Sherlock Bones Posted June 20, 2007 Report Share Posted June 20, 2007 I think my point was... is it a clever solicitor who has a way with words who has altered a statement/made a quote in a courtroom appear to sound different from how it should be, rather than a vet being a complete p**ck. Personally I'd like the vet to be hauled over the coals by the RCVS to see if he did say anything different and have someone else put a legal slant on it, just to see whether he is a stupid idiotic twerp, or not. Sam anyone who gives a toss about spelling more than anything else really should have the telegraph whacked round their head. or a dictionary, whichever hurts more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reds Posted June 20, 2007 Report Share Posted June 20, 2007 Legally, I can understand where you are coming from but I'd disagree that he was factually correct as whilst admittedly it appears there was no direct evidence to prove greater suffering is caused by drowning than lethal injection (& sometimes judges have to act on laws facts despite what common sense says) nor does it appear that there was there any evidence presented to support some of his own evidence & opinions - eg that the average owner with unwanted dogs drowns them appears to have been nothing more than an opinion rather than something which the evidence presented proved to be so. Undoubtedly it happens, but on average? Amongst other things The RCVS guidelines issued to vets and shown on their website state Guide to professional conduct - 1B. a. make animal welfare your first consideration in seeking to provide the most appropriate attention for animals committed to your care b. ensure that all animals under your care are treated humanely and with respect e. uphold the good reputation of the veterinary profession 1E. Your responsibilities to the general public g. promote responsible animal ownership h. use their professional status to provide only factual information to the general public about veterinary products and services. Annex m. Professional witness The Veterinary Surgeon as a Professional Witness in the Magistrates' Court Care should be taken not to show bias in the report. Matters which do not assist your argument should be disclosed since failure to do so could damage your credibility. Extreme language should be avoided and personal opinions should be muted. Whilst I appreciate the puppies may not have been in his care at the time of death I nevertheless feel that his evidence has provided support for the owners actions and a precedent for others to argue upon. In my opinion it is therefore very questionable whether this vet has complied with any of these points & I'm going to ask them to consider & clarify whether or in what way each has been complied with. I like 1B (e) and 1E(g). I hope they respond to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KathyM Posted June 21, 2007 Report Share Posted June 21, 2007 Have to say(and in no way aimed at you lady ) we dont know the rescues didnt do anything. They may well have done everything in their power at that time which for most rescues right now is offer advice on how to cope and contact nos of other rescues to try. We get asked daily to take in around 10-to 20 bullbreeds of all ages. Look at my post in poundies, a 9 week old,9mth old and 11 mth old. None have found places. There isnt any room left for bullbreeds. I know it's not aimed at me ( ) but I just wanted to say I did say in the original post, *if* he contacted them (and said it was ultimately his responsibility and not any rescues fault), and I do appreciate how busy most bull breed rescues are. To be honest, I wasn't even thinking about rehoming help, but help getting the pups to feed which is a life-threatening problem and one I would've hoped (but not expected given my recent experience with them) the RSPCA would've visited to help him with, whether it would've prevented this (which I doubt) or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparkle Posted June 21, 2007 Report Share Posted June 21, 2007 I tell you what, how about someone says that this man's opinions got on their nerves and their head went funny and they drowned him .... I am fairly certain that is MURDER, which is exactly what he did to these poor babies, how the hell did he get off without any punishment?! This is disgusting, I hope that the mother was taken away from him and spayed, I doubt he was feeding her correctly to enable her to look after the 7 puppies, any "human" capable of this does not deserve to keep any animal, whats next? The dog was barking/needed feeding all the time/kept asking to be taken outside so I drowned her?! I sincerely hope karma comes into play in his case. Run free little ones, sorry that your time here was so short but at least you are safe now x Posted by sparkle on June 20, 2007 10:45 AM Mr Roger A.C. Williams, Boulder, Colorado USA please do your research before jumping in with inane comments. The Staffordshire Bull Terrier is the only dog the Kennel Club recommends for a family, they are fantastic dogs and are NOT more commonly known as Pit Bulls. For your info any dog can be dangerous, it depends on how they are bought up, whether or not they are properly socialised with both humans and other animals and how they are trained. Blame the Deed NOT the Breed linkPosted by Sparkle on June 20, 2007 10:49 AM Both of mine were posted thought they weren't going to! This one has pizzed me right off It sounds logical to me. Seems like we have a lot of city-types commenting on here, or is it just hippies? I'm astonished at the outrage actually - do you really think a lethal injection is preferable? Posted by Paul Danson on June 20, 2007 10:47 AM So has Greg Lorriman Of course it isn't cruel. Animals do not have human souls made in the image of God. There are very few animals that even show any evidence of self-awareness which is necessary to suffer pain. Without self-awareness pain is just pain: there can be no suffering. Those puppies won't have suffered a jot. It is incredible how a whole nation can be so brainwashed, in just one generation, in to believing such nonsense about animals. Live on a farm : then you'll begin to realise that cows, horses, chickens and dogs are NOT HUMAN!!!! They are just simple beasts with exceptionally simple needs and affections (usually associated with food). The non-western world understands this as they live so much closer to nature. We sit in front of our TVs watching talking animals and in turn talking to our dogs and cats: our view of animals is totally warped. Posted by Greg Lorriman on June 20, 2007 12:47 PM Give me 5 minutes alone with him, seriously Sam, don't think that it was aimed at you at all, having read your comment I can't see anything wrong with it, looks perfect to me hun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reds Posted June 21, 2007 Report Share Posted