Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

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

Announcements
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Disgusting council.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lauraaaa.xo)
    what do you expect if you'd be living in that state you wouldn't look very happy poor dog
    Probably 'cos it hasn't feasted on the flesh of a child... yet.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    by whatever means find where they are keping the dog, and go and get him. f))) the law in this instance.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    The facebook group is picking up quite a few followers now; 27,000. Including Victoria Stillwell (it's me or the dog)
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Selkarn)
    :rofl:

    Dangerous breeds of dogs should be put down, and the law is rightfully not going to change. /discussion over, now get back to whining about Lennox.
    Educate yourself mate.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The dog should have been put down no point waiting for it to kill a kid.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by djikstra)
    The dog should have been put down no point waiting for it to kill a kid.
    Would you say the same for all dogs then? All dogs could potentially kill, as could all snakes. A cat could sit on you while you're asleep and suffocate you, does that mean we should ban all pets?

    Don't be so ridiculous. This dog is innocent and has done nothing and should be with its loving family, not sat in a grotty prison cell in its own mess. THAT is how dogs become aggressive; ill treatment.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    The pure ignorance in this thread is staggering.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thisisnew)
    So are council estate kids and certain minorities who are more likely to commit crime/violent crime candidates for euthanasia on the grounds that "they might snap at any moment"?

    In addition to the fact that removing a dog from it's surroundings and loved ones and sticking it in a tiny box room will be causing him significant stress and ill feeling, a family is at risk of losing their special little friend. It's absurd and anybody siding with the council on this is an idiot.

    Assuming they go through with destroying the dog then well done, they've managed to put down a perfectly healthy, innocent and happy dog that was living comfortably with its owners.


    This is absolute bull**** mate. Human beings can change. Animals can't. And even if people recommit a crime, to put them on the same level as animals speaks more for your intelligence than anything else.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by djikstra)
    This is absolute bull**** mate. Human beings can change. Animals can't. And even if people recommit a crime, to put them on the same level as animals speaks more for your intelligence than anything else.
    What are you actually talking about?

    The dog had never bitten anyone, it had never shown aggression to anyone. What are you talking about "animals can't change" for?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by djikstra)
    This is absolute bull**** mate. Human beings can change. Animals can't. And even if people recommit a crime, to put them on the same level as animals speaks more for your intelligence than anything else.
    Of course animals can change. A puppy could be the cutest thing ever, but through being beaten and abused they can become either extremely shy and hate interaction during adulthood or very hostile and aggressive towards humans and end up needing to be put down.

    It's basic behavioural changes via environmental influences. Sure, they may have the predisposition to act aggressively, but this normally won't manifest if the pet is treated well.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by screenager2004)
    What are you actually talking about?

    The dog had never bitten anyone, it had never shown aggression to anyone. What are you talking about "animals can't change" for?
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NeonSkies)
    Of course animals can change. A puppy could be the cutest thing ever, but through being beaten and abused they can become either extremely shy and hate interaction during adulthood or very hostile and aggressive towards humans and end up needing to be put down.

    It's basic behavioural changes via environmental influences. Sure, they may have the predisposition to act aggressively, but this normally won't manifest if the pet is treated well.
    So a dog that has been abused and bit people is likely to change its ways is it. The best thing to do is to kill the dog. This dog looked dangerous, as deemed by the council, and was acted on. If it had killed the little kid you people would blame the council for doing jack.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by djikstra)
    This is absolute bull**** mate. Human beings can change. Animals can't. And even if people recommit a crime, to put them on the same level as animals speaks more for your intelligence than anything else.
    That's all right then. If animals can't change then this one will always be a passive un aggressive family pet.

    This is anther case of local councils showing absolutely no common sense with regards to stupid legislation.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    poor doggy,
    i dont even like dogs...
    and think ones like that inparticular arent lookers, but still no reason to kill it.

    dogs like any animal or person have the potential to be good or bad
    for them to be bad their owner has taught them to be
    as my gran says often to parents telling off their children in supermarkets "no such thing as a bad child just bad parents"
    x
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    He isn't being killed for the way he looks, he's being killed for the type of dog he is.

    It's the same with many types of animal which have been banned in this country, I know of friends who have had terrapins and expensive tropical fish taken away and 'destroyed' because they were a "potentially invasive species" despite only ever being kept indoors and having no chance of "invading" the British ecosystem.

    I also find the "similarities" drawn between this and racism quite disproportionate.



    However, it is sad that they have taken this dog and put it down on the grounds that it is "dangerous" when they clearly have no reason to say that it is in any way dangerous. I think it's a disgusting decision by the council and surely the owners should take this to the Supreme Court?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by djikstra)
    So a dog that has been abused and bit people is likely to change its ways is it. The best thing to do is to kill the dog. This dog looked dangerous, as deemed by the council, and was acted on. If it had killed the little kid you people would blame the council for doing jack.
    So in a nutshell you think based on appearance rather than behaviour it is okay to put a dog down? Ridiculous. It's like the story of a woman who took her dog back to the adoption centre because it didn't match her curtains. It's insane.

    Also I wouldn't blame the council, I would blame the dog owners for not keeping it on a tight enough leash.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Clearly you have never been around good dog owners who's pets are docile and never shown any aggressive tendency. These types of owners vastly out number those who own 'status dogs' for intimidation.

    Any breed of dog can be raised as a weapon, if anything is should be the owners who raise them to be aggressive who should be euthanised alongside their dangerous dog.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Keckers)
    That's all right then. If animals can't change then this one will always be a passive un aggressive family pet.

    This is anther case of local councils showing absolutely no common sense with regards to stupid legislation.
    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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by screenager2004)
    [B]If anyone else had kept an animal in these conditions they would be imprisoned for animal abuse.
    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.
 
 
 
Poll
Do I go to The Streets tomorrow night?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.