I was thinking about what might happen now. None of this is my area of expertise, so I stand to be corrected, but I'm sure that at least some of the following factors are relevant.
If there is to be an intervention with the aim of protecting vulnerable animals, there are several questions that need answering :
* How many animals are there at Fripps?
* What are the welfare needs for those animals?
* What human resources exist to adequately take care of animals at Fripps?
Answers to the above questions may highlight (criminal) shortcomings, and provide a list of animals that aren't being adequately looked after.
* For the animals that are not and cannot be adequately looked after at Fripps, what alternatives are there that will provide for their needs?
If there is to be an intervention that takes Jodie away from Fripps (eg for police questioning), this would factor in to the answer to the human resources question, even if it is doubtful that the unavailability of someone who spends all day trolling people on social media would make any difference to what Fripps can provide in terms of keeping animals breathing and healthy.
So, in the event of any plan to visit Fripps and enforce legal welfare requirements :
* Which animals are safe to remain at Fripps?
* Which animals are not safe to remain?
* Would the target(s) of an investigation react in such a way that would make animal welfare worse, if / when an intervention occurs?
At least the first pair of these questions can't be accurately answered without good answers to earlier questions.
Let's talk specifics. I'm not hot on the animal discussion here so I'm probably quite ignorant on very many animals, but let's just consider for the moment :
* Dogs
* Cats
* Fowl
* Snake
* Meerkats
So, say that intervention is on the cards. Present at an intervention there will need to be people proficient in understanding the needs of these various species. I don't know if there are individuals capable of understanding the needs of every species in her zoo. If not, there may need to be multiple specialists in attendance.
Let's say that we consider a reasonable possibility that some of these animals could be deemed to be at immediate risk. So there would need to be a plan for :
* (Per the above list) Identifying people who have sufficient understanding of the needs of multiple species expected to be found at Fripps. I suppose that vets might be expected to be well suited to this, but presumably they have plenty of other demands on their time, so availability needs to be resolved.
* Identiying people / organisations / locations that have the expertise and capacity to take on (rescue) various numbers of various species
* Establishing lines of communication in order to be able to efficiently coordinate any necessary rescues
* Transport planning
I could be far off the mark, but I assume that in general places that are able to rescue dogs aren't necessarily able to take on fowl, and snakes, for example. So working through the possibilities for this batch of questions is probably a lot of work.
Add on top of this the possibility of any animals being discovered on site that they had no foreknowledge.
It's not at all clear to me who takes the
lead on animal cruelty investigations; this
police website includes the words " We work with the RSPCA to investigate cases of animal cruelty." But right from the lead agency, to the partners likely to be necessary in various ways, it seems to me like a logistical headache.
With all of the above having been said, a critical part of any legal investigation is the collection and preservation of evidence, and protection of sources. Realistically, that means that all the preparations are behind closed doors, participants are expected not to spill the tea, We're gossipy observers and no-one's going to tip us off.
There are a few more consequential issues that occurred to me.
Fripps is not only the animal's home, it's her home. If she is removed for questioning, access to the house would probably be required in order to continue to support any animals that would remain on site. She might not be allowed to return, if Fripps were to be treated as a crime scenes. But, she owns another property and does have somewhere else to go.
I found the comment that her family and friends are aware of her "struggles" very interesting. There remains the possibility of some intervention from them, potentially before the long arm of the law hits her. It already occurred to me since Steph's departure that Parge surely couldn't be blind to the problems that she's causing for her pets and for herself. I wonder how much he knows what to do to help or whether he even wants to try. He would know that she would kick off, but equally I don't think that she would want to alienate herself from him entirely. He is surely significantly responsible for her being a mental
bleep in the first place; the best that I can say about that is that I'm sure he didn't intend to raise her to be this person and he didn't know how to do any better.
The media will have a role, if the
tit hits the fan. The more sober elements of the media will try to be sober and even-handed. Media outlets that are traditionally sensational will do their thing, and that will include willingness to keep any stories running and running, because that's how they make their money. They'll follow their readers lead in how the situation is being perceived (they won't risk alienating readers). For some, other people's misery is their bread & butter. Some of them will probably find information for their stories here, and the same places that we've found it.
Hope the 3 Witches have done the same.
