A family pet killed for the way it looks...

Original post by Humz7

who gives a flying **** about lennox the dog!? 'aww, lennox is so cute, how can they do this?', seriously, **** off! people are dying because of poverty, disease, war etc. and all you lot think about is a bloody dog that could eat a little childs face off? do me a ****ing favour! BUILD A BRIDGE! IT'S ONE DOG.

Go do that then, if you think you're better than all of us then go out there and eliminate all the ills of the world. Nobody is stopping you.

Reply 142

thisisnew

11

Original post by djikstra

Did you read who I was referring to. The guy said that should certain ethnic minorities and people on council estates be euthanised. I said no because if they commit a crime, they are punished and may reform their ways. A dog, which is determined to be dangerous should be put down as it it does not have the ability to reform as it were. Also, all this BS about the animal being safe, clearly you people have never been to London where these dogs are used as a weapon. The less of these animals, the better IMO.

That guy was pointing out a flaw in somebodies reasoning not offering a literal comparison.

Your logic is also dire to be honest. Angry dog in London -> destroy an innocent dog in Ireland. Well done.

And what on earth makes you think Lennox is "determined to be dangerous"? :confused:

Reply 143

Original post by NeonSkies

Go do that then, if you think you're better than all of us then go out there and eliminate all the ills of the world. Nobody is stopping you.

I will one day sweetheart.

Reply 144

screenager2004

OP

14

Original post by djikstra

Did you read who I was referring to. The guy said that should certain ethnic minorities and people on council estates be euthanised. I said no because if they commit a crime, they are punished and may reform their ways. A dog, which is determined to be dangerous should be put down as it it does not have the ability to reform as it were. Also, all this BS about the animal being safe, clearly you people have never been to London where these dogs are used as a weapon. The less of these animals, the better IMO.

This dog is not dangerous. It had never hurt anyone, how is that BS? Why did it deserve to be destroyed? For 'looking scary' ?

I have Lived in South London. (New Cross) - I see people walking their Staffies and Dobermans and Alsatians all the time. They're taking it for a walk. how is that "using it as a weapon" exactly?

It's just a guy walking his dog. But middle class people are threatened by the working classes, they see his tracksuit and his shaved head and his tattoos and interpret it as "parading around with a weapon". It's utter nonsense.

Reply 145

Jenii

15

On the one hand: yes, this is a sad story for the dog and its owners.

On the other hand: a lot of animals are in much much much worse conditions (i.e. those being reared to be eaten). And it's only a dog. So I just don't care about this story that much.

Reply 146

Keckers

15

Original post by djikstra

I was referring more to the reference that the dog is like a person who lives on a council estate. It was such a stupid comparison. What I meant was that if a dog is deemed a dangerous breed, it is unlikely that the dog is gonna be safe around children. If it attacks a child it will not be able to change its ways, and should be put down. This argument is not so much about the dog Lennox, more a point to refute the comparison stated earlier between animals and humans.

Yeah, but a dog should not be put down pre-emptively if it shows no aggressive behaviour at all, this dog had been living with the family for the past 5 years, there is no way it would suddenly turn and attack dominant members of it's pack; it would go completely against the dogs nature

Reply 147

Original post by Humz7

I will one day sweetheart.

Best of luck

Reply 148

screenager2004

OP

14

Original post by L i b

No. Just no.

That's positively luxurious by the standards of most farms I know. For one, it has four walls.

Fair enough, nicking people's dogs is certainly a bit off.

1. It's tiny, the dog cannot have had any decent exercise in the last 11 months. Hence why subsequent photographs he is unrecognisably fat.
2. Dog experts and veterinarians alike agree that sawdust is an unsuitable bedding for a dog, it gives them skin and breathing problems.
3. The dog is clearly surrounded by it's own excrement, some of which is diarrhoea which casts doubt on it's diet at the kennel.
4. There is no visible fresh water supply.
5. Subsequent photos show bald patches and markings on the dog.

It's a pretty disgusting way to keep a dog. At least farm dogs have been born and raised in a barn. This dog was a domesticated house pet, it slept indoors, had toys and snacks and cuddles. It must be bloody terrified.

Reply 149

Lauren222

i honestly get so pissed off about this whole "dangerous dogs" thing, yes, some breeds may be more inclined to aggression, but tbh this tends to mean that the owners are more careful with their dog. I own a tibetan terrier, which is basically a little fluffy dog; my nana owns a staffie, and i know which one I trust more. The staffie would not hurt a fly but my tibetan is a sharp little bugger who i wouldn't trust with any child or even an adult that didn't know her, yet people seem to think she is going to be cute and roly poly and that the staffie is going to take their head off. pffffffffffffft.
sorry for the rant, but goooood annoys me so much, > :frown:

Reply 150

Original post by NeonSkies

Best of luck

thank you, but no thank you. luck will not be required to complete the task ahead.

