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

who said I have to ask the council for permission..?
anyways, I was referring to it as a whole. not just this country. primarily the lower economically developed ones.

Haha I like it. Yeah good point, I thought you meant just the UK, but there are other countries in much worse situations that need help a lot more than we do right now that's for sure.

haha, not specifically the uk.
precisely.
well, nice speaking to you

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.

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.

Hi all, I thought I'd bring this to your attention today.

‘Lennox’ was a loved family pet of the Barnes Family for five years.
He was also a care dog for their 11-year old disabled daughter, she is unable to play with other children, so Lennox was her best friend.
His owner is a veterinary nurse, and the family fostered abandoned dogs.
He was neutered, electronically chipped,licensed, fully trained, kennel club registered, insured and DNA registered. So very responsible owners.

Most importantly of all: Lennox had never shown any signs of aggression, had never attacked another dog or human in his life. He was just a regular house pet.

On May 19th 2010, Belfast City Council ordered for him to be seized and destroyed.
The reason why: they got a tape measure out and he was too tall (from the floor to his shoulder), and was therefore deemed to be a 'dangerous breed' - despite the fact that the dog wardens said that his brother, born from the same litter of puppies was not dangerous.

So obviously the family took the Council to court get their pet back, the council wouldn't tell them where Lennox was being held. After 6 months of separation, the council ‘kindly’ sent the family this harrowing picture to show that the dog was still alive and well at Christmas.


If anyone else had kept an animal in these conditions they would be imprisoned for animal abuse. This is what your tax pays for. This dog has been confined to a tiny concrete room for 11 months now. Separate from his family, with just sawdust and his own excrement to sleep on.

The Barnes family have been in the papers and the radio a lot. The Council know how unpopular they are because of this – so they can't admit they were wrong.
The first two times the Barnes family took the Council to court to try and get their pet back, the Council kept on having the court hearing postponed and postponed. it's not about the dog anymore, but the Council trying to recover their reputation.

Today it is the 29th of March, and this morning the courts ruled in favour of Belfast City Council. The Barnes family have launched an appeal. I am so upset about this. That poor dog must be so lonely/scared, I hope the appeal succeeds, I don't want that dogs last 11 months of its life to be spent in that prison.

Save Lennox

That doesn't make sense at all. Your dogs could snap and kill someone. That is undeniable.

This whole situation is subjective. It's about where you draw the line.

I personally see equal to Belfast Council - that dog looks extremely dangerous and could probably kill me if it snapped, and I believe that it violates people's freedoms and rights to have such animals walking around, leashed or not.

I think the fact that one of you said "dogs should only be punished only once they have ripped out a kid's throat" is testament to the small amount you value human life.

I used to think that dogs weren’t born aggressive and it was irresponsible owners that made the dogs bad, that was until my golden retriever cross was attacked by a neighbour’s dog. This dog was the exact same bread as the OPs dog and had played together with my dog for five years, before it attacked and killed my dog and left me needing stitches in my arm.

I also know for a fact that this dog was well cared for and had never shown and signs of aggression previously.

So i am completely biased but Imo the dog should be put down.

Btw, the title of the thread is misleading and a poor attempt at engaging the reader with a biased viewpoint - it's not how the dog looks, it's what breed the dog is, which goes a lot further than simply how it looks.

two days ago a Japanese Akita gave a dog warden stitches in Northern Ireland.

I used to think that dogs weren’t born aggressive and it was irresponsible owners that made the dogs bad, that was until my golden retriever cross was attacked by a neighbour’s dog. This dog was the exact same bread as the OPs dog and had played together with my dog for five years, before it attacked and killed my dog and left me needing stitches in my arm.

I also know for a fact that this dog was well cared for and had never shown and signs of aggression previously.

So i am completely biased but Imo the dog should be put down.

Can't help but think this is somebody in this thread making another account to post this. If it isn't then I call bull****. Obviously something happened to the dog on that day. That or you didn't know the dog & it's owners as well as you think you do.

Are you aware of how many of these "dangerous breeds" don't actually attack anybody in their lifetime? Are you aware of how many "acceptable" breeds are responsible for bites?

The bottom line is that all dogs are "dangerous" and the single most contributing factor to that level of danger is the dogs owner.

Dogs should be judged on their individual temperament, not their breed which is completely illogical and shambolic.

Educate yourself mate.

It clearly isn't about the breed of dog. Why don't you actually read the information given?

The dog was judged to be dangerous due to it being a bit too tall, it's brother (from the same litter as him) was not deemed to be dangerous. Where is the logic in that? It isn't because of it's breed at all.

Oh and for your information : Most dangerous dog breeds would you class a chihuahua as a dangerous dog?