Ian Posted June 21, 2007 Report Share Posted June 21, 2007 who is this steve lomax I will stick his head in a bucket for 30 seconds and see how he bloody well feels am also getting on to the RCVS right now. Imaging this were true if it went wrong how do you think the defence might go........ "He was really getting on my nerves and the Fugees were rejecting him. I panicked. My head went funny and I just drowned him. I couldn't help myself. I thought it was wrong after I did it. I contacted eight welfare organisations in search of help. He added: "I even rang you lot and nobody could help me. I could not cope". Couldn't see that washing somehow, could you? Have now contacted RCVS. Guess we'll just have to wait & see whether they reply to any of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted June 21, 2007 Report Share Posted June 21, 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. Unfortunately whilst the clever solicitor was there too I'm afraid the vet also appears to be "a complete p**ck". Some of his replies are as mealy mouthed as any solictor - this is a quote from the Whitehaven news link. His view was supported by Steven Lomax - a vet with 28 years’ experience, who said: “I have heard no evidence to hear that the drowning of a puppy is inhumane. “He wanted a solution now. The average dog owner with surplus puppies drowns them.†But he admitted: “The obvious thing a caring dog owner would have done would be to contact a vet.†I do wonder about the defence solicitors though - I would have thought that in 28 years of vetinerary experience he will have had to euthanise a lot of animals necessarily. I would have thought the obvious question would have been "how many have you personally drowned" and if as we would expect the answer is none "why not"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian 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: Have sent both of the newspaper links with my comments & this is one of the points I raised. Also asking how these comments meet their guidelines, what their position as a Professional Body is on drowning as an acceptable means of euthansia, and if these comments do not meet with their guidelines what action they will take to protect such animals in future etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reds Posted June 22, 2007 Report Share Posted June 22, 2007 I've just spoken to the Complaints Dept. at the RCVS. I was told that they are delaying their replies to people until they have looked into it further. They agreed that the vet has not seemed to follow recommended practice and they appreciate the concerns. Due to the enquiries made to them by a number of people they are studying all the articles and are apparently actively "looking into it". They did clarify though that vets are allowed to give their personal opinion in response to a direct question to them by the Court asking for their professional opinion given their experience etc. That is what the RCVS are trying to establish at the moment, the context in which his reported comments were spoken and how Mr Lomax's opinion came about. I have a nasty feeling though he's going to get away with it or in the words of the lady on the telephone, "not misconduct as such" Anyone happen to know off the top of their head if the public can obtain the transcripts from a Magistrates Court? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reds Posted June 22, 2007 Report Share Posted June 22, 2007 Have now spoken to the Legal Adviser at Whitehaven Magistrates. They knew straight away which case I was referring to! Unfortunately no actual transcript exists nor were there any shorthand writers present BUT the adviser himself made and kept personal notes of the case including the statement given by Steve Lomax. Problem is that these can only be released to either party in the case. He did say that he would probably release the notes to the RSPCA but that they had not as yet made any request for them. Can only hope that they do... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reds Posted June 22, 2007 Report Share Posted June 22, 2007 Have now spoken to a VERY nice man at the RSCPA and it's looking brighter. Not sure how much it's sensible to say on here but suffice it to say that the RCVS and RSPCA Prosecution team are in established contact with each other. There's a statement being released by DEFRA with all the bodies expressing their horror at the Judgement. It is well and truly being taken further and I was assured that they are all aware of our Mr Lomax Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ailsas mum Posted June 22, 2007 Report Share Posted June 22, 2007 Well done it's to late to do anything about the scum that drowned the pups, but if they can stop Lomax opening his big gob in the same way again that will be fantastic. Terri Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merledogs Posted June 22, 2007 Report Share Posted June 22, 2007 (edited) Well done Lindsey and everyone else who complained It's a shame he wasn't drowned at birth Edited June 22, 2007 by madmerle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReikiAnge Posted June 22, 2007 Report Share Posted June 22, 2007 Thanks for the updates Lindsey, I'm very glad this is being followed up by these organisations. I haven't heard anything from the RCVS yet but did leave my contact details with them and got a name/number to call, so will follow it up if I don't hear anything back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reds Posted June 22, 2007 Report Share Posted June 22, 2007 I was so relieved to hear what they had to say. The RSPCA man actually asked to be put on the phone to me so he could have a chat in person and he thanked everyone for the concern and was pleased to hear that people were as shocked as they were. PM me if you want to know a little bit more. He was totally frank and honest and pleasantly forthcoming. I was well impressed He did warn that it was something that was going to take some time though obviously. Ange: I had an email back from the lady at the RCVS complaints dept. and she said that she was waiting to speak to a few certain people and that she would get back to me after next Thursday as they will have met by then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laurel n Hardy Posted June 22, 2007 Report Share Posted June 22, 2007 I've just spoken to the Complaints Dept. at the RCVS. I was told that they are delaying their replies to people until they have looked into it further. They agreed that the vet has not seemed to follow recommended practice and they appreciate the concerns. Due to the enquiries made to them by a number of people they are studying all the articles and are apparently actively "looking into it". They did clarify though that vets are allowed to give their personal opinion in response to a direct question to them by the Court asking for their professional opinion given their experience etc. That is what the RCVS are trying to establish at the moment, the context in which his reported comments were spoken and how Mr Lomax's opinion came about.I have a nasty feeling though he's going to get away with it or in the words of the lady on the telephone, "not misconduct as such" Anyone happen to know off the top of their head if the public can obtain the transcripts from a Magistrates Court? I called the RCVS and asked them for an official comment, here is the email i received back from them.... "The law provides that someone other than a veterinary surgeon may destroy an animal, providing they have the requisite skills and knowledge to do it in a humane fashion and carry it out without 'avoidable excitement, pain or suffering'. However, someone who is not experienced in animal-care should always consult a veterinary surgeon, and only once rehoming options have already been exhausted. The RCVS believes that euthanasia by lethal injection is preferable, regardless of the age of the dogs. "We understand that in this case veterinary evidence was provided on both sides. Veterinary surgeons are entitled to hold their own clinical views and it is not unusual for there to be differences of view. Without having seen a full transcript it would be inappropriate for us to comment on this particular case." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flukespad Posted June 23, 2007 Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2007 Thank you all for following up on this I knew when I read the article this would be the place to get something done.Sadly as already stated it is to late for these little pups but fingers croseed it will help others not ending up with the same fate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Hanky Posted June 23, 2007 Report Share Posted June 23, 2007 (edited) A dog owner who drowned a litter of puppies has been cleared of animal cruelty because experts were unable to prove that they suffered more than if they had been put down by a vet. John Wooligan, 47, of Whitehaven, Cumbria, decided to kill the seven 10-day-old Staffordshire Bull terriers because their yapping "got on his nerves". advertisement He dropped the puppies into a water-filled plastic box, then placed a second box on top to prevent them escaping. Wooligan declined to give evidence at Whitehaven Magistrates' Court, but acknowledged the killings in an interview with the RSPCA. "They were yapping all day long," he said. "They were really getting on my nerves and their mother was rejecting them. I did not know whether I could look after seven puppies. "I panicked. My head went funny and I just drowned them. I couldn't help myself. "I thought it was wrong after I did it." He claimed to have contacted eight animal welfare organisations in search of help. Referring to the RSPCA, he added: "I even rang you lot and nobody could help me. I could not cope with seven puppies". Keith Thomas, prosecuting, said the act of drowning the puppies had caused them unnecessary suffering. But David Roberts, defending, claimed there was no evidence that such young puppies could experience pain. His view was supported by Steven Lomax, a vet with 28 years' experience, who told the court: "I have heard no evidence to hear that the drowning of a puppy is inhumane." Have your say here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...0/ndrown120.xml Havent read the thread so... Sounds horrific but I dont think drowning is any more or less humane than lethal injection. As for the argument that puppies cant feel pain, well thats just horseshit right there...bloody lawyers If true that this guy contacted 8 agencies for help and they, including the RSPCA turned him away then they share part of any blame being thrown about. Desperate times, desperate measures. No-one helped so whats a guy to do? Edited June 23, 2007 by Mr Hanky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houndwoman Posted June 23, 2007 Report Share Posted June 23, 2007 Havent read the thread so... Sounds horrific but I dont think drowning is any more or less humane than lethal injection. As for the argument that puppies cant feel pain, well thats just horseshit right there...bloody lawyers If true that this guy contacted 8 agencies for help and they, including the RSPCA turned him away then they share part of any blame being thrown about. Desperate times, desperate measures. No-one helped so whats a guy to do? I agree that if that is the case they should hang their heads in shame but it doesn't excuse him for the evil deed that he committed It's a pity that the poor pups had to be born in the first place. It's a case of prevention being better than cure. I hope he gets his karma for what he did Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allie No Dots Posted June 23, 2007 Report Share Posted June 23, 2007 (edited) If true that this guy contacted 8 agencies for help and they, including the RSPCA turned him away then they share part of any blame being thrown about. I beg your pardon? How on earth do you come to that conclusion?! Do you honestly think that those, who didnt breed the dogs, had no idea they existed till someone wanted to dump them ect honestly have an unlimited supply of time, money and space? That they didnt take the dogs in because they didnt feel like it?! Give me a break! The guy killed the pups and he did that of his own free will and he and he alone should carry the blame. To blame those breaking their backs to save what they can when that idiot went and bred his dog is totally out of order. I also know for a FACT that if he had called a certain rescue in his area he would have been asked to call another number and those people would have taken the pups in. He never called. Edited June 23, 2007 by A.L.L.I.E. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts