RSPCA with out photos

[Alec Swan]

I suspect the dogs death was due to other causes. But, if by some miracle the OP is telling the truth, the whole truth & nothing but...then, yes, the RSPCA should be brought to task.

So let me get this straight; The rspca with Police support confiscate a dog, which whilst it's under the control and care of the rspca, a bitch which at 8 weeks pregnant would have been quite clearly heavily pregnant, and to anyone but a fool, is killed by other dogs, and there is any doubt at all who is responsible for the dog's death?

I understand that there are those on here who will support the rspca at any given opportunity, but supporting their case would call for a bit of imaginative argument!

I'm NOT supporting the OP, I just wonder if there aren't red herrings being offered by way of deflection. The rspca are clearly culpable, the OP has yet to be proven so.

Alec.

 

[bonny]

Is this all not going round in circles now and beginning to look a bit of a witchhunt ? Nobody other than the OP knows the whole truth so why not wait until the court case(s) and then comment on what actually happens rather than a lot of speculation ?

 

[Alec Swan]

^^^^ This.

Alec.

 

[wipeout]

If the dog died in a fight then I wonder if the private boarding kennels are also being investigated for their part in this. I suppose the RSPCA have their own kennels but once they are full then they have to use other "professional" establishments.
I would say that both the kennels and the RSPCA have questions to answer.

 

[_GG_]

So let me get this straight; The rspca with Police support confiscate a dog, which whilst it's under the control and care of the rspca, a bitch which at 8 weeks pregnant would have been quite clearly heavily pregnant, and to anyone but a fool, is killed by other dogs, and there is any doubt at all who is responsible for the dog's death?

I understand that there are those on here who will support the rspca at any given opportunity, but supporting their case would call for a bit of imaginative argument!

I'm NOT supporting the OP, I just wonder if there aren't red herrings being offered by way of deflection. The rspca are clearly culpable, the OP has yet to be proven so.

Alec.

I'm with you on that....so is BS...people are saying the same thing, just in different ways.

I do wonder the culpability of the RSPCA as I believe the dog was in a kennel facility not run by them when it happened, but under RSPCA instruction which is why I support the OP's desire to make them answer for that.

Is this all not going round in circles now and beginning to look a bit of a witchhunt ? Nobody other than the OP knows the whole truth so why not wait until the court case(s) and then comment on what actually happens rather than a lot of speculation ?

Because money is being accepted when all the truths are not being told.

 

[bonny]

I'm with you on that....so is BS...people are saying the same thing, just in different ways.

I do wonder the culpability of the RSPCA as I believe the dog was in a kennel facility not run by them when it happened, but under RSPCA instruction which is why I support the OP's desire to make them answer for that.


Because money is being accepted when all the truths are not being told.

If people want to donate money then is that not up to them ? I don't get why you are playing detective over this ....I'm sure others can read between the lines as well.

 

[_GG_]

If people want to donate money then is that not up to them ? I don't get why you are playing detective over this ....I'm sure others can read between the lines as well.

I get that and will step back. It's not been playing detective, just concern and valid concern. You are right though, people can do what they want.

 

[Spring Feather]

Gosh it all sounds terribly involved. Surely it's up to people if they wish to donate to someone or anyone for whatever they want? If they're not interested enough to find out the truth then does it really matter to anyone else what they spend their money on?

 

[_GG_]

Gosh it all sounds terribly involved. Surely it's up to people if they wish to donate to someone or anyone for whatever they want? If they're not interested enough to find out the truth then does it really matter to anyone else what they spend their money on?

Accepted.

 

[Juni141]

If people want to donate money then is that not up to them ? I don't get why you are playing detective over this ....I'm sure others can read between the lines as well.

Hallelujah!! I have followed this thread with interest. GG I am sure your heart is in the right place but I think you have crossed a line.

The only facts we have are that the OP's dog was killed through the RSPCA's negligence and the OP has received donations from consenting adults. I have seen absolutely no evidence of his 'campaigning' for money.

So unless you are involved with the trial i.e. you are police, RSPCA, a witness, work for prosecuting or defending law firm or know Dymented personally I CANNOT fathom how you feel so qualified to state that you absolutely know he is lying/in the wrong??! If it is the case that you are any of the above it is completely wrong that you are publishing your views before the case is heard in court.