Reply 151

djikstra

Original post by thisisnew

That guy was pointing out a flaw in somebodies reasoning not offering a literal comparison.

Your logic is also dire to be honest. Angry dog in London -> destroy an innocent dog in Ireland. Well done.

And what on earth makes you think Lennox is "determined to be dangerous"? :confused:

You clearly have not understood what I have written. Firstly I never said angry dog in london>innocent dog in ireland. Dogs are classified as dangerous for a reason, due to their genetic tendencies. Hence they have a potential to be used as weapons. In london they are used as weapons. In ireland, they may not be, but they have the potential to be. Now as this animal had the potential to be dangerous, and was around a disabled child, the authorities acted in the best interest of people.

Finally, I never said the dog was determined to be dangerous in its will. I said the dog was determined by the gov to be dangerous, and was put down. So again you clearly lack understanding of what I said.

Reply 152

Original post by Humz7

thank you, but no thank you. luck will not be required to complete the task ahead.

It will with some people if you need to win them over to your side!

Reply 153

djikstra

Original post by screenager2004

This dog is not dangerous. It had never hurt anyone, how is that BS? Why did it deserve to be destroyed? For 'looking scary' ?

I have Lived in South London. (New Cross) - I see people walking their Staffies and Dobermans and Alsatians all the time. They're taking it for a walk. how is that "using it as a weapon" exactly?

It's just a guy walking his dog. But middle class people are threatened by the working classes, they see his tracksuit and his shaved head and his tattoos and interpret it as "parading around with a weapon". It's utter nonsense.

Ye I am from London, and I am not scared of working classes. In fact many of my mates are from estates. And whether you like it or not, their friends, who ARE in gangs use their dogs as weapons. I have seen dogs being set on other people and I can tell you its not nonsense. I am not saying everyone does it, but kids do, and there was a programme on BBC -http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6jIJz93J28
but ofcourse, you think you know best.

And for the record I have owned a German Shepheard, so dont think I hate dogs but dangerous dogs must go.

Reply 154

Catilina

2

I think the council is totally wrong, there is no breed which is always dangerous and no dog should be killed because of its breed.

However, I do believe that breeds which are larger than a certain size need to be subjected to special laws. E.g. Families with children under the age of 10 must not own certain breeds. Certain breeds need to be subjected to harsher leash laws( the bigger the dog the more you pay), and some breeds should even be required to wear a shock collar sufficiently powerful to subdue them in case they snap.

It is not the dogs fault if it attacks someone, the owners are completely responsible, but it is the blind trust in animals which are not capable of thinking rationally, displayed in this thread by a few people, which gets a lot of small children killed and maimed every year.

Reply 155

Original post by NeonSkies

It will with some people if you need to win them over to your side!

why would I need to win people over my side? i'm sure i'll have enough supporting me.

Reply 156

screenager2004

OP

14

Original post by djikstra

Ye I am from London, and I am not scared of working classes. In fact many of my mates are from estates. And whether you like it or not, their friends, who ARE in gangs use their dogs as weapons. I have seen dogs being set on other people and I can tell you its not nonsense. I am not saying everyone does it, but kids do, and there was a programme on BBC -http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6jIJz93J28
but ofcourse, you think you know best.

So, let me get this straight.

because a tiny handful of idiot 18-year olds in a London Suburb abuse their animals, an innocent family pet who has never shown aggression, and had responsible owners, needs to be put down?

Reply 157

Original post by Humz7

why would I need to win people over my side? i'm sure i'll have enough supporting me.

Well say if you wanted to overthrow poverty you would have to convince the council to build more homes and people to invest, which could be difficult.

Reply 158

djikstra

Original post by screenager2004

So, let me get this straight.

because a tiny handful of idiot 18-year olds in a London Suburb abuse their animals, an innocent family pet who has never shown aggression, and had responsible owners, needs to be put down?

No certain dogs have the capability to be used as a weapon for a reason that is inherent in their genes. When I went on holiday to Turkey, dogs were bred for fighting based on their aggressiveness in a fight. That is what constitutes a dangerous dog. Now if you allow innocent people to have these kind of animals, it will inevitably fall in to the minority of idiots, granted, that wanna set it on other people. Its like guns, if the nice guy has em, you can more than bet that the criminals have them. And if it is allowed by the gov to happen on a large scale, a lot more of the people will have them.

Finally, it aint in a London suburb where these dicks live, I dont think you have had an experience of these idiots so i assume you dont know any better

Reply 159