western star Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 Gotta go work in a minute but thought I'd briefly say summat - if only the bliddy RSPCA were as quick to react to REAL cruelty cases (not saying this is not deserving but pleeeese, come on), and as for the red tops, I stopped buying em ages ago for all the derogatory clap trap they print re Rottweilers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotslass Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 It really doesn't look like he's hit the dogs at all - that reporting is terribly biased "appears" "allegedly" et al The report came from the Press Association - it wasn't a scoop for one tabloid; the Daily Telegraph, the Guardian and the Scottish broadsheets picked it up. They are hardly going to accuse a member of the royal family without more proof. However, I note that the Palace hasn't issued an outright denial either, and for those who think that this kind of thing is trivial and inconclusive...next time someone shows us a blurry picture of "apparent" puppy farming or dog-fighting, we'll just roll our eyes and sigh, eh? Gotta go work in a minute but thought I'd briefly say summat - if only the bliddy RSPCA were as quick to react to REAL cruelty cases (not saying this is not deserving but pleeeese, come on), and as for the red tops, I stopped buying em ages ago for all the derogatory clap trap they print re Rottweilers. So, you have conclusive proof that this wasn't cruelty? Or if it was, in your opinion it's less important than other forms of cruelty? To my mind, hitting a dog is cruel. The fact that the dogs were allegedly fighting over a bird which had just been shot out of the skies for a bit of sport says it all, really, and if the RSPCA does investigate it, it proves that no-one is above the law. On another note, I see that Beverly Cuddy of Dogs Today has expressed her disgust at his apparent actions. Thank goodness someone cares. Incidentally, I'd be just as sickened to see anyone behaving like this; I couldn't care less about his title, or his family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudi Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 I don't believe people don't care, it's just that some newspapers would most definately allege that a member of the royal family had done something without proof and people are treating it with skepticism. It says more about how much we trust the media in the UK than it does about whether people care that a dog has been hit with a stick or not. I don't care who he is either and if he has acted in a cruel way, I hope he pays for it. But on the other hand he shouldn't pay for reacting to a dog fight the way most of us would just because he is royal either. I guess if the RSPCA investigate the truth might out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snow Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 I don't believe anyone in this thread has said they don't care - what has been said is that photographs can be deceptive and that the photos prove nothing we do not have access to the original shots nor do we know what angles they were taken from or what sequence they were taken in etc. Regardless of what the subject matter is, whether it's dog fighting, alleged cruelty, poor conditions etc. etc. etc. the burden of proof will ALWAYS rest with the prosecution and the presumption of innocence must lie with the accused - that is a FUNDAMENTAL tenant of our laws in this country and long may that remain the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotslass Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 I don't believe anyone in this thread has said they don't care - what has been said is that photographs can be deceptive and that the photos prove nothing we do not have access to the original shots nor do we know what angles they were taken from or what sequence they were taken in etc. Regardless of what the subject matter is, whether it's dog fighting, alleged cruelty, poor conditions etc. etc. etc. the burden of proof will ALWAYS rest with the prosecution and the presumption of innocence must lie with the accused - that is a FUNDAMENTAL tenant of our laws in this country and long may that remain the case. I realised after I'd written that sentence about Beverly Cuddy that I might have implied that others don't care - that's patently not true since so many people have responded on this thread. What I meant was that it was quite brave of her - as a journalist who must be aware of the risks to her livelihood - to make the statement she did. I am also glad that we live in a society where everyone is assumed innocent until proved otherwise, even though it seems people are often more ready to judge some sections of society than others (I include myself in that, obviously). I notice that the RSPCA report that they have had all of 10 complaints from people over this matter. (Mind you, that is a newspaper report - so, bearing in mind what we've said about not believing everything we read - possibly they've had 10 thousand. ) Having attempted to complain several times on their website, I'm not surprised if they'd had only a few complaints...it's almost impossible to get their email facility to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlmckay Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? I'm not denying that hitting your dog with a big stick is a bad thing to do, but come on! Would anyone like to be accused of something you didn't do? I surely wouldn't! When I think of the times I shove my dogs about when we're playing together - imagine if that were misinterpreted by someone who doesn't play as rough as me with their dogs The photos imply - they don't prove. FWIW I feel more sorry for the shot pheasant than for the dogs! