prison, a lifetime ban from keeping equines and being made to pay £400,000 costs upheld in his absence.

Four other members of his family were sentenced at the same court hearing – having bans from keeping animals extended from five years to seven.

The Chiltern district’s head of policing, Chief Inspector Ian Hunter, said: “I’m delighted that he’s been arrested. We’ve been relentlessly pursuing and following all lines of enquiry.

“I was very confident he was going to be caught and that has now happened today. He will now carry out the sentence as the court had intended.”

He will appear before Aylesbury Crown Court tomorrow (27/05/10) morning at 10am.

Romania: Veterinarians, Police and Authorities Fail to Enforce National Legislation to Protect Stray Animals – Just Like Serbia !




Just like the Balkans, the authorities, police and veterinarians appear to be able to do whatever they please, with scant regard for the law and legislation which they are employed (by taxpayers money) to enforce.

New animal protection law has allegedly been in effect since Jan 2008, and yet the dogs are killed by thousands here. 

It’s not about the bad situation in one city, it’s about the lack of involvement of institutions against animal cruelty here & pending dog legislation.

*** If you need more information, please write back.***

The 45 min footage is available on link for 10 days.

The facts – below.

D. Dragomir


Daniela can be contacted by e mail at –

The images presented in this footage speak for themselves about the “actions” and ‘commitment’ of the so-called “animal police inspectors” of IGPPA, with the support of the representatives of Romanian Police.

IGPPA is a ‘structure’ within the NGO Commissariat for Civil Society (C.S.C.).

In Braila IGPPA’s representative is the veterinarian Gheorghe Sandu.

IGPPA heads were informed several times about the activity of their representative in Braila, and were told that this activity is incompatible with animal welfare & protection.

On March 20th FRPCA’s representative M. Serbanoiu spoke on ProTV about the involvement of IGPPA’s representative of Braila in acts of animal cruelty. In reply, Mr Prodan, chairman of CSC, to whom IGPPA belongs, said that the NGO lawyers would sue M. Serbanoiu for damaging their image.

Gheorghe Sandu claims to provide “veterinary care” to the dogs impounded by the concessionaire of dog management activity in Braila, i.e. the Environmental and Animal Protection Association Horez (APAM Horez). Since 2006 to date in the dogpound APAM Horez crimes over crimes have been committed, no institution (police or prosecutor’s office) putting any end to them. Crimes were the subject of many criminal complaints, for financial and economic crimes, embezzlement with public money, destruction, animal cruelty, fraud, etc.

Gheorghe Sandu provides veterinary services to APAM Horez by contract since March 2009 and has ‘provided’: shelter overcrowding that gets animals mauling and killing one another, lack of food to get the dogs to ‘undernourished’ and ‘rickety’ condition, killing of the dogs in the dogpound (euthanasia ) for “incurable disease” as well as the “three-legged dogs that do not have any form of defense” (Gheorghe Sandu’s statement).

In 2009, 2505 dogs died and were killed by APAM Horez & Sandu Gheorghe, i.e., all dogs picked by dogcatchers. That is, dog killing, while the Romanian law bans the euthanasia of healthy animals.

The footage shows what the “animal police inspector” deals with.

As the video shows, they terrorize animal lovers who want to save a dog from certain death. Ms Miu, an animal lover, was reported to dogcatchers that she fed dogs around the block (which is not a crime) and on 05/21/2010 the dogcatchers APAM Horez came to get the dogs to the dogpound, to do to them what they did to the others, i.e., to kill them. She called 112 asking police intervention for the dog she was protecting not to be taken from her arms, telling them that crimes are committed in Horez’s dogpound.

What exactly did the policemen do?

As seen in the footage, intimidated by the IGPPA ID card that Sandu Gheorghe put under their eyes, they got “shoulder to shoulder” posted in front of the block entrance, cutting woman’s retreat, in case she would have tried to escape with the dog (tranquilized by dogcatchers). The action of “terrorizing” a citizen, tax payer, which also pays the police representatives to do their duty of investigation and law enforcement took 45 minutes.

