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

aliasojo

DitaVonTee wrote: »

Lets put that aside though, lets not forget, the family APPOINTED her to seek whatever 'expertise' they believed she had.

My eldest son was expected to go into a special unit when he was young.

I felt this was not in his best interests so I asked an educational psychologist to assess him. He reckoned my son wasn't able to be educated in a mainstream setting and he wanted to put him in one of the most severe units available at the time.

I felt his report was extreme and not accurate. I ignored his advice and sought further opinion from another educational psychologist. His view contradicted that of his colleague.

Now those were two experienced professionals who had differing views. Both of whom were asked to assess by me.

I didn't believe the first was accurate or fair so of course I dismissed his opinion.

Son entered mainstream education and all involved with him agreed it was the better option for him.

So you'll understand if I don't put much weight on your argument about Ms Forsyth? Her being appointed by a particular party does not necessarily confer accuracy.

SmartPricePoster

DitaVonTee wrote: »

I would put to sleep my dog on the advice of someone who were highly educated enough to realize there were problems from the start.

Madeleine Forsyth, now, lets have a look at her credentials.;)

Education can mean jack !!!!!! if you make silly statements like she has. Only a person who has spent their life with the dog can know the dog, not a 5 minute assessment where a dog is put in a strange situation which can cause stress and anxiety and erratic behaviour.

The fact you'd allow an outsider dictate what is what when it comes to your supposed loved one is sad really. I would never let any so-called expert take my dog away.

DitaVonTee

aliasojo wrote: »

So you'll understand if I don't put much weight on your argument about Ms Forsyth? Her being appointed by a particular party does not necessarily confer accuracy.

Previous court evidence from Ms Forsyth (though not concerning Lennox) reflects differently:)
She up until assessing Lennox remained completely impartial towards him and has helped more dogs than she's condemned:):T

For example;)
http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/news-focus/the-canine-mike-tyson-or-loveable-family-pet-1.828584?referrerPath=news/news-focus

DitaVonTee

SmartPricePoster wrote: »

Education can mean jack !!!!!! if you make silly statements like she has. Only a person who has spent their life with the dog can know the dog, not a 5 minute assessment where a dog is put in a strange situation which can cause stress and anxiety and erratic behaviour.

The fact you'd allow an outsider dictate what is what when it comes to your supposed loved one is sad really. I would never let any so-called expert take my dog away.

Lets not run away with the FACTS, Madeleine Forsyth was not responsible for taking Lennox away, Lennox was in fact taken away by a dog warden, because his license was 9 months out of date.
Had they kept all his details up to date, there is every chance the dog warden would NOT have been there in the first place.
If you are a law abiding citizen (which clearly they weren't) you do as the law asks you and keep your dogs details completely up to date.:)

aliasojo

DitaVonTee wrote: »

Previous court evidence from Ms Forsyth (though not concerning Lennox) reflects differently:)

I do see your point, and I hope I'm not coming across as dismissing Ms Forsyth as incapable in anyway.

I'm just pointing out that it would be a rare professional who made the right call 100% of the time and no weight should (imo) be put on the fact that the family did not go with her report, they clearly believed her prompt judgement of Lennox was not accurate or just.

SmartPricePoster

DitaVonTee wrote: »

Lets not run away with the FACTS, Madeleine Forsyth was not responsible for taking Lennox away, Lennox was in fact taken away by a dog warden, because his license was 9 months out of date.
Had they kept all his details up to date, there is every chance the dog warden would NOT have been there in the first place.
If you are a law abiding citizen (which clearly they weren't) you do as the law asks you and keep your dogs details completely up to date.:)

Irrelevant 'facts'. You cannot judge a dog's entire behaviour on a 5 minute session. Nobody said she was the one to take him away either.

Also, the whole 'law abiding citizen' is irrelevant to us who live in parts of the UK who do not have the registration scheme.

DitaVonTee

SmartPricePoster wrote: »

Irrelevant 'facts'. You cannot judge a dog's entire behaviour on a 5 minute session. Nobody said she was the one to take him away either.

Also, the whole 'law abiding citizen' is irrelevant to us who live in parts of the UK who do not have the registration scheme.

Whose to say Madeleine only spent '5 minutes' with Lennox? I don't believe I have stated that anywhere. If you'd like to email her though, I am sure she will clarify precisely how long she spent with him.

The 'law abiding citizen' comment was relevant to the Lennox case, by law in NI all dogs should be licensed, Lennox's license had expired by 9 months.

spike7451

DitaVonTee wrote: »

The local authority where Lennox was held, would have actually cremated his body, they weren't at liberty to release his body (even though they could have used their discretion) due to health and safety risks.
Also, there are a lot of questions regarding WHY the family weren't allowed to see him, well UK law is very clear.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/homeandcommunity/inyourhome/animalsandpets/dogs/dg_180098

As for Lennox collar, I actually believe that is a myth, it's being said elsewhere it will be released in due course to the family.

Lennox was held in Northern Ireland,who's laws are somewhat different than England,so the information you linked to above may be vastly different from over here in NI.
Also,animals that are PTS over here are cremated.


This link is more appropriate for NI;

http://www.dardni.gov.uk/index/faq/dangerous-dogs-questions.htm

What happens if an owner disputes that a dog is a pit bull terrier?
In the legislation, dangerous dogs are classified by type, not by a breed label. This means that whether a dog is considered a dangerous type, and is therefore prohibited, will depend on a judgement about its characteristics, and whether they match the description of a prohibited type. This assessment of the characteristics is made by a court. However, if it is alleged by the prosecution that a dog is a banned type, it will be assumed by the court that it is, unless the owner can provide the court with sufficient evidence to the contrary.

Paradigm

What happens if an owner disputes that a dog is a pit bull terrier?
In the legislation, dangerous dogs are classified by type, not by a breed label. This means that whether a dog is considered a dangerous type, and is therefore prohibited, will depend on a judgement about its characteristics, and whether they match the description of a prohibited type. This assessment of the characteristics is made by a court. However, if it is alleged by the prosecution that a dog is a banned type, it will be assumed by the court that it is, unless the owner can provide the court with sufficient evidence to the contrary.

Surely that is where the whole thing falls down? A decision is made based on some laughable measurements/looks that are nowhere near reliable & open to interpretation but the owner has to prove they are wrong? How does that work & how have we let it happen?

This whole case is a perfect example of why the DDA & BSL is a kneejerk nonsense of a law, always was & always will be!

A radical overhaul is needed & hopefully this case will proved the impetus. Although, as politicians are petty small minded individuals full of their own importance....I have my doubts!

HeatherintheHills

I find it a bit puzzling that the family had another dog who was living with them at the time Lennox was seized (she may still be there, I don't know).

What I have read indicates that this dog is thought to be Lennox's full sister. So why was Lennox the only dog taken? Can anyone offer any insight on that?