If the above is not the case and you are in no way linked to the case then I hardly feel a bit of internet snooping from inevitably biased sources (as almost all internet sources are) is enough evidence, and I use that term loosely, to persecute an individual that you do not know to the level you have.

You keep saying that it will all come in court so why not leave it alone if you believe this so strongly?? This has got to the point where it feels like cyber bullying.

Finally, if people want to donate their own money to Dymented's cause that is entirely their choice and not your place to tell them not to.

 

[_GG_]

Hallelujah!! I have followed this thread with interest. GG I am sure your heart is in the right place but I think you have crossed a line.

The only facts we have are that the OP's dog was killed through the RSPCA's negligence and the OP has received donations from consenting adults. I have seen absolutely no evidence of his 'campaigning' for money.

So unless you are involved with the trial i.e. you are police, RSPCA, a witness, work for prosecuting or defending law firm or know Dymented personally I CANNOT fathom how you feel so qualified to state that you absolutely know he is lying/in the wrong??! If it is the case that you are any of the above it is completely wrong that you are publishing your views before the case is heard in court.

If the above is not the case and you are in no way linked to the case then I hardly feel a bit of internet snooping from inevitably biased sources (as almost all internet sources are) is enough evidence, and I use that term loosely, to persecute an individual that you do not know to the level you have.

You keep saying that it will all come in court so why not leave it alone if you believe this so strongly?? This has got to the point where it feels like cyber bullying.

Finally, if people want to donate their own money to Dymented's cause that is entirely their choice and not your place to tell them not to.

I accept that and I do see that I would have been better to show some restraint. I have no problem apologising or holding my hands up.

For the record, I haven't searched the internet for anything about the OP. I was given information, I didn't ask for it. I'm not part of any authority.

You are right, my heart is in the right place. I care about the welfare of animals and on a personal note I hate seeing people being lied to but you are right also, as is Bonny...what people do is up to them. There ya go.

 

[bonny]

I accept that and I do see that I would have been better to show some restraint. I have no problem apologising or holding my hands up.

For the record, I haven't searched the internet for anything about the OP. I was given information, I didn't ask for it. I'm not part of any authority.

You are right, my heart is in the right place. I care about the welfare of animals and on a personal note I hate seeing people being lied to but you are right also, as is Bonny...what people do is up to them. There ya go.

Now I feel guilty ! That was an unexpected response, I never doubted you had good intentions, I just felt you were getting a bit carried away. Hopefully, all will be revealed in October and the truth will come out x

 

[ester]

GG does have unbiased sources that are nothing to do with the internet which have enabled her to state that she absolutely knows that the truth is not being told, but for obvious reasons has not been able to elaborate. I am sure that she only has concern that people's emotions might be abused at the very least (which to be frank we have already had plenty of issue with on this forum with faked accidents and alike), or money obtained and wanted to give as much of a heads up as possible/suggest acting with caution. I am surprised the OP is still posting but there we go.

Most on here do know her as a lovely and helpful poster, definitely not one to spread cyber bullying. I suspect her concern for animal welfare has perhaps made her posting a little less measure than previously/it has meant it has been taken a bit the wrong way.

eta people posting while I was typing again!

 

[_GG_]

Now I feel guilty ! That was an unexpected response, I never doubted you had good intentions, I just felt you were getting a bit carried away. Hopefully, all will be revealed in October and the truth will come out x

Let's just say I was brought to tears yesterday about it and had absolutely zero sleep last night, I felt compelled to share some of my knowledge as I'd have felt awful sitting on it if that makes sense.

I could never intentionally bully, I just wanted to expose that the OP has lied to us all. You don't need to feel guilty Bonny, you made a valid point. I just have more time on my hands than should be allowed this week! Must learn to stop, lol.

 

[joycec]

Dymented, you said earlier that you have now been charged. What have you been charged with? I know it will be on record somewhere, but it would be easier if you just tell us?

 

[Juni141]

I accept that and I do see that I would have been better to show some restraint. I have no problem apologising or holding my hands up.

For the record, I haven't searched the internet for anything about the OP. I was given information, I didn't ask for it. I'm not part of any authority.

You are right, my heart is in the right place. I care about the welfare of animals and on a personal note I hate seeing people being lied to but you are right also, as is Bonny...what people do is up to them. There ya go.

I just think you have to be so careful with such an emotive, subjective subject. I'm still struggling to understand why, if you are in no way involved, why you cannot share what it is you know. It just makes me suspicious and causes yet more speculation.

I don't doubt your dedication to animal welfare and I think the one thing we all unanimously agree on is that the poor terrier died a despicable, unnecessary death and the RSPCA should be held accountable.

GG does have unbiased sources that are nothing to do with the internet which have enabled her to state that she absolutely knows that the truth is not being told, but for obvious reasons has not been able to elaborate. I am sure that she only has concern that people's emotions might be abused at the very least (which to be frank we have already had plenty of issue with on this forum with faked accidents and alike), or money obtained and wanted to give as much of a heads up as possible/suggest acting with caution. I am surprised the OP is still posting but there we go.

Most on here do know her as a lovely and helpful poster, definitely not one to spread cyber bullying. I suspect her concern for animal welfare has perhaps made her posting a little less measure than previously/it has meant it has been taken a bit the wrong way.

eta people posting while I was typing again!

What are her 'obvious reasons' for not posting these reasons?? In my simple view, if she believes what she has been told by another party (this is the only way I can think of her having this knowledge if she hasn't been on the internet) why can't she share it? The only reason I can come up with is that the source is directly related to the case. If this is the case, she should not be discussing it on a forum.

This is not an attack on you GG, merely my observations on what has been said.

 

[_GG_]

I just think you have to be so careful with such an emotive, subjective subject. I'm still struggling to understand why, if you are in no way involved, why you cannot share what it is you know. It just makes me suspicious and causes yet more speculation.

I don't doubt your dedication to animal welfare and I think the one thing we all unanimously agree on is that the poor terrier died a despicable, unnecessary death and the RSPCA should be held accountable.



What are her 'obvious reasons' for not posting these reasons?? In my simple view, if she believes what she has been told by another party (this is the only way I can think of her having this knowledge if she hasn't been on the internet) why can't she share it? The only reason I can come up with is that the source is directly related to the case. If this is the case, she should not be discussing it on a forum.

This is not an attack on you GG, merely my observations on what has been said.

I understand. I was told something. The op has now said that for himself. I didn't say what it was, he did. That's all. All I have discussed is what the OP has said himself. So, nothing to share, the OP has done it.

You're right, it is very emotive, which is why I guess I have been drawn in to wanting to know more and I have held my hands up for that, but I haven't gone on a hunt for information. The obvious reasons for me not posting what I knew was that I didn't want to say anything that the OP hadn't said himself. I knew he was witholding the truth, if the person that told me that wants to say so, that's for them to do not me. Hope that makes sense.

 

[dymented]

Believe it or not, I will come to the OP's defence here, something he seems to find impossible to accept no matter how many times I have done it. There has been posted, as statement from the RSPCA stating that a dogs seized from the OP's address was found dead in the kennel under their care (a third party kennel, not an RSPCA facility). So, I do believe that the RSPCA have to answer for that, however it happened.

I have been suspended from the hunting life forum and can no longer see anything, which I was expecting. I have also been blocked from the facebook page which is odd as I haven't shared any of this on there but...an update for you all is that the OP has stated all along that he has never been questioned or charged...he has said on the other thread, this afternoon that after taking the RSPCA to court, they have pressed charges against him. So he needs to make his mind up. He can't say he has been charged and that he hasn't been charged.

That is in the open now because he put it there, not me. His words, not mine. He is a defendant in a case being brought by the RSPCA. He didn't say questioned or arrested, he said charged.

This has been my issue....the thought that money raised has gone towards his defence in some way.

I've only taken my findings from what the OP himself has posted so any problems with that and he only has himself to blame.

I say AGAIN....I support his action against the RSPCA in that I accept that a dog from his address died in their care and they need to answer for that. That is however, where my support ends.