What they really do can be seen in the footage: they worked hardly to convince the woman to hand over the animal, and fined her for disturbing the public order, leaving the person who asked their help without protection at the sake of perpetrators. Their subsequent behavior leaves much to be desired. Who did disturb the public order, can be seen in the footage.

After the policemen’s departure dogcatchers finished the action, like thieves on the highway, dispossessing Ms. Miu of the dog she protected in her arms. But the policemen did their duty, came, saw, and punished …. leaving the citizen, Ms. Miu, without the “safety and reliability” police ought to provide.
Or maybe this logo translates into “safe and reliable for criminals“?

Those involved in actions knew they were filmed. After the police left, the dogcatchers, the plaintiff (administrator of blockhouse) and police’s witness (the neighbour in jeans coat) noticed that the cameraman had gone to change the battery. Seeing that they were no longer filmed, they bullied the woman, and forcefully took the dog from her arms.

In the end of the footage she is pushed by 2 dogcatchers & the veterinarian Sandu Gheorghe, while the third dogcatcher (driver, in leather jacket) sets off the car. Sandu Gheorghe (in camouflage outfit and hood, not to be recognized) pushes the woman once again, then walks to shake hands with the plaintiff. 

Also, town hall employee shakes hands with the plaintiff, this proving once again that all complaint was an act of revenge against the women, of the block administrator, involving the town hall employee, dogcatchers, with the support of the Police.

Also under policemen’s eyes 2 persons (dogcatchers) who are not allowed to use tranquilizers, use them unhindered.   Policemen didn’t check the persons using the non-lethal weapons, their authorization.

In fact the policemen did not give any importance of this action in progress, nor follow what happens as ‘each is responsible for his or her deeds’. What is the role of police, other than finding the violations that occur even in the presence of police?

The exclusive objective of police was monitoring and charging penalty to the woman.
In the presence of police, the plaintiff kicks the young dog, tranquilized already, which runs passing by them.

Each of the two 3-4 month old dogs that was tranquilized during the filming were shot 2 times, they were shot under the cars, in blind, by people who had not the right to use tranquilizers, dogcatchers carried the tranquilized dogs to car hidden from eyesight, for their condition to not be caught by camera. Sandu Gheorghe, the veterinarian, did not attend the tranquilization process at all, leaving the tranquilization entirely in dogcatchers’ assessment and hands. In fact he paid no attention to the animals or their handling during this action, as veterinarian.

Actually this is the current practice.

According the national veterinarian authority, ANSVSA ‘tranquilizing weapons are considered veterinary biological product of veterinarian use and are used only by veterinarians as part of the medical-veterinarian care.

Government emergency ordinance 155 / 2001 – Annex 2 – Rules for catching and transporting dogs, Article 8: Weapons of capture can’t be used to catch young dogs, since they can be seriously injured.
All the four dogs three month old and three adults were captured by tranquilization.

Meanwhile, the two policemen worked on convincing ms Miu to hand over the dog to dogcatchers, because the situation was ‘already tensed’, and they circled her together with the employees of APAM Horez (NGO of animal protection!!), the witness (neighbour), plaintiff, town hall employee, for her not to run away with the dog.

Woman keeps calm; it is not her that who causes trouble and altercation.
When she is asked to sign the penalty report, she asks the ‘invectives’ for which she gets the penalty to be written down as well. The policeman says: you cannot oblige anyone to write what you want.

Then I can’t sign it, Miu said.

The report issued by police mentions: Miu disturbed the public order, had altercation and called abusive words to Sandu Gheorghe, in his quality of doctor inspector in the animal protection.

We call the police representatives to take notice of the abuses and illegalities presented by the footage and take appropriate necessary measures.

Video link:

 The 45 min footage is available on link for 10 days.