June 21, 2007 (edited) Received this back this morning: RCVS is the regulatory body for veterinary surgeons, not an academic organisation, so we are not experts on what research has or has not been done. There has certainly been research on the standard methods used to slaughter farm animals, but I imagine that no-one would have seen any point in doing research to test whether it was acceptable to drown puppies. The way in which domesticated animals are killed is in fact subject to detailed legal regulation. The Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations, SI 1995/731, make it an offence for anyone slaughtering or killing an animal to cause or permit any avoidable excitement, pain or suffering, and they must have "the knowledge and skill necessary to perform those tasks humanely and efficiently". The regulations can be seen at: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1995/Uksi_19950731_en_1.htm#tcon Jeff Gill I've replied again but asking for a more affirmitive response to specific questions. Reading between the lines though they clearly believe that the drownings were not legal. That JP has a lot to answer for. Next step the RSCPA I guess? Edited June 21, 2007 by reds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wickychoo Posted June 21, 2007 Report Share Posted June 21, 2007 This is just disgusting. Even by taking the emotion out of it and looking at it logically/practically, perhpas how the court would see it, drowning a pup will cause more suffering than an experienced vet giving a lethal injection, if the vet is a "proper" vet, having the skills needed to restrain and inject the animal would mean it would be done in a fast, efficient manner. Or even if they were small enough to induce them with aneasthetic gas then inject them once they were asleep, that would cause minimal suffering if any. I'm flabbergasted by this ruling, and I keep coming back to this thread to see if it was a hoax of some sort Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abby Posted June 21, 2007 Report Share Posted June 21, 2007 Greg Lorriman I just don't understand how anyone can say that not having a human soul means feeling no pain. Talk about a lack of humanity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ranirottie Posted June 21, 2007 Report Share Posted June 21, 2007 (edited) I come from a farming background and am not squeamish about the slaughter of "food" animals but I cannot equate that with drowning pups. How can a lethal injection that slows down the heart and gently sends the dogs to sleep be classed the same as a dog having its lungs filled with water and struggling to swim and breathe? Am I missing something? x Edited June 21, 2007 by ranirottie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scipio Posted June 21, 2007 Report Share Posted June 21, 2007 Dogs/puppies have nerves (to feel pain), they have lungs, they can't breathe underwater and so on. Indeed, there are the same as 10 day old babies - helpless, but feel pain and need care. Of course, if you drowned a 10 day old baby you would quite rightly be done for murder and no-one would sit around debating and disputing whether or not they feel pain! Indeed the whole bloody world would be outraged, as they should. I am disgusted. What is the MATTER with our society. Sorry, I am just sick to death of my own species. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reds Posted June 21, 2007 Report Share Posted June 21, 2007 Please mail your concerns to the RCVS and the RSCPA if you can, might make them take more notice if they're getting an abnormal amount of contacts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReikiAnge Posted June 21, 2007 Report Share Posted June 21, 2007 Please mail your concerns to the RCVS and the RSCPA if you can, might make them take more notice if they're getting an abnormal amount of contacts. I was under the impression from the Telegraph article, given that the RSPCA had interviewed the guy (after going out to visit him following a call from a member of the public I think another article said) and that the man referred to the RSPCA in court, that it was them that had brought the prosecution I would imagine the RSPCA is probably as blimmin p*ssed off as the rest of us that this man got off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reds Posted June 21, 2007 Report Share Posted June 21, 2007 I was under the impression from the Telegraph article, given that the RSPCA had interviewed the guy (after going out to visit him following a call from a member of the public I think another article said) and that the man referred to the RSPCA in court, that it was them that had brought the prosecution I would imagine the RSPCA is probably as blimmin p*ssed off as the rest of us that this man got off. Yes I know Ange but I would like to know if they are going to let it rest or will be following it up in anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReikiAnge Posted June 21, 2007 Report Share Posted June 21, 2007 Yes I know Ange but I would like to know if they are going to let it rest or will be following it up in anyway? Fair enough I must admit I'm feeling rather concerned about the new animal welfare bill if drowning puppies isn't considered animal cruelty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paddysky Posted June 21, 2007 Report Share Posted June 21, 2007 Dogs/puppies have nerves (to feel pain), they have lungs, they can't breathe underwater and so on. Indeed, there are the same as 10 day old babies - helpless, but feel pain and need care. Of course, if you drowned a 10 day old baby you would quite rightly be done for murder and no-one would sit around debating and disputing whether or not they feel pain! Indeed the whole bloody world would be outraged, as they should. I am disgusted. What is the MATTER with our society. Sorry, I am just sick to death of my own species. I couldn't agreee more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reds Posted June 21, 2007 Report Share Posted June 21, 2007 “He wanted a solution now. The average dog owner with surplus puppies drowns them.†That was in the local link put up by Sparkle. I know they could well be misquotes but surely it warrents investigation as being contrary to the Guidelines posted by Ian: 1E. Your responsibilities to the general public g. promote responsible animal ownership h. use their professional status to provide only factual information to the general public about veterinary products and services. Annex m. Professional witness The Veterinary Surgeon as a Professional Witness in the Magistrates' Court Care should be taken not to show bias in the report. Matters which do not assist your argument should be disclosed since failure to do so could damage your credibility. Extreme language should be avoided and personal opinions should be muted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts