Laurence Dollimore
AN EXPAT sanctuary owner who rescued a dying donkey was arrested and forced to purchase it, as well as three others.
Peter Singh, 46, discovered one-eyed pregnant Ethel, who was covered in scars, starving and struggling to stand.
Peter was taking the mule to his Alicante sanctuary when police made their arrest.
The man who had left Ethel crippled with an injured hoof and with her bridle cutting into her face had sent his nephew to the police with two more donkeys.
Unless Peter paid £1,600 for all the donkeys, including the unborn foal, he was told he would be charged with theft.
“My blood was boiling,” he said, “I had no option but to pay up. These people had neglected this poor animal so badly it was close to death.”
“It was as if I was rewading cruelty,” he added.
The police reportedly said to Peter, who opened his sanctuary in Pinoso after quitting his job as a London photographer in Peckham: “Why don’t you go back and save animals in England?”
The officers involved were unavailable for comment.
The brother of the donkeys’ owner, Alonso, said: “It was the English that proposed the deal through the police, not the other way around.
“These donkeys are well cared for.”
heh.
Sadly, such good intentions don’t get you very far in Spain, especially when it comes to animal cruelty. Mr Singh needs to wise up. He should have known that you cannot take an animal, dying or otherwise, from anywhere, not before getting permission from the owner or getting the police or animal authorities involved. Meanwhile, there is the story of the 20 stone idiot who crushed a nativity play Donkey to death and the judge said there was no case to answer. Spain in a nutshell.
How can this bloke say this donkey was well cared for, it was in a terrible state. What about the supposed law that prosecutes people for animal cruelty in Spain now? He didn’t ask for the donkey to be returned, but handed over another three. So the upshot of the whole thing is, he got paid for animal cruelty.
A strong British government would have financially brutally dealt with the Spanish years ago – that’s the problem.
I always thought that journalism involved “Witness A said THIS”; “Witness B said THAT”; “We investigated, and found out these other things.”
The OP’s methodology seems to be: “The English guy reported the complete truth”, “The foreigner (usually Spanish, but it might be any foreigner, even Irish, or a Scot) said something different, but we don’t care.”
But, so what? Judging from the comments above, most of your readers prefer their news that way. I guess that’s why the Daily Mail is so popular on the Costa.
You really can’t stand Brits can you.