Neoclassic Perk Posted February 15, 2009 Report Share Posted February 15, 2009 This particular paragraph might be his undoing: Kill all the dogs. Kill all of them. I'll do it if you can't face it, and toss the rigid corpses on the fatty flames with a pitchfork. That looks like incitement to commit criminal damage - are there any legal bods that care to express an opinion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greyhoundgirl Posted February 15, 2009 Report Share Posted February 15, 2009 This particular paragraph might be his undoing: That looks like incitement to commit criminal damage - are there any legal bods that care to express an opinion? Criminal damage? Bloody murder more like! I don't see how he can get away with that legally Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanishPastry Posted February 15, 2009 Report Share Posted February 15, 2009 I used to like him too...............not any more I can't get over the people that think dogs should only be allowed to live if they serve a purpose to humans, I really really want to smack them in the mouth. Don't all dogs serve a purpose to humans? If they don't, how come we fork out so much money to make sure they are safe and well? My dogs serve the purpose of companionship, a feeling of safety, something to get me up in the morning on my days off, a hobby etc etc....?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReikiAnge Posted February 15, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 15, 2009 I was thinking the same Anne, mine don't "work" but they all certainly serve a purpose - along with Rob my dogs are my best friends They keep me company, they encourage me to do things I wouldn't do without them, they keep me healthier and they've helped me make new friends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cycas Posted February 16, 2009 Report Share Posted February 16, 2009 (edited) The article is irritating on so many levels: - calling for the extermination of an entire species. Are there other species Giles Coren feels are 'unnecessary'? Or just ones that happen to irritate him? The elephant, perhaps? If he thinks living around dogs is annoying, maybe he should try elephants for a bit. Or is it OK for people to have to live alongside elephants because people who have to adapt their lives to elephants are mostly poor and foreign, perhaps, and elephants are nice spectacular things for Giles Coren to admire from a distance? - the sheer nastiness of his views on people who didn't happen to have a nice easy start in life due to having a Daddy who was editor of Punch. Something tells me that if you want to get a column spouting mildly-amusing tosh in the Times, that helps quite a bit... - The focus on poo as if it were, say, genocide. Poo is nasty, I agree. People should pick it up. But come on, have some perspective! There are worse things in the world than poo! If poo really bothers you that much then one can't help wondering if you have toilet problems of your own. - the perspective is loony - to the point where I did wonder if this was actually the point he was trying to make, but I don't think it is. Of all species of mammal, the dog is one of the least likely to kill, when you take into account how many of them there are, and the fact that they live inside our houses. The fact that a baby has been tragically killed does not mean that dogs are generally dangerous. It points up the fact that millions of babies don't get eaten by dogs, and that, say, falling off a table is probably a greater risk. - The idea that it's a good idea to throw away 13,000 years of social adaptation and evolution over which people learned to live with dogs, and dogs learned to live with people, because of approximately 40 years worth of high technology. Because progress IS a one-way street, civilisations never collapse, and technology will inevitably go on getting better and better. not. - The idea that technology is a complete substitute for dogs anyway is clearly flawed. Leaving aside the companionship argument,which he dismisses with the glib assurance of a healthy young man who has probably never had any difficulty finding human companions, I'd rather like Giles Coren to spend the night on a mountain top with a broken leg, hoping that the Search and Rescue dogs will turn up quickly. Or perhaps he would like to spend a few weeks blind, wishing he had a guide dog... Edited February 16, 2009 by cycas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheryl33 Posted February 16, 2009 Report Share Posted February 16, 2009 what a gimp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greyhoundgirl Posted February 16, 2009 Report Share Posted February 16, 2009 The article is irritating on so many levels:- calling for the extermination of an entire species. Are there other species Giles Coren feels are 'unnecessary'? Or just ones that happen to irritate him? The elephant, perhaps? If he thinks living around dogs is annoying, maybe he should try elephants for a bit. Or is it OK for people to have to live alongside elephants because people who have to adapt their lives to elephants are mostly poor and foreign, perhaps, and elephants are nice spectacular things for Giles Coren to admire from a distance? - the sheer nastiness of his views on people who didn't happen to have a nice easy start in life due to having a Daddy who was editor of Punch. Something tells me that if you want to get a column spouting mildly-amusing tosh in the Times, that helps quite a bit... - The focus on poo as if it were, say, genocide. Poo is nasty, I agree. People should pick it up. But come on, have some perspective! There are worse things in the world than poo! If poo really bothers you that much then one can't help wondering if you have toilet problems of your own. - the perspective is loony - to the point where I did wonder if this was actually the point he was trying to make, but I don't think it is. Of all species of mammal, the dog is one of the least likely to kill, when you take into account how many of them there are, and the fact that they live inside our houses. The fact that a baby has been tragically killed does not mean that dogs are generally dangerous. It points up the fact that millions of babies don't get eaten by dogs, and that, say, falling off a table is probably a greater risk. - The idea that it's a good idea to throw away 13,000 years of social adaptation and evolution over which people learned to live with dogs, and dogs learned to live with people, because of approximately 40 years worth of high technology. Because progress IS a one-way street, civilisations never collapse, and technology will inevitably go on getting better and better. not. - The idea that technology is a complete substitute for dogs anyway is clearly flawed. Leaving aside the companionship argument,which he dismisses with the glib assurance of a healthy young man who has probably never had any difficulty finding human companions, I'd rather like Giles Coren to spend the night on a mountain top with a broken leg, hoping that the Search and Rescue dogs will turn up quickly. Or perhaps he would like to spend a few weeks blind, wishing he had a guide dog... Victoria, you always put things so well. Please send this to The Times Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barb Posted February 16, 2009 Report Share Posted February 16, 2009 OK ets have a list of things dogs DON'T do. Dogs don't mug people for thier money Dogs don't knife people because they look at you in a "funny" way Dogs don't cover the place with nasty graffiti Dogs don't drink themselves silly then vomit and deficate on the pavement(ok so they do poo but most people pick it up) Dogs don't leave used needles lying around so someone can step on it and injure(or worse) themselves Dogs don't leave used condoms around so ditto the above Dogs don't smash the place up because ("they feel like it) And thats just without thinking too much Does he want to eliminate them as well Barbara Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neoclassic Perk Posted February 16, 2009 Report Share Posted February 16, 2009 Has anyone else complained to the Press Complaints Commission? The first principle of the Code of Practice for journalists is accuracy, and that "The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures." I have submitted a complaint to the PCC on the basis that the article is grossly distorted and I also questioned it accuracy in parts. If anyone wants to do the same, you can do it via e-mail (attaching a link to article on The Times website): http://www.pcc.org.uk/complaints/form.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReikiAnge Posted February 16, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 16, 2009 Has anyone else complained to the Press Complaints Commission? The first principle of the Code of Practice for journalists is accuracy, and that "The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures." I have submitted a complaint to the PCC on the basis that the article is grossly distorted and I also questioned it accuracy in parts. If anyone wants to do the same, you can do it via e-mail (attaching a link to article on The Times website): http://www.pcc.org.uk/complaints/form.html Thanks for that, I haven't, but I will - and I also wonder about your previous comment about incitement and whether he's crossed the line there. Victoria, that is a cracking piece, please write in! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neoclassic Perk Posted February 16, 2009 Report Share Posted February 16, 2009 I also wonder about your previous comment about incitement and whether he's crossed the line there. I checked it out today; unfortunately, the law changed last October, and "incitement" no longer exists as a crime! I've had a standard, very polite and very comprehensive reply to my e-mail complaint - and even if they don't consider it a breach of the code, they will forward all complaints onto the editor; which hopefully, will make our point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReikiAnge Posted February 16, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 16, 2009 Nowt to do with dogs but it seems he's p*ssed someone else off too. Don't read if you don't like rude words. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/jul/2...ssandpublishing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanrossscot Posted February 16, 2009 Report Share Posted February 16, 2009 Nowt to do with dogs but it seems he's p*ssed someone else off too. Don't read if you don't like rude words. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/jul/2...ssandpublishing Coren really, really needs to 'get over himself' It must be a hard life being the most important person on the planet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
celeste Posted February 16, 2009 Report Share Posted February 16, 2009 Don't all dogs serve a purpose to humans? If they don't, how come we fork out so much money to make sure they are safe and well? My dogs serve the purpose of companionship, a feeling of safety, something to get me up in the morning on my days off, a hobby etc etc....?? , Yes I suppose they do, I hadn't really thought of it that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merledogs Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 Nowt to do with dogs but it seems he's p*ssed someone else off too. Don't read if you don't like rude words. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/jul/2...ssandpublishing This about sums it up for me : "Giles Coren is a sanctimonious little tw@t who needs to get over himself" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts