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

Bubby

NewKittenHelp wrote: »

It's interesting that the so-called licence claims he's a bulldog, even those his owners admitted in court that he's not. They are bald faced liars and yet they still have people screaming in sympathy with them.

I think you are getting way too personal now and I am starting to question how close you are to this case. This is a forum where we can all have adult discussions without resorting to name calling!

ali-t

Oliver14 wrote: »

Also to add a blog from one of the people who was brought in to assess Lennox

http://networkedblogs.com/zNR4K

It just gets worse and worse :mad: The behavioural assessment makes for very sobering reading considering the the final outcome. I firmly believe that the dog legislation is targetting the wrong people.

There is much stronger legislation in place in Scotland to control dogs and IMO the people who are going through the courts are not people it was originally aimed at i.e. youths with devil dogs (and other such stereotypes).

aliasojo

walwin wrote: »

I actually got the info regarding Channel 4 considering a Dispatches programme from Facebook - the following on there is massive, also on Twitter, but you're right Melonade, we still need to keep sharing

I don't have FB or Twitter so I'm glad of all the updates and suggestions posted here.

I have also written and included proper details.

NewKittenHelp

Bubby wrote: »

I think you are getting way too personal now and I am starting to question how close you are to this case. This is a forum where we can all have adult discussions without resorting to name calling!

Why am I getting personal? Who have I insulted? I haven't insulted anyone but I have been insulted and had those posts removed. The family did lie. They admitted lying by claiming first that their dog was a Bulldog and then later admitting that he was an illegal Pit Bull Terrier.

krlyr

NewKittenHelp wrote: »

Why am I getting personal? Who have I insulted? I haven't insulted anyone but I have been insulted and had those posts removed. The family did lie. They admitted lying by claiming first that their dog was a Bulldog and then later admitting that he was an illegal Pit Bull Terrier.

Can I ask where they admitted he was a Pit Bull Terrier?

NewKittenHelp

krlyr wrote: »

Can I ask where they admitted he was a Pit Bull Terrier?

The court documents posted. I've quoted them several times too.

Bubby

NewKittenHelp wrote: »

Why am I getting personal? Who have I insulted? I haven't insulted anyone but I have been insulted and had those posts removed. The family did lie. They admitted lying by claiming first that their dog was a Bulldog and then later admitting that he was an illegal Pit Bull Terrier.

You called the family bald faced liars - is that not name calling??

I gather from what I have read that the family believed Lennox to be a bulldog and when presented with the facts admitted that he was of pitbull "type". You could buy a puppy from someone believing it to be a certain breed and when later informed by officials could admit that it was in fact a different breed, theres no lie there.

Regardless of what breed he was he did not deserve the treatment he got, I know of someone who's dog is a legal breed yet has bitten 2 people - Is that ok because he is legal?

Even if he was a "dangerous" dog (although I don't believe that from what I have read) he sould have been treated with kindness and compassion and his family should have been allowed to see him and make the decision to euthanise themselves. I know if they took a dog of mine away I would rather euthanise than allow them to go through the hell that Lennox suffered. The law needs to be changed and it should be based on behaviour and not the breed of the dog, any dog can be a "dangerous" dog in the wrong hands and unfortunately these people have ruined the pitbull breed because of the way they have been trained and taught to behave. If he had attacked someone then I would have agreed with him being instantly euthanised however behaviour assessments in a strange environment with strange people and appauling conditions is not the way to class him as dangerous. But then anyone who knows anything about dogs would know that so I would question why the dog warden was doing the job she was doing.

vax2002

Authority can never back down and answer to the people, or admit it is wrong , for it would cease to be authority.
The whole notion of authority is it can not be challenged or overturned by those it controls.

NewKittenHelp

Bubby wrote: »

You called the family bald faced liars - is that not name calling??

I gather from what I have read that the family believed Lennox to be a bulldog and when presented with the facts admitted that he was of pitbull "type". You could buy a puppy from someone believing it to be a certain breed and when later informed by officials could admit that it was in fact a different breed, theres no lie there.

Regardless of what breed he was he did not deserve the treatment he got, I know of someone who's dog is a legal breed yet has bitten 2 people - Is that ok because he is legal?

Even if he was a "dangerous" dog (although I don't believe that from what I have read) he sould have been treated with kindness and compassion and his family should have been allowed to see him and make the decision to euthanise themselves. I know if they took a dog of mine away I would rather euthanise than allow them to go through the hell that Lennox suffered. The law needs to be changed and it should be based on behaviour and not the breed of the dog, any dog can be a "dangerous" dog in the wrong hands and unfortunately these people have ruined the pitbull breed because of the way they have been trained and taught to behave. If he had attacked someone then I would have agreed with him being instantly euthanised however behaviour assessments in a strange environment with strange people and appauling conditions is not the way to class him as dangerous. But then anyone who knows anything about dogs would know that so I would question why the dog warden was doing the job she was doing.

It's no less personal than someone attacking people for doing their jobs, which is something you haven't taken issue with despite it being far worse. It's definitely less personal than insulting other forum users for daring to have a different opinion than you - I was insulted.

I have said that all my sympathy goes to the dog in question, but I have none for the family and I cannot understand how anyone has any sympathy for them. I have also said that I accept that three separate courts know far more about this case than any internet users. I visited the facebook page and I was disgusted at the level of hatred sent to the council staff. I saw multiple death threats and they were egged on. I think it's sick.

Bubby

NewKittenHelp wrote: »

It's no less personal than someone attacking people for doing their jobs, which is something you haven't taken issue with despite it being far worse. It's definitely less personal than insulting other forum users for daring to have a different opinion than you - I was insulted.

I have said that all my sympathy goes to the dog in question, but I have none for the family and I cannot understand how anyone has any sympathy for them. I have also said that I accept that three separate courts know far more about this case than any internet users. I visited the facebook page and I was disgusted at the level of hatred sent to the council staff. I saw multiple death threats and they were egged on. I think it's sick.

Firstly I have never insulted you for having a different opinion to me and would not stoop to insults to get my point across. What about the child who loved her dog - do you have no sympathy for her either? I cannot understand how you lack sympathy for the family as they have lost a loved one regardless of what they said/didn't say, did/didn't do, I can feel empathy for them because I love dogs and can only imagine how sad they must have felt.

As for death threats that is completely over the top and I wouldn't condone that behaviour at all. The only way to make changes to the law is to deal with it in a positive and intelligent way and slinging threats isn't going to help anyone. I don't feel sympathy for the dog warden because I believe that the videos and her statements don't back each other up and as the videos are there for us all to see then I can only believe that she must have lied in her statement. I don't believe being a dog warden is something you just fall into like working a regular job you need to show compassion and be an animal lover so yes if she was an animal lover she should be haunted by what has happened, not attacked or threatened by always remember what she has done to an innocent dog.