Lennox has been destroyed. Thank you to all who tried to help

NewKittenHelp

HeatherintheHills wrote: »

Accepting that his head measurements were those of a pit bull TYPE is not the same as saying he is a pit bull. The American Pit Bull society, who produced the breed measurements used by the court have taken legal action themselves against BCC for unauthorised use of their research.

The DNA test results were not accepted for submission to the court and the court wouldn't order their own. But there was a DNA test just the same, but BCC chose to ignore it.

RIP Lennox, as said earlier, this had nothing to do with you.


ETA must type faster, cross posted with krlyr

Sorry but you're wrong -

The applicant accepted that the dog was of the type known as a Pit Bull Terrier

That's from the court documents.

The dog was illegal and so the appropriate action was taken. Awful for the dog of course, but dogs like those should not be owned by laymen. Two of the three experts, appointed by the court and the applicant (owners) found the dog to be dangerous.

Pink_elephants_n_lemonade

NewKittenHelp wrote: »

Sorry but you're wrong - That's from the court documents.

The dog was illegal and so the appropriate action was taken. Awful for the dog of course, but dogs like those should not be owned by laymen. Two of the three experts, appointed by the court and the applicant (owners) found the dog to be dangerous.

The applicant accepted that the dog was of the type known as a Pit Bull Terrier

Try reading it properly first.....'was of the type' not 'was A'. Go ahead & believe court papers rather than actual DNA & facts.....:whistle:

Punish the deed not the breed

NewKittenHelp

Pink_elephants_n_lemonade wrote: »

The applicant accepted that the dog was of the type known as a Pit Bull Terrier

Try reading it properly first.....'was of the type' not 'was A'. Go ahead & believe court papers rather than actual DNA & facts.....:whistle:

Punish the deed not the breed

You haven't given any facts, you've just claimed that there was a DNA test, which seems to be news to the owners who refused to allow a DNA test to be done.

The dog was dangerous and unpredictable and so appropriate action was taken. But you ignore all the evidence presented to three separate courts and instead focus only on a tiny part of that evidence. I'm just glad that the people living around that family no longer have to worry about their child's face being ripped off by a dangerous dog.

janninew

So very, very sad. How have they gotten away with keeping Lennox in such poor conditions for so long?

HeatherintheHills

NewKittenHelp wrote: »

You haven't given any facts, you've just claimed that there was a DNA test, which seems to be news to the owners who refused to allow a DNA test to be done.

The dog was dangerous and unpredictable and so appropriate action was taken. But you ignore all the evidence presented to three separate courts and instead focus only on a tiny part of that evidence. I'm just glad that the people living around that family no longer have to worry about their child's face being ripped off by a dangerous dog.

There had already been a DNA test done, why do another? DNA doesn't change.

I think the real point is that a lot of the evidence presented to the court was unreliable or questionable. It is also worth noting that there had not been any complaints about this dog from neighbours or anyone else. The dog warden went to the owners house and decided to take Lennox, based on the way he looked. Lennox didn't actually do anything questionable before being taken from his home. He was already in BCC kennels when the behaviourists examined him, hardly the best of environments.

This is really about how the process was carried out as well as the ethics of BCC dog wardens and officials. In addition, the woolliness of the legislation used to destroy Lennox has been highlighted. It was badly drafted and needs careful revision if it is to do the job it was intended for.

Person_one

NewKittenHelp wrote: »

Where's the proof of this? I can't see it in the court documents. The owner admitted that he was a Pit Bull Terrier. There was no DNA test.

It went your way, any need to keep harping on?

rising_from_the_ashes

Was really sad to see the news item this morning ..... RIP Lennox - sorry we couldn't save you big lad xx

gettingready

based on the way he looked

Pure racism, dog's version.

RIP Lennox.. sorry you had 2 years in hell

ali-t

Run free Lennonx, every dog owners worst nightmare . Losing a dog to bureaucracy - tragic. :mad::(

catkins

I thought one of the worst aspects of this story was that they would not let the family visit Lennox. They also would not allow them to go and say a final goodbye or allow them to have his body to bury or have cremated.

I look at my dog and cannot begin to imagine how that would make me feel.

I lived in France for a few years and got my dog there. Even though I ended up hating it there I would not come back because I could not put my boy in quarantine for 6 months as it would have broken my heart and I know it would not have done him any good at all. I only came back once the pet passport came into place.

Me and OH were meant to be going to Belfast for his birthday - only really to visit the Titanic exhibition as Belfast has never been on a list of places either of us want to visit. We are definitely not going now as neither of us want to give that city even 1p of ours