Pingu Posted July 13, 2008 Report Share Posted July 13, 2008 i am playing devils advocate here btw in your OP you said a few times.. in your statement you said couple can you see where I am going with this? you also still need to think about what it is you are going to sue for and what it is you are hoping to achieve. Also a court probably wont be that interested unless you have attempted to resolve it by other means first e.g. the councils own complaints procedure. show the inconsistancies in the statements made by the DW to the MP, I would however expect them to also suggest you use the councils complaints route - though they may well help make sure its dealt with properly so deffo no harm in having them onside. be very careful if you suggest that there is any for of colluson between the DW and the person concerned, if you make a statement that you cant prove you will be leaving yourself wide open to all sorts of grief. I fully understand why you are upset and its certainly an emotional issue. However the law will not give two hoots about the emotional side and any action you take will be much more effective if done logically, rationally and without emotion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kathyw Posted July 13, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 13, 2008 (edited) Thank you Pingu for your wise council - it is appreciated. In between the original post and my last post I got out both copies of our statements (Pat's and mine - Pat gave me a photocopy of her copy of her statement) and typed what was in my statement. In his reply to the MP he has misrespresent what we actually said to him. I would also be issuing the summons to him personally not to the council - even though he works for the council, they will cut him loose as they have done before when he lied and was taken to court - yet still keeps his job. He makes no mention of Pat saying that the owner stayed at the top of the field while the attack was going on and only walked down after Pat screamed for him to get his f ing dog away. Anyone who came to Grip's birthday party will know the length of the field. The boing twice with the plastic stick happened after the owner's son arrived so the attack was far advance and Delboy, I think, already beyond help - he had stopped screaming a while before. The owner's son and Pat started to kick and hit the dog to no avail - he was in a frenzy and he only dropped Delboy onto the grass after the owner's son pulled his tail very hard. This is in Pat's statement yet no mention is made of this possibly sustaining the attack yet it would certainly have been felt by the dog far more than my boing a plastic stick on his head a couple of times. The animal warden is unaware that I am not the only one worried about this dog being allowed to roam free on the field. Pat is aware and indeed asked me (she is a tad scared of him as he told her that her EBT should be muzzled in public - softest wally of a dog you could ever meet and Delboys mate) he told her she should have let the EBT in the field when the akita attacked instead of tying him up outside) of every step I am taking as are some of the people who asked me why nothing has been done. The owner of the dog also told people after the attack that I had a pettion and was asking people to sign it to have her dog pts. No-one could be found who had signed this petition (there was'nt one) and he includes that in his reply. (that I had a petition) The owners of the akita actually approached several people and asked them why they signed the petition (the one that didn't exist). There is no foundation for that yet he has said there was a petition. He needs to have copies of that - wonder where he will get them. Both my and Pat's statements are being insinuated as lies whereas the owner's son (no statement just over the telephone) is totally believed. The MP's letter containing his reply says that she would like the copies we have and the vet's autopsy report on Delboy. She has also asked him to send her copies of the statements we made. I shall wait until she has them and send her our copies. He will not be able to send copies of the owner's sons or the owners statements because they didn't make any. He also staes that he has spoken 'firmly' to the owner about her dog running free on the field, well she took no notice as the dog is still runnig free on the green and a potential risk to any unneutered male dog on there. Edited July 13, 2008 by Kathyw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
estweyn Posted July 14, 2008 Report Share Posted July 14, 2008 I missed this originally as I havent been a member too long, but my sympathies are with you, its bad enough seeing a pet killed by another dog without having all this hassle of the dog warden bending words. I cannot understand why the akita is being allowed to be exercised without a muzzle after these events, more to the point I cant understand how the owner can allow it to run free when she knows it is a danger to other dogs. Having a dog aggressive dog myself I only ever have him off the lead when I have scoured the horizons and know we are in a safe place where I can get him back on the lead quickly if another dog appears on the horizon. I can understand your anger and sorrow at the loss of the little yorkie who couldnt defend himself in those circumstance.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudi Posted July 14, 2008 Report Share Posted July 14, 2008 I wonder if the dog warden has been lax in not starting proceedings for a control order against the Akita and owner. Two people with aggressive dogs have been ordered to muzzle them and keep them on leads where I live. Might be worth asking the council what their procedures are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts