{97702}
...
Thank you thank you thank you Fides! That makes everything clear now, I really appreciate it
Poor dogs
RSPCA with out photos
- Thread starter dymented
- Start date
Thank you thank you thank you Fides! That makes everything clear now, I really appreciate it
Poor dogs
Alec Swan
Well-Known Member
So 'everything's clear', is it?
I somehow doubt it. However others may sit around the guillotine, knitting, I can assure you that the realities are other than they imagine.The rspca originally confiscated the dogs, and persuaded the Police that the charge was, 'inciting a fight with a wild animal'. That would be an interesting charge, and relatively easy to defend. My dogs are encouraged to engage rats, rabbits and foxes, on a regular basis. It is not a criminal act, and they are scarred in the process.
The rspca NOW, whilst recognising that they are on rocky ground, seem to have accused the OP of badger baiting but with only the evidence of dogs with scars, and no evidence of any contact with badgers. Had they evidence of contact with badgers then that accusation would have formed the opening charge.
I remain sitting on the fence, but while watching the proceedings with interest.
Alec.
Fides
Well-Known Member
Do you have information we don't? As far as I can work out that is pure speculation...
FionaM12
Well-Known Member
Exactly. It does appear that Alec is accepting the OP's account as accurate, when in fact the whole thing including the poor dog which allegedly died could have been made up.
Unless, Alec, you have a reliable source of information which we don't know about of course.
You don't appear to be fence-sitting at all to me. :confused3:
wiltshireguy
Well-Known Member
Don't you mean flush out in relation to foxes?
honetpot
Well-Known Member
I have dipped in and out of this and I can not understand why you can not grasp what this man is trying to say as it's perfectly understandable to me.
I have worked for a large organisation where if you question policy, competency or their discions making they try and find fault with you. As I see it if any of this mans allegations are true the only way the RCPCA can defend its self his to make him look the baddy, as PR exercise they have far more to lose than him in donations and with bad publicity.
Just because the OP may come across as a bit shrill and sometimes his method of writing a bit incoherent its not that difficult to follow the plot and because he is not as literate or articulate as you does not make him a liar.
We have only to look at the mess the BBC, Social Services, police and the NHS have got themselves into to see that large organisations make mistakes and managers are very adept at covering their a***s, and you have to look at their and his motivation.
So hopefully everyone will have their day in court as a percentage of their income I know who is going to have to pay the most.
I have worked for a large organisation where if you question policy, competency or their discions making they try and find fault with you. As I see it if any of this mans allegations are true the only way the RCPCA can defend its self his to make him look the baddy, as PR exercise they have far more to lose than him in donations and with bad publicity.
Just because the OP may come across as a bit shrill and sometimes his method of writing a bit incoherent its not that difficult to follow the plot and because he is not as literate or articulate as you does not make him a liar.
We have only to look at the mess the BBC, Social Services, police and the NHS have got themselves into to see that large organisations make mistakes and managers are very adept at covering their a***s, and you have to look at their and his motivation.
So hopefully everyone will have their day in court as a percentage of their income I know who is going to have to pay the most.
Alec Swan
Well-Known Member
By fence-sitting, I am there to be convinced either way. I have no vested interest in the story, just an interest in the outcome, be the man guilty of cruelty, or the rspca guilty of wanton neglect. Currently, I'm of the view that the rspca have a great deal to answer for, but then as everyone on here, it's just an opinion!
Alec.
Cinnamontoast
Fais pas chier!
He's been accused of badger baiting? Yet it's ok for incompetent idiots with guns to go out and maim badgers and set snares for them so they die slowly or are just horribly injured and suffer until discovered? Ok, then.
PolarSkye
Well-Known Member
If badger baiting is the worst of his crimes he is still a despicable human being . . . sadly, I think I doesn't end there . . . something about this whole thing stinks to me - too many inconsistencies, too much back tracking, too much confusion.
P
P
dymented
Well-Known Member
when the rspca and police came they claimed dog fighting and badger baiting !!
i have never been questioned regarding dog fighting or badger bating i have never been charged with any thing relating to dog fighting or badger bating
the charge they are making came after we started legal action over the neglect and cruelty to my sons dog two weeks after we got a date to take them to court
( the charge is causing pain and suffering to my sons dog ,they claim they found something wrong in the autopsy 95% of the dogs insides are missing) I hope this is clear enough
i have never been questioned regarding dog fighting or badger bating i have never been charged with any thing relating to dog fighting or badger bating
the charge they are making came after we started legal action over the neglect and cruelty to my sons dog two weeks after we got a date to take them to court
( the charge is causing pain and suffering to my sons dog ,they claim they found something wrong in the autopsy 95% of the dogs insides are missing) I hope this is clear enough
milo'n'molly
Well-Known Member
So, please correct me on anything that I have got confused but this is how I have read it.
RSPCA claim op has been fighting wildlife with his dogs.
RSPCA persuade police to seize his dogs and happen to find him growing cannabis (besides the main issue)
During the seizure of the dogs the now dead dog was involved in a dog fight whilst under the supervision of the RSPCA and this is how the dog got scratches and puncture wounds noted on the vet report.
The dog was killed by larger dogs whilst in the care of the RSPCA two days after being seized.
