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

Bubby

NewKittenHelp wrote: »

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.

I wish everyone would stick to the facts unfortunately unless you are personally involved in the case the only "facts" you are claiming to know are the ones that have been written.
If only we could always trust the courts to get it right then we would have no repeat offenders roaming our streets. Its as easy as saying that because someone was found guilty of a crime then they are 100% guilty, alas on many occassions the courts are found to be inaccurate and wrongful verdicts given.

From everything I have read on both sides there is more than a shadow of a doubt as to whether Lennox was a dangerous dog. I don't know the family personally but again as I mentioned I can feel empathy with them, would they really have caused all the publicity they did if they couldn't care less about Lennox?

I for one hope that this case raises alot more support against the law as it stands and enables us responsible dog owners to keep our dogs without living in fear of someone "mistaking" our dog for a pitbull "type".

rising_from_the_ashes

spike7451 wrote: »

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?...

Seconded .......

SmartPricePoster

RIP Lennox. I only hope those who did this get what's coming to them.

SmartPricePoster

NewKittenHelp wrote: »

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.

All animals can be 'unpredictable and dangerous' if you push them enough, even humans. Shall we do a mass cull of ourselves now?

candygirl

SmartPricePoster wrote: »

All animals can be 'unpredictable and dangerous' if you push them enough, even humans. Shall we do a mass cull of ourselves now?

Maybe a choice few;)

Dollardog

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.

I agree, they didn't appear to lie at all, he was said to be an American Bulldog crossed with a Labrador. It was his size and measurements which classed him as a pit bull type which his owners had to agree he was because that was the evidence they were given. Those measurements probably fit numerous other breeds of dog, which because they don't look like pitbulls, don't apply to them. BCC have no authority to use the standard in the context they have, BCC used the ADBA breed standard guide illegally.
No dog should be judged for temperament based on what it looks like or its measurements, its deed not breed that should count.
Lennox was kept in appalling conditions for the two years they had him confined. 'After studying the Animal Welfare Act 2006 it is clear that none of Lennox’s welfare needs were met at this undisclosed Council contracted kennel.' BCC itself needs prosecuting for keeping him in such terrible conditions as was seen in the photos.
It was shown on the videos that were released and in the opinions of well known dog behavior experts that in no way was he dangerous, even when being taunted, he showed no aggression. The dog warden who falsely claimed that she was so frightened of him that she didn't want to go near him should be prosecuted for perjury, as it is quite obvious that she lied, she is seen in the video, stroking him and very relaxed in his company, and in photos she's seen cuddling him and having him lick her face. That certainly doesn't look to be to be someone who was frightened of him.
Poor Lennox was led from his home to be put to death - murdered - just because of the way he looked and his measurements, not because he had acted in a dangerous manner, not because there had ever been any complaints about him, just because of his looks and measurements!!
The law which allows this to happen is wrong, it needs changing quickly. There are too many cases of innocent dogs being taken from their homes and being put down in the same way.
Lennox was an innocent dog who should never have been treated the way he was. Even a dog who was guilty of dangerous behavior shouldn't have been kept in the conditions he appeared to have been kept in.
BCC have a lot to answer for, not only their own actions, but the actions of the people employed by them.
I hope that Channel 4 do make a documentary out of it, BCC are not going to be seen in a very good light.

Oliver14

NewKittenHelp wrote: »

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.

Many dogs are kept outside shall we cull all the working farm dogs that live outside as well/

NewKittenHelp wrote: »

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.

Lets stick to facts shall we. The expert was an ex police dog handler with no recognised qualifications. Offers of independant qualified behaviourists (with Pit bull experience) to look at the dog were refused by BCC. The courts could only reach a decision on the information given if that information was questinable which it was there judgements are not really correct. They may be legal but not correct.

NewKittenHelp wrote: »

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.

No one has ever said the family were perfect dog owners or that the dog wouldn't hurt a fly (you can't say that about any dog) It has always been stated that the dog was wary of strangers which is a thing you can say about a lot of dogs. The family have never said themselves they or their dog were perfect.

NewKittenHelp wrote: »

It was an illegal dog and it was legally put to sleep.

Just ecause what was done was 'Legal' does not mean it was correct decision. Many legal decisions are later overturned or found to be wrong

This though is the crux. It was classed as a Pit Bull 'Type'. In reality that is a wooly classifcation. This is what they class as a Pit Bull type they do not need to meet all these critera to be classified as such. Dogs have been seized and killed who only meet one or two of these criteria.

ears folded forward or sideways

muzzle not pointed

broad wedge shaped skull

straight solid front legs

broad deep ribcage

well muscled thigh

long hind legs

tail - low down in hind quaters hangs like "pump handle"

short single smooth coat

height 45 - 55 cms

HeatherintheHills

Very well explained Oliver14 :beer:

Sadly, it is a waste of time and effort as NewKittenHelp has decided that what was said in court, and his/her interpretation of the text is set in stone.

However NKH has been unable to support his/her arguments with proof, other than the court documents. We have a whole legal system set up on the basis that court findings can be interpreted in different ways, be appealed and even sometimes overturned. In this particular instance that fact that the original hearing judge presided over the appeal of his own judgement on Lennox beggars belief! And there now appears to be good evidence that one witness perjured herself, that is a criminal offence and must not be overlooked.

We should also note that Lennox's family were never, at any point, told where he was being held, or allowed to visit him, even to say goodbye before he was euthanised. That was despicable.

BCC did far more damage in the mishandling of this case than they could ever have envisaged at the start. I hope that whatever they thought their strong stance would gain them is heavily outweighed by the political and economic backlash they have brought upon themselves.

Person_one

Oliver14 wrote: »

This though is the crux. It was classed as a Pit Bull 'Type'. In reality that is a wooly classifcation. This is what they class as a Pit Bull type they do not need to meet all these critera to be classified as such. Dogs have been seized and killed who only meet one or two of these criteria.

My parents dog meets all of those except the coat criteria. He's one of these:



Worrying how easy it would be for someone to seize a huge amount of happy loved family dogs using those criteria.

Kinski

Person_one wrote: »

My parents dog meets all of those except the coat criteria. He's one of these:



Worrying how easy it would be for someone to seize a huge amount of happy loved family dogs using those criteria.

Beautiful dogs
This is my sisters staffie who also could have been seized as being of TYPE