If you ride a horse, it WILL get spooked and you WILL fall off – so don’t sue over it

THE Otter Trust is a delightful-sounding charity which works tirelessly to preserve the East Anglian countryside and save rare breeds from extinction.

It’s been endorsed by Sir Attenborough and its family-friendly projects have been enjoyed by thousands of visitors over the years.

Sarah Potterton is suing The Otter Trust after falling off one of their horsesSupplied by Champion News

And now it’s being sued for a massive £200,000 by a woman called Sarah Potterton, who fell off one of its horses.

It seems the horse was spooked by the sudden appearance of a swan, and in the ensuing kerfuffle, Ms Potterton hurt her head.

Naturally, this has led to all the usual tear-jerking medical complications, which will be deployed in a torrent of mock incredulity by a barrister some time very soon.

Now, I’m not going to focus on Ms Potterton’s case because that’s a court’s job.

But I will say that anyone who climbs on to any kind of horse must accept that at some point it will be spooked by something or other.

A van, a puddle, a paper bag, a gust of wind, some rain, a light aircraft, a nearby house, a tree.

Even the sound of a nearby vicar pouring himself a schooner of sherry can cause a horse to set off like someone’s just pushed a mustard-covered hot dog up its bottom.

A horse is spooked by absolutely everything, which is why everyone with even the slightest bit of common sense chooses not to get on its back.

Me? I’d rather ride a salt water crocodile.

And Ms Potterton was not even riding a normal horse. She was on a Suffolk Punch, which is about the same size as a Euclid earth mover.

Before internal combustion came along, Suffolk Punches were used to tow ploughs, and buses and carts full of coal and lead.

In a battle between a Suffolk Punch and an enraged bull elephant, the horse would win. Hell, a Suffolk Punch could even lay waste to Thanos.

It’s claimed by fans of the breed that they are normally docile and calm.

But we all know that, underneath those 14 acres of skin, it’s still a horse.

And if it sees a swan while you’re on its back, some paramedics are going to need to cut your trousers off and you’re going home in an ambulance.

I would rather ride a saltwater crocodile than a Suffolk Punch horseAlamy

Gigantic payouts

And then you will talk to police people who’ve sued the force for being abused while on the beat, and doctors who’ve sued the NHS for the illnesses they caught at work, and motorists who’ve won big payouts for the whiplash they sustained in a 4mph parking incident, and people who’ve had gigantic pay-outs from their employers because someone looked at them strangely in a lift.

And maybe the woman who came to my farm and, whilst trespassing, fell down a hole and hurt her ankle.

Someone in power needs to put a stop to this nonsense.

But as that’s unlikely to happen any time soon, I shall be making a donation to The Otter Trust if they lose.

Roam, moan, groan

Lord Bathurst is planning to charge the public to use Cirencester ParkPIC PAUL NICHOLLS

FOR 300 years, hard-working families in the Gloucestershire community have been able to stroll through the 3,000-acre Cirencester Park, free of charge.

But the owner, Lord Bathurst, now says that if they want to come for a ramble, they’re going to have to pay.

I see his point. It costs an absolute fortune to run an estate that size.

Trees have to be felled, hedges have to be trimmed, rotting carcases have to be removed, deer numbers have to be managed, fences have to be repaired, dog eggs and litter have to be cleared – and to do all that you need a small army.

To make matters worse, the park gets no government funding.

His Lordship has to fund it all himself, and so far as I know, there’s no underground Guy Ritchie-style cannabis farm to help out.

Despite this, he has said to his neighbours that they can still enjoy the park for nothing but those coming from further afield will be charged £4.

Fair enough, you might think. But no. All of the local communists went berserk and last weekend several people decided that instead of marching in support of Palestine or in a bid to just stop oil, they’d rock up at the park and march there.

So they brought their beards and their Glastonbury woolly hats and their placards demanding a right to roam.

And their argument seemed to centre on the fact that Lord Bathurst is rich, so he should let people into his garden for nothing.

Yes, well McDonald’s is rich but no one ever gets a free burger.

Our beardy friends had an answer for that, though. They argued that the park was bought back in the 17th century, possibly using money earned from slavery. And that, I’m afraid, is that, your Lordship.

You may have reason and common sense on your side but these days, if someone can argue that you once bought a dog from someone whose postman’s great-great-grandad was involved in the slave trade, you lose.

20 not plenty Zac?

Zac Goldsmith was caught speeding a whopping seven times last yearPA

WHEN I heard that former MP Zac Goldsmith had been banned from driving and fined £5,500 after he was caught speeding a whopping seven times last year, I thought: “Crikey. The man must be a maniac.”

But then I looked at how fast he’d been going and now I’m not so sure.

He broke the 40mph limit three times in Twickenham, twice by driving at 46mph and once at 47.

Out of London, things were no different. He did 62 in a 50 and 73 on the M4 where a temporary 50 limit was in place. So we are not talking here about Lewis Hamilton.

What’s amusing, though, is he was caught breaking the 20mph limit twice, once at 28 mph and once at 29.

And who was it that campaigned for the 20 limit? Yup. Zac Goldsmith.

A FOOD delivery driver bit off a customer’s thumb, which made me wonder why on earth she would do such a thing.

But then I saw her photograph and it all became clear.

She just likes eating things.

Can’t guess crimes

SO, the Labour Party wants to throw the book at men who are found guilty of indecent exposure.

They say that this is a “trajectory crime”, arguing that men who do this might go on to commit worse offences in later life.

And if you examine the case of Wayne Couzens, who murdered Sarah Everard, you’d have to conclude that they have a point.

But hang on a minute. Because how can a court throw the book at someone for something they haven’t done, but might do in the future?

I’m not trying to trivialise an important point here but when I was first caught speeding, the magistrate didn’t say: “Well, it was only 85mph in a 70.

But unless we jail you for life today, pretty soon you will be doing 150 in a town centre.”

That’s not how the law works.