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BilRed Posted January 2, 2009 Report Share Posted January 2, 2009 The thing that stuck me about the photos is the way he is holding the stick by the end of the crook, you could not hit anything very hard that way which suggests to me it was more likely to be a bit of stick waving than beating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taylor Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 People that train gundogs for the royal family would no more send dogs in that would fight than send dogs in wearing superman underpants ! He was bashing those dogs for nothing ! driven by the same testosterone that he shot the birds with. Sickening ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanrossscot Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 People that train gundogs for the royal family would no more send dogs in that would fight than send dogs in wearing superman underpants ! He was bashing those dogs for nothing ! driven by the same testosterone that he shot the birds with. Sickening ! However well trained the dogs are, they might still fight Dogs are still dogs and will sometimes do 'dog' things. I might not be keen on what they do but equally, having not been there and not seen everything, I won't judge. This has happened in the past where rescues and internet forums have been judged on 'word of mouth' and selected scenarios. I wouldn't judge then and I won't either now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cycas Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 Me neither. And although I'm not a particular fan of shooting for fun, i also believe that everyone who has bought a factory farmed chicken for christmas, every patron of KFC, everyone who buys chicken or turkeybased cat or dog food, is doing something much worse. That includes me, I've got some chicken cat food out the back right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReikiAnge Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 People that train gundogs for the royal family would no more send dogs in that would fight than send dogs in wearing superman underpants ! He was bashing those dogs for nothing ! driven by the same testosterone that he shot the birds with. No matter how well trained a dog, dogs are dogs. We can not 100% predict how they will behave in any situation and I'm not sure any of us can know what happened without having been there. If he DID hit the dogs and wasn't trying to break up a fight then he's a , no matter who he is. However I agree with Sandra and Victoria: However well trained the dogs are, they might still fight Dogs are still dogs and will sometimes do 'dog' things. I might not be keen on what they do but equally, having not been there and not seen everything, I won't judge. This has happened in the past where rescues and internet forums have been judged on 'word of mouth' and selected scenarios. I wouldn't judge then and I won't either now. Me neither. And although I'm not a particular fan of shooting for fun, i also believe that everyone who has bought a factory farmed chicken for christmas, every patron of KFC, everyone who buys chicken or turkeybased cat or dog food, is doing something much worse. That includes me, I've got some chicken cat food out the back right now. and I'm not a particular fan of the royal family and I wouldn't go shooting for food or fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mum24dog Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 The Royal family may be a bunch of arrogant and unappealing t****rs but who would swap with them and live their lives in a goldfish bowl with every action under public scrutiny? I feel very sorry for the lot of them. I'd much rather be normal, even if a lor poorer. Pam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacobean Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 I have learned not to judge people unless I can trust what I'm being told. Who is to say those photos haven't been manipulated in some way? If you were not there you don't know what happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mop Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 People that train gundogs for the royal family would no more send dogs in that would fight than send dogs in wearing superman underpants ! He was bashing those dogs for nothing ! driven by the same testosterone that he shot the birds with. Sickening ! All dogs will fight if the reason is good enough, food is a particularly good one for starting dogs fightingeven dogs that are normally the best of friends. You don't know he was bashing the dogs, how would you like if it someone accused you of bashing your dog from a photo that had been made to look as if you were. Photos and clips can be made to look anyway you want, you only need to look at the logo for Chanel 4 as it is being moved round to see just what you can do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gooster Posted January 3, 2009 Report Share Posted January 3, 2009 The way I think about it, is that when you are in the middle of 2 dogs who are fighting, you'll do anything you can to split them up - without endangering yourself if possible. He had 2 dogs, they started to fight, so he used the stick to break them up. End of story. 3 of ours had a fight on Christmas day, and whilst we did not have to resort to any thing other than voices, sometimes it does take more than shouting to break them up. Unless someone actually has video as opposed to split second photos, I don't think we will ever know what happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts