Friday, October 29, 2021

Lawyer described his client as an 'animal lover' despite the fact that he drowned someone's cat

NEWS AND COMMENT-UK: I am becoming sick and tired of people describing themselves as animal lovers or in this instance a lawyer in court describing their client as an animal lover when they clearly aren't. In this instance a 70-year-old lawyer, Mr Hugo Schleiger, described his client Philip Tripp as an animal lover in trying to defend him in court where he was being tried for animal cruelty having trapped and drowned a domestic cat in a garbage bin filled with water! Animal lover??! He's an Australian. No surprise then.

Tripp and his parrot that was confiscated
Tripp and his parrot that was confiscated. Photo: Facebook.

He was convicted. Part of his punishment was to lose custody of his companion parrots of 23 years. He is going to appeal his sentence. I guess that he wants his parrot back. It is a shame that the hates cats so much but loves parrots.

His lawyer said "The paradox is that he's been an animal lover all of his life and he has a parrot, which is his companion". It is not a paradox to me. He clearly cannot be an animal lover. A true animal lover would not even contemplate drowning a domestic cat to death in a bin. The thought would not cross their minds. To think of it is disgusting and shocking. It is the act of a nasty person who might present to the world a veneer of niceness and of being an animal lover but who in truth is not.

And, as you can see, it irritates me when his advocate in court has the gall to call his client an animal lover in trying to mitigate the punishment handed down to him. His punishment included a nine-month intensive corrections order, 100 hours of community service and the removal of his parrot under a disqualification order. Apparently Mr Tripp was remorseful. He is described as having an illustrious career. He is now known as the man who drowned a cat.

It has transpired that he intended to trap and kill feral cats which were, he believed, threatening native wildlife. The cat that he killed was owned. The owner had put posters around town trying to find their cat companion. They should sue Mr Tripp in the civil courts for compensation without delay. Or threaten it initially and then formally seek a hefty compensation. I would recommend something up to £1000. That won't bring their cat back and it won't assuage the pain of the loss of their cat but it will be some sort of justice and closure for them.

It seems that Mr Tripp thought he was killing a feral cat and not someone's cat. In the UK that wouldn't have made any difference. Under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 killing a cat like this is a crime. But in Australia citizens have been indoctrinated by the government of NSW and other states that feral cats are the enemy and they pretty much hate them.

No comments:

Search This Blog