_gg_ i got the charge Tuesday 24th ( causing pain and suffering to the dead dog , they day they took her they found no fault with her, they claim to have found an infection internally in the autopsy must be coincidence that they removed 95% of the internal organs including her pups be for sending her body back skinned and beheaded ) we had already gotten the date from the court on the 16th regarding the legal action we are taking against the rspca when i posted i had not been charged with any thing at the time i had not . by all means continue you your trolling the fact she was killed in the care of the rspca will still remain they kennel she was housed at is part of the rspca please don't confuse people _gg_

 

[Fides]

So what about the charges that you initially mentioned several times? The reason the dogs were taken in the first place. Frankly I do not believe you - you give no credible posts and contradict yourself frequently.

 

[ester]

What are her 'obvious reasons' for not posting these reasons?? In my simple view, if she believes what she has been told by another party (this is the only way I can think of her having this knowledge if she hasn't been on the internet) why can't she share it? The only reason I can come up with is that the source is directly related to the case. If this is the case, she should not be discussing it on a forum.

This is not an attack on you GG, merely my observations on what has been said.

by obvious reasons I just meant that there are court cases going on which usually means people have to be a bit careful what they say/can't explicitly type along the lines of 'well I have spoken to so and so and they said xyz' which is why I think it can perhaps come out a bit detectivey/cloaks and daggers when that isn't intended.

 

[FionaM12]

Dymented whatever the truth of this story, I'm sure everyone here know _GG_ is no troll and that her motivation is concern for others, animal welfare and wanting to know the truth.

Accusing her of trolling isn't likely to get you any credibility here.

 

[dymented]

So what about the charges that you initially mentioned several times? The reason the dogs were taken in the first place. Frankly I do not believe you - you give no credible posts and contradict yourself frequently.

they claim i was badger bating I have never been questioned over badger bating i have not been charged with anything to do with badgers the claim i was dog fighting No i have not been questioned regarding dog fighting or charged with anything to do with dogfighting . Its a common thing that the rspca say so it looks good on them , They sad the same things about a genital man 20 miles away the rspca vet was screaming the dogs tail has been bitten off ( was a patch of fur missing ) there neglected its all on tape he recorded it for his own protection ! they made allegation of badger bating dog fighting ect they had the police size his dogs and property ( which the rspc took the property home with them) 5 month later here are your dogs back and all your property we are sorry for the inconvenience now if anything had happened to his dogs in the care of the rspca i bet her would have a fabricated charge to justify what they had done . Now the guy is perfectly innocent of any crimes but every one in his neighbourhood saw the 6 rspca vans and all the police cars he is making formal complaints to the ipcc over the actions of the police and rspca they lied to get a warrant ! they lied to have the police size his dogs and property !

 

[webble]

they claim i was badger bating I have never been questioned over badger bating i have not been charged with anything to do with badgers the claim i was dog fighting No i have not been questioned regarding dog fighting or charged with anything to do with dogfighting . Its a common thing that the rspca say so it looks good on them , They sad the same things about a genital man 20 miles away the rspca vet was screaming the dogs tail has been bitten off ( was a patch of fur missing ) there neglected its all on tape he recorded it for his own protection ! they made allegation of badger bating dog fighting ect they had the police size his dogs and property ( which the rspc took the property home with them) 5 month later here are your dogs back and all your property we are sorry for the inconvenience now if anything had happened to his dogs in the care of the rspca i bet her would have a fabricated charge to justify what they had done . Now the guy is perfectly innocent of any crimes but every one in his neighbourhood saw the 6 rspca vans and all the police cars he is making formal complaints to the ipcc over the actions of the police and rspca they lied to get a warrant ! they lied to have the police size his dogs and property !

Sorry but the majority of your posts don't make any sense

 

[MerrySherryRider]

So what have you been charged with ?

 

[{97702}]

Can someone do a synopsis of all this please? Cos I have tried reading some of it and I cannot made head nor tail of it!

 

[_GG_]

Dymented, I'm done. You have, again, refused point blank to even acknowledge that I have repeatedly offered you support in YOUR case against the RSPCA for what happened to your sons dogs. I think I have repeated that 30 times since yesterday, yet you blissfully ignore that only to pick apart other parts of my posts.

People want the truth, here's the truth...

There is Dymenteds version of the truth, there is the RSPCA & Police version of the truth.

Finally, there is the actual truth, which will be discovered in court and I will wait for BOTH cases to come out in the press because if Dymenteds case against the RSPCA gets the press coverage he has eluded to, you can bet your left tit that the RSPCA case against him will get the same, if not more coverage.

 

[Alec Swan]

they claim i was badger bating I have never been questioned over badger bating i have not been charged with anything to do with badgers the claim i was dog fighting No i have not been questioned regarding dog fighting or charged with anything to do with dogfighting . Its a common thing that the rspca say so it looks good on them , They sad the same things about a genital man 20 miles away the rspca vet was screaming the dogs tail has been bitten off ( was a patch of fur missing ) there neglected its all on tape he recorded it for his own protection ! they made allegation of badger bating dog fighting ect they had the police size his dogs and property ( which the rspc took the property home with them) 5 month later here are your dogs back and all your property we are sorry for the inconvenience now if anything had happened to his dogs in the care of the rspca i bet her would have a fabricated charge to justify what they had done . Now the guy is perfectly innocent of any crimes but every one in his neighbourhood saw the 6 rspca vans and all the police cars he is making formal complaints to the ipcc over the actions of the police and rspca they lied to get a warrant ! they lied to have the police size his dogs and property !

Sorry but the majority of your posts don't make any sense

It's true that the majority of Dymented's posts are difficult to follow, but that's because of his inabilities to explain himself clearly. The inabilities of the OP shouldn't in any way bar him from his rights.

By focusing on the facts, it would seem that not for the first time the rspca have persuaded the Police to offer support when there was no case to answer and when the charity under discussion have been forced to return the property of others, so there has been barely even an apology.

The problem which the Police have, in their defence, is that they are totally reliant upon a collection of clowns and barely qualified to contradict them.

I'm still studiously fence-sitting, and acting as an intermediary!

Alec.

 

[webble]

It's true that the majority of Dymented's posts are difficult to follow, but that's because of his inabilities to explain himself clearly. The inabilities of the OP shouldn't in any way bar him from his rights.

By focusing on the facts, it would seem that not for the first time the rspca have persuaded the Police to offer support when there was no case to answer and when the charity under discussion have been forced to return the property of others, so there has been barely even an apology.

The problem which the Police have, in their defence, is that they are totally reliant upon a collection of clowns and barely qualified to contradict them.

I'm still studiously fence-sitting, and acting as an intermediary!

Alec.

No they shouldn't but if he expects people on here to follow and understand then it is a factor

We don't have the facts, we have what the op has unclearly told us

 

[PolarSkye]

they claim i was badger bating I have never been questioned over badger bating i have not been charged with anything to do with badgers the claim i was dog fighting No i have not been questioned regarding dog fighting or charged with anything to do with dogfighting . Its a common thing that the rspca say so it looks good on them , They sad the same things about a genital man 20 miles away the rspca vet was screaming the dogs tail has been bitten off ( was a patch of fur missing ) there neglected its all on tape he recorded it for his own protection ! they made allegation of badger bating dog fighting ect they had the police size his dogs and property ( which the rspc took the property home with them) 5 month later here are your dogs back and all your property we are sorry for the inconvenience now if anything had happened to his dogs in the care of the rspca i bet her would have a fabricated charge to justify what they had done . Now the guy is perfectly innocent of any crimes but every one in his neighbourhood saw the 6 rspca vans and all the police cars he is making formal complaints to the ipcc over the actions of the police and rspca they lied to get a warrant ! they lied to have the police size his dogs and property !

If this had been written in English, I might be able to read it and have some idea of what's actually happening from your point of view. As it stands, this is unintelligible and nonsensical.

P

 

[Fides]

Can someone do a synopsis of all this please? Cos I have tried reading some of it and I cannot made head nor tail of it!

Dymented stated that the dogs were seized for 'inciting a fight with a wild animal', repeatedly he claimed it was not for badger baiting but now claims it is, but is in fact being charged for causing injuries that he claimed the RSPCA committed. It's all a total nonsense and the OP does live up to their name - they are demented.

Regardless of opinion it will all be out for the public record once the case has been brought to court so the truth will out...