Katiebob Posted January 4, 2009 Report Share Posted January 4, 2009 (edited) 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. So, if Beverley Cuddy thinks it's not ok, then it's not ok? Do you always base your views on those of others? If not, why quote her? There are more sensble views on here than she has pronounced (and she has no more evidence). For what it's worth, you could come round here with a wide angled, long range lens and make mischief. With a pack of 12 dogs, we would be probably fantastic suibjects. If he did it, then he's guilty but I couldn't guarantee that I wouldn't raise a hand (with a stick if I had one in my hand at the time) if mine started fighting. Tonight there was a big fight and they had a bucket of ice cold water (complete with broken ice) thrown over them. It was the nearest thing - it had to stop and you just use whatever is handy. 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 ! If that's what you want to believe, then I suspect there's nothing anyone can say that will make you believe otherwise. Dogs are dogs and sometimes the best trained dogs will still fight. Those pictures were taken with a camera using a very long range lens, there was no evidence that he actually hit the dogs and I understand that people are innocent until proven guilty. (not including judgement by media). Edited January 4, 2009 by Katiebob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotslass Posted January 4, 2009 Report Share Posted January 4, 2009 So, if Beverley Cuddy thinks it's not ok, then it's not ok? Do you always base your views on those of others? If not, why quote her? There are more sensble views on here than she has pronounced (and she has no more evidence). For what it's worth, you could come round here with a wide angled, long range lens and make mischief. With a pack of 12 dogs, we would be probably fantastic suibjects. There's not much I can say to that, is there? I give up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redditchlady Posted January 4, 2009 Report Share Posted January 4, 2009 No where in the pics do I see the stick hitting either dog. At the end of the day the papparazi will chase Royals etc. I wasn't there, none of us were. If the dogs were fighting, then he needed to split them up. I am sorry but I can not see a stick hitting either dog. All I can see is him wagging a stick at them. Kazz xx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kats n greys Posted January 4, 2009 Report Share Posted January 4, 2009 No where in the pics do I see the stick hitting either dog. At the end of the day the papparazi will chase Royals etc. I wasn't there, none of us were. If the dogs were fighting, then he needed to split them up. I am sorry but I can not see a stick hitting either dog. All I can see is him wagging a stick at them. Kazz xx A little closer than wagging a stick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redditchlady Posted January 4, 2009 Report Share Posted January 4, 2009 Ouch!! I missed that one. In my defence I didn't have my glasses on last night. (Too cold to get them out of the van) It does look rather close to the dog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackmagic Posted January 4, 2009 Report Share Posted January 4, 2009 (edited) Since the stick is between the camera and the dog and the shot is taken from the distance there is no way of knowing how close the stick is. It is passing down the side of the dog, so not on its back. There could be several inches gap between the stick and the dog. Just like if you photograph someone with a pole behind them, it looks like the pole is growing out of their head. Edited January 4, 2009 by blackmagic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kats n greys Posted January 4, 2009 Report Share Posted January 4, 2009 There are no pictures of the dogs actually fighting either Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlmckay Posted January 4, 2009 Report Share Posted January 4, 2009 OK, body language experts... if you look at the Prince, you'll notice he has a rifle under his arm and his hand is tucked in. If he were to be seriously laying into the dogs with intent to hit them, wouldn't he have given the gun over? It really does seem to me that all he's doing is making a lot of fluster to separate the two dogs scrapping over a bird (which is very naughty gun dog behaviour). Unfortunately, he chose to use a big stick to do that, but I'm still not convinced that the stick made any connection. Same as this guy isn't holding the sun... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krusewalker Posted January 4, 2009 Report Share Posted January 4, 2009 Of course he isn't holding the sun, anyone can see it's the moon! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
western star Posted January 4, 2009 Report Share Posted January 4, 2009 I guess unless all of us were there to witness what actually happened ourselves.........................?? and how many of you have had to split up dogs that were fighting? I'd like to know what you would do in that situation (and by fighting I mean really fighting?) and no I'm not comparing with the PE incident, just curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nettie Posted January 4, 2009 Report Share Posted January 4, 2009 OK, body language experts... if you look at the Prince, you'll notice he has a rifle under his arm and his hand is tucked in. Actually he's got a shotgun under his arm - there a case in point on how things can change quite innocently. so the papers can change stories without quite so much innocence! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts