'Hush money' offer after staghounds kill terrier

[LACS]

Not rhetoric at all, just the simple sad truth. Terriers get injured and their owners - perhaps in the desperate belief that the size of their cocks will increase in direct proportion to their dogs' suffering - post graphic photos on the web.

For example: http://www.diggingout.org/photo-lib/074467.jpg

But you know this already, Carreg: these people are members of your site.

 

[LACS]

"Cathrine Hodgeson should be ashamed of herself for allowing her dog to be outside unsupervised in the first place...........Carreg"

"Catherine Hodgson [...] tried to beat the hounds and used her body as a human shield in a vain attempt to protect her pet, Pippa."

 

[Hercules]

My spaniel got attacked by a couple of terriers. I got in the way of the way of the agressors and they tasted some leather. My vets fees were paid by the owners. Job done.

Dogs being attacked by other dogs is an everyday occurrence and dare I say it, 'nature'.

The only newsworthy issue here is that the local hunt was involved. After the incident they acted in exactly the same way as any responsible dog owner should be expected to.

What's the anti's point?

 

[LACS]

"After the incident [the hunt] acted in exactly the same way as any responsible dog owner should be expected to."

No it didn't. The initial offer of compensation was dependent on a confidentiality agreement. The owner quite rightly told the hunt to get f****d and they caved in. The resulting negative publicity is far worse than it would ever have been had the hunt behaved in a decent and honourable way from the start.

 

[Hercules]

You and I wouldn't offer a confidentiality clause. However, you and I are not organisations that would attract publicity.
The event would not even make the pages of the most desperate provincial rag if it had not been an organisation which had been involved.
I can fully understand why the hunt didn't want the event publicised, but I still maintain that the compensation which was offered and the way in which it was done was in keeping with responsible dog ownership.

 

[CARREG]

Is that it, there are over 1400 members on Moochers, without a shadow of a doubt a small percentage of them will be tossers, theres pillocks both sides of the fence, yours dig up grannies assault old and young alike burn down properties etc...etc, ours put up pics of dogs that may or may not have the odd bite on them whoopie feckin do.....!!!!...as I posted earlier your posts are getting desperate the more desperate they become the more boring you become, we've seen it all before you see you may or may not be new here, you're material certainly isnt..........Carreg

 

[LACS]

The hunt didn't "offer" a confidentiality clause - they insisted on it. It was only when the owner told them to get stuffed that they caved in. To treat her in this way certainly isn't "in keeping with responsible dog ownership" - it's an insult. It serves the hunt right that their cynical behaviour has attracted such bad publicity.

 

[Doreys_Mum]

And why should a hunt get bad publicity because there was a bit of a dog fight?

Should a hunt get bad publicity every time a huntsman wakes up with bed hair too?

Yes, the publicity would have been bad, but it was an "accident" (I still think Pippa started it...) - so publicity quite frankly shouldn't have been an issue.

Oh, and hounds fight each other. I should know, they decided to have a fight next to me whilst I was sitting down. It only took a stern word and a crack of a whip to stop them.

I think this stupid cow is in denial of the fact her beloved pet laid into two innocent hounds who are now dead because they retaliated - and that is the only damn crime!!!

I hope she realises how stupid she makes herself look!

(almost as stupid as the anti who stood in front of a pack in full cry and complained when a few of them hit him... apparently he was savagely attacked... wtf?)

 

[Paul T]

I'm not sure what's worse, the fact you attack the victim's owner in such a vindictive and small-minded way or your ignorance of the PR consequences of the hunt offering 'hush money'.

 

[allijudd]

How can it be called "hush money" when it is being openly talked about? If you are going to call the money anything then get it right and call it compensation! But then it would be no different to tripping on a broken paving slab, falling on a wet floor etc, but that is hardly news worthy.

 

[LACS]

It's being called "hush money" because that's what the hunt offered: money on condition of silence about the incident. The owner refused and they caved it. So if you like, the hunt offered hush money but were forced in the end to pay compensation.

 

[allijudd]

As i understand they were not forced at all. They accepted the clause was wrong, but stood by their convictions and offered the compensation anyway. Which was accepted, before complaining about it. Having cake........ and eating it????
I think so

 

[GinaB]

Why is it such a post just stirs up such bad feeling and so many are assuming it was the terriers fault? No-one here knows for sure what has happened and whether the terrier or staghounds were at fault? Although I do think it was right the dogs were destroyed as they have injured a dog so badly it had to be destroyed too. As someone else say if it was another animal they killed they would have been destroyed for that too.

 

[LACS]

The owner wasn't objecting to the compensation, just the confidentiality condition which was initially attached to it.

 

[jerryboy]

Have you thouught of entering politics Carreg?

Your ability to describe only one side of the story beggars belief on some occasions. You and Simon Hart could make interesting bedfellows.

To try and portray all animal welfare campaigners as grave robbers and arsonists is akin to portraying all your friends on Moochers as animal loving bastions of society. Neither of the above could be further from the truth.

 

[CARREG]

JERRYBOY
Im not trying to portray all AR campaigners as grave robbers and arsonists that would be foolish....as foolish as you lot are when you portray all people who hunt as blood thirsty mainiacs...there are idiots both sides of the fence and Im first to admit it...........Carreg

 

[severnmiles]

JERRYBOY
Im not trying to portray all AR campaigners as grave robbers and arsonists that would be foolish....as foolish as you lot are when you portray all people who hunt as blood thirsty mainiacs...there are idiots both sides of the fence and Im first to admit it...........Carreg

Well said Carreg, Jerryboy you have to admit that Carreg isn't narrowminded, he sees things from both sides of the argument, give the fella a break!

 

[Paul T]

" don't know enough to comment but I know there is more to it from what he has told me."

What, like in the David Irving revisionist sort of way?

 

[flying_change]

Blush......

 

[severnmiles]

Why 'blush?' you've confused me...

 

[severnmiles]

How much of David's knowledge do you possess?

 

[flying_change]

"I believe that there are good antis..like Endymion and RS for instance".

Hey, it's nice to get a compliment !

RS

 

[AlanE]

LACS, a desperate attempt to make something out of an unfortunate incident on your part, which (surprise,surprise!) fails yet again!

 

[Paul T]

I guess the headline grabber is that he denied the holocaust ever happened. Do you?

 

[severnmiles]

Sorry what was that you say?

 

[jerryboy]

Carreg,


For once I completely agree with you. Fair play to you.

Of course there are many more idiots on the pro side though.

 

[Nigel]

Hi JerryBoy,


You know what your probably right, there are bound to be more in idiots in the 100,000 odd CA Memebership than the 20 odd members of the League.

Cheers


Nigel

 

[Antoninus_Pluck]

SHE should have paid the hunt for efficiently dispatching her ancient pooch! Shut up woman!

 

[brighteyes]

That's a bit harsh