The op was not told that the dog had been killed for 8 weeks
The RSPCA did not bring any charges against the op for the original claim of fighting wild animals
After the op brought criminal charges against against the RSPCA for the death of the dog the RSPCA have brought charges against the op because they found the bitch had a water infection upon postmortem
As far as I can tell the RSPCA need to be held accountable for the death of the dog under their care and the op hasn't explained himself very well here, I am not sure if that is the reason why it all seems so confusing or if there is something the op is hiding.
It seems strange to me that they would seize the dogs in the first place if the op was totally innocent but it would seem they haven't brought the original charge against him so who knows? Guess the facts will out in good time.
I can see why GG would be concerned that the op hasn't been very clear and that donations people have made to the op intended for the purpose of making the RSPCA accountable for the dead dog could actually be used to defend someone who may themselves be guilty of animal cruelty.
RSPCA claim op has been fighting wildlife with his dogs.
RSPCA persuade police to seize his dogs and happen to find him growing cannabis (besides the main issue)
During the seizure of the dogs the now dead dog was involved in a dog fight whilst under the supervision of the RSPCA and this is how the dog got scratches and puncture wounds noted on the vet report.
The dog was killed by larger dogs whilst in the care of the RSPCA two days after being seized.
The op was not told that the dog had been killed for 8 weeks
The RSPCA did not bring any charges against the op for the original claim of fighting wild animals
After the op brought criminal charges against against the RSPCA for the death of the dog the RSPCA have brought charges against the op because they found the bitch had a water infection upon postmortem
As far as I can tell the RSPCA need to be held accountable for the death of the dog under their care and the op hasn't explained himself very well here, I am not sure if that is the reason why it all seems so confusing or if there is something the op is hiding.
It seems strange to me that they would seize the dogs in the first place if the op was totally innocent but it would seem they haven't brought the original charge against him so who knows? Guess the facts will out in good time.
I can see why GG would be concerned that the op hasn't been very clear and that donations people have made to the op intended for the purpose of making the RSPCA accountable for the dead dog could actually be used to defend someone who may themselves be guilty of animal cruelty.
ChesnutsRoasting
Well-Known Member
Quite right. What type of dog do you use to 'flush out foxes, Alec?
ChesnutsRoasting
Well-Known Member
It's all BS. From BS.
ChesnutsRoasting
Well-Known Member
Naivety is not a crime. Badger baiting is.
Alec Swan
Well-Known Member
ChesnutsRoasting
Well-Known Member
Fides
Well-Known Member
I missed this... That doesn't ring true either - you cannot determine any animal has a urine infection on post mortem.
I still don't think we are getting the whole, or true story. So much is just a nonsense. If it is true then demented I am very sorry they have treated you this way.
dymented
Well-Known Member
ill say it again for the last time i have never been questioned or charged with any thing to do with fighting dogs or badger bating
dymented
Well-Known Member
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/37/schedule/1 the law on using dogs as of today
ChesnutsRoasting
Well-Known Member
Well you wouldn't have, they're your sons dogs. Has he ever been charged?
dymented
Well-Known Member
hes never been question by ether rspca or the police hes never been charged with anything
ChesnutsRoasting
Well-Known Member
Ok. No previous with the Authorities, yet they manage to get a warrant for the seizure of his dogs. Can you tell me what could have precipitated this warrant?
honetpot
Well-Known Member
I have followed this right from the start on FB before it was ever on here. He has said right from the first the dogs were not confiscated because of badger baiting, I am a bit of FB stalker and I saw nothing that would lead me to suspect these dogs were the sorts that would be used for baiting and he may have an older son but his son didn't look that old
Looking at the pictures of what was left of the dog it doesn't look like a controlled post mortem carried out to gain evidence that would stand up in court and it would be interesting to see the PM photos to see if there is evidence of baiting. If nothing else it was insensitive to return a family pet in such a state.
Then why come on here the home of the middle aged and middle class Waitrose shopper,( I know not all) to plead your case?
I have a lurcher, live in a prefab bungalow and have a caravan parked outside, people make assumptions and they are wrong. The post lady can be quite snooty. If there is a law that says you can not own multiple dogs of a certain type, fine but a lot of us have broken it. It will be up to both sides to prove their case with evidence not supposition.
Alec Swan
Well-Known Member
ChesnutsRoasting
Well-Known Member
It is an answer, and the only one which you're getting!
Alec.
Okey doke.
ChesnutsRoasting
Well-Known Member
Look, i've got five lurchers. MIL has eight. I couldn't give a monkeys where you live or what you do for a living. I have a nose that can smell bullshit from a 100 yards & this case stinks. He has bull crosses, if you knew anything about lurchers you would know what they are used for & it isn't rabbits.
Alec Swan
Well-Known Member
honetpot, a good post. Should the rspca's planned for prosecution reaches its final stage, and it will surprise me if it does, it will make for interesting reading!
Alec.
Alec.
Copperpot
Well-Known Member
Deer??? Not always badgers.
dymented
Well-Known Member
never heard so much rubbish
One is a dalmatian x greyhound the other is a hound x deer hound x grey hound ( so if i was out with a shot gun would that mean i am a crazed gum man ?) you cant see the sun shining because its so far up the rspcas XXXX