Outrage as police 'executioners' seize and kill 22 pet dogs

gettingready

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/471442/Outrage-as-police-executioners-seize-and-kill-22-pet-dogs

No words...

Queries

OK, due to govenment Police cut-backs, child abusers, rapists, muggers etc., are allowed to roam the streets and abuse -obviously killing pet dogs rates higher However, it is ok for plods to kill well cared for pet dogs, this should be classed as animal abuse and treated as such.

This is not Iraq or Afghanistan, this is supposed to be a humane country.

If I decided my own dog should be killed and I did it myself, then I should be - rightfully jailed and fined.

Sue the b******ds, I am so very, very, sorry for your needless loss, thinking about you as an dog lover! Kindest thoughts and regards.

cgk1

This story is a month old, Matrix deals with gangs and gang crime - they haven't randomly picked these houses...

gettingready

cgk1 wrote: »

This story is a month old,

Published: Sun, April 20, 2014

msg too short msg too short msg too short

Lance

http://www.merseyside.police.uk/news/latest-news/2014/03/27/dangerous-dogs-in-breach-of-contingent-destruction-orders-seized-by-police.aspx


Out of the many millions of dogs in the UK why would a Police operation targeting gangs seize 22 dogs, all pitbull types for destruction? It appears there was sufficient evidence presented to the court that these dogs were dangerous and not being looked after according to the legal restraints they were kept under. I like dogs but I wouldn't want one of these families next door with a pitbull.

BJV

If it is true and sorry but we can not always take everything written in the press to be gospel it is disgusting.


I would be devastated if that was my dog.


But again I am like some of the other posts not convinced that the dog owners where randomly targeted. If they where and it was just as described then the police yet again have a lot to answer for.

zaksmum

This was published in Merseyside at least a month ago.

Personally, I will never understand anybody wanting a pit bull dog.

But if for some reason I was mad enough to want one, I'd make damn sure I adhered strictly to any conditions the cops wanted to place on me to ensure I kept my dog and he was not taken from me and destroyed.

dandelionclock30

zaksmum wrote: »

This was published in Merseyside at least a month ago.

Personally, I will never understand anybody wanting a pit bull dog.

But if for some reason I was mad enough to want one, I'd make damn sure I adhered strictly to any conditions the cops wanted to place on me to ensure I kept my dog and he was not taken from me and destroyed.

You would if you'd had one, they can be lovely dogs if they are brought up properly and treated with kindness. The problem is with people bringing them up to fight and hitting them making them aggressive and putting them on treadmills etc.
I've known 2, and one was a female farm dog that my friend took as a puppy as someone was going to drown her. She was lovely and no trouble. The other was a large male and My Mum whos elderly used to dog sit for it. Again it had a nice nature .
The most aggressive dogs I've come across are Jack Russell Terriers and I've seen an owner nearly have his finger bitten off by one. All dogs need to be treated with respect and bull type dogs have a bad reputation because of idiots.

Mojisola

If the owners were concerned about their dogs' welfare, they would have complied with the court orders.

"The action taken across Merseyside (Wirral, Sefton, Knowsley, St Helens and Liverpool) today is solely in relation to banned breeds, which have been given exemptions by the courts. When the courts grant these exemptions there are nine conditions imposed by the courts, which the owner must abide by.

"On Merseyside there are 247 owners of dogs who are exempted under Dangerous Dogs legislation, of these 130 are in breach of their conditions.

"The owners of the dogs seized by officers today were issued with a Contingent Destruction Order by the courts and the dog was then placed on the Dangerous Dogs Index and the owners were sent a letter by DEFRA (Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) advising them of the terms and conditions that were in place and that their dog may be destroyed if they breached the conditions.

krlyr

From what I read elsewhere, there was a clerical error that showed several of the dogs as uninsured, despite there being insurance in place (one owner saying their dog was seized whilst she was trying to root around for the paperwork that proved insurance was in place). Obviously quite a 'he said, she said' situation though

zaksmum

krlyr wrote: »

From what I read elsewhere, there was a clerical error that showed several of the dogs as uninsured, despite there being insurance in place (one owner saying their dog was seized whilst she was trying to root around for the paperwork that proved insurance was in place). Obviously quite a 'he said, she said' situation though

if it meant the difference between life and death for my dog...I would KNOW EXACTLY where the paperwork was.