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

NewKittenHelp

Bubby wrote: »

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.

The dog didn't seem to be very loved by the family who refused repeated chances to make him more comfortable. Or when they kept it outdoors all the time.

Let's stick to the facts, which are that the family lied, the family didn't care enough to send their dog a blanket or some treats when given the chance to do so, and the majority of the experts and evidence showed this dog to be unpredictable and dangerous. Three separate courts reached the same conclusion. Are you suggesting that this is some big conspiracy because frankly Belfast has enough on its plate as it is.

I don't like the rewriting of history and the claims that this family were the perfect dog owners and did nothing whatsoever wrong and that the dog was a loving family pet that wouldn't hurt a fly. I've never said the council did nothing wrong, I think they got quite a bit wrong but legally they were completely right. It was an illegal dog and it was legally put to sleep.

Person_one

Whatever you think of the family, this dog was killed just because of the way it looked, it hadn't done a thing wrong.

That's so clearly and unarguably wrong that I really can't believe anybody would defend it.

NewKittenHelp

Person_one wrote: »

Whatever you think of the family, this dog was killed just because of the way it looked, it hadn't done a thing wrong.

That's so clearly and unarguably wrong that I really can't believe anybody would defend it.

It was killed because the majority of the experts and evidence found it to be unpredictable and dangerous. But of course random internet users know more than three separate courts.:rotfl:

krlyr

NewKittenHelp wrote: »

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

I still cannot see it :huh:

If you mean this bit

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

A Bulldog cross is perfectly capable of being considered a Pitbull type
See page 14 - http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/files/dogs-guide-enforcers.pdf

NewKittenHelp wrote: »

It was killed because the majority of the experts and evidence found it to be unpredictable and dangerous. But of course random internet users know more than three separate courts.:rotfl:

The courts went by Peter Tallack's assessment I believe. Quite a few of the behaviourists (note that Tallack has no behavioural qualifications/is not a dog behaviourist, but an ex-police dog handler) have spoken up on how they feel his assessment was dissatisfactory and were of the opposite view to him.

Oliver14

Person_one wrote: »

That's so clearly and unarguably wrong that I really can't believe anybody would defend it.

People will defend anything in Discussion time just to cause an argument (as that's what they like to do) no matter how obvious the injustice.

Some people would argue that MSE didn't exist while posting on it just to cause a good bunfight.

spike7451

krlyr wrote: »

I still cannot see it :huh:

See My post here

NewKittenHelp

krlyr wrote: »

I still cannot see it :huh:

If you mean this bit
A Bulldog cross is perfectly capable of being considered a Pitbull type
See page 14 - http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/files/dogs-guide-enforcers.pdf



The courts went by Peter Tallack's assessment I believe. Quite a few of the behaviourists (note that Tallack has no behavioural qualifications/is not a dog behaviourist, but an ex-police dog handler) have spoken up on how they feel his assessment was dissatisfactory and were of the opposite view to him.

Note the wording - "type known as a Pit Bull Terrier" in exactly the same way a labrador would be found to be a "type known to be a Labrador". Not a "Pit Bull type" as people are claiming.

The court documents are in the thread. Two or so pages back.

The court had three experts, two applicant appointed and one court appointed, two of them found the dog to be dangerous and unpredictable. This along with all the other evidence led three separate courts to reach the same conclusions. It beggars belief that people who have never met the dog think they know better than these three courts.

Kinski

NewKittenHelp wrote: »

It was killed because the majority of the experts and evidence found it to be unpredictable and dangerous. But of course random internet users know more than three separate courts.:rotfl:

can you name the experts and what they're qualifications are please, I've only seen the reports that said they used the dog warden who by all reports lied and a police dog handler who has not had any training other than that that all dog handlers get.
My sister had a staffie who was a really big lad, if she had been stopped and Spud had been measured he would have been seen as of type, doesn't mean they are pits just that they have a few of the same characteristics as pits.

spike7451

ok...enough please...

Lets just agree to disagree here...all this !!!!!ing & squabling is only detracting from lennox's memory &,i'm sure,if the family were to read this thread,imaging how it'd make them feel?...

krlyr

NewKittenHelp wrote: »

Note the wording - "type known as a Pit Bull Terrier" in exactly the same way a labrador would be found to be a "type known to be a Labrador". Not a "Pit Bull type" as people are claiming.

No, because the law is against Pitbull types.
http://www.doglaw.co.uk/pitbull.php
"Q. What is a pit bull terrier type dog
A. Section 1 and 4B of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 relate to dogs of the type known as the pit bull terrier. The High Court has decided that for a dog to be a pit bull type, it must have a substantial number of the physical characteristics of a pit bull terrier. These characteristics are listed in a number of places, and probably the most comprehensive (and that generally relied on by Courts) is the American Dog Breeders Association's Basis of Conformation for the American Pit Bull Terrier. This is a functional standard which describes the ideal, and so the dog does not have to conform in every detail to be regarded as a pit bull type. DEFRA has produced guidance which summarises some of the physical aspects of a pit bull terrier (see 'DEFRA guidance on prohibited dogs' which can be accessed via the links page on this site) "

Basically if your dog meets x, y and z measurements/characteristics, it can be deemed a Pitbull type. Whether it's a Staffie with too-long legs, a Labrador cross, basically if it meets several of the characteristics listed on the Defra page I linked, it can be deemed Pitbull type.