Ban Belfast for Barnes
Re: Ban Belfast for Barnes
Exactly the same way you will!
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: Ban Belfast for Barnes
FWIW I added my name to the protest, before he was executed.
What good does it do, to dance on a canine family members grave?
You'll be happy to have others do the same to your dog?
What good does it do, to dance on a canine family members grave?
You'll be happy to have others do the same to your dog?
Re: Ban Belfast for Barnes
Shame you never had the forethought to bring this to our attention then, we could have all signed it.
Very remiss of you. You let them all down.
At least I did a dance for them.
Very remiss of you. You let them all down.
At least I did a dance for them.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: Ban Belfast for Barnes
You didn't see it on the World Wide news? Even this lo-tek knew of it; not like you to listen to me, nor answer my most basic questions.
Do that, and I'll trust you to honor a fallen pup.
Do that, and I'll trust you to honor a fallen pup.
Re: Ban Belfast for Barnes
Oh, you heartless beast!
You knew full well of this tragic tale, yet you didn’t recruit your only friends in to support it?
You left this family dog to the menaces of the BBC and didn't alert us?
Why Lo? WHY?!?
Have you no heart? No soul?
You’ve spent weeks her typing reams of incoherent gibberish while this dog rotted, rotted I tell you, in its BBC cell, and you didn't have the thoughtfulness to alert us.
I cannot believe that you can be so uncaring!!
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: Ban Belfast for Barnes
Oh wait, you're dishonoring him already ...nevermind.
I can only hope you send off your own family dog with more dignity.
I can only hope you send off your own family dog with more dignity.
Re: Ban Belfast for Barnes
Why did you not alert everyone else Lo? Even if I do not like to listen to you, you could have still alerted everyone else who may have wanted to join your campaigning!
What stayed your hand?
What stayed your hand?
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: Ban Belfast for Barnes
...and Mr Lewis can narrate!Gob wrote:Annie can do the theme tune!
Why is it that when Miley Cyrus gets naked and licks a hammer it's 'art' and 'edgy' but when I do it I'm 'drunk' and 'banned from the hardware store'?
-
Reality Bytes
- Posts: 534
- Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 9:52 pm
Re: Ban Belfast for Barnes
Oh for fucksake!! I am SICK to DEATH of the whole bullshit Lennox saga and the LAST place I wanted to see the absolute codswallop thats being peddled about this family and their "assistance dog" (he wasn't) the devastated owners who are the reason he didn't get exempted in the first place and who have some serious questions to answer about the money they have made from all this, was here.
I have been involved in fighting against BSL for YEARS - I helped to set up (in a very small background way) one of the most active and prominent lobby groups in the UK who have had REAL success in getting the amendment onto the books allowing exemption, in working WITH the police and councils to allow seized dogs to remain WITH their families whilst the case is awaiting a court date. They supply FREE legal advice, they provide FREE telephone support, they attend court and they help save dogs lives every damned day most of it funded out of their own pockets, they provide accurate factual information about the LAW the DDA and the COURTS and yet because they did exactly that provided FACTUAL information they have been the target of a disgusting and quite frightening campaign of hatred by the so called Lennox supporters.
The facts really are quite simple, under a very flawed law Lennox IS a pit bull type, that was based purely on his looks and a set of standard measurements which apply to lots of dogs including pure bred Labradors. That part of the law is something that needs tightening up as at the moment dogs with NO bull breed in their ancestry let alone pit bull bloodlines can and are deemed to be of "type". For that part of this case there is no dispute and he rightly was classified "type" thus the owners WERE guilty of owning a banned breed.
The reason why Lennox was ordered to be destroyed was originally based on his being deemed "type" under the law as it stood then the courts had very little option, however the ammendment was passed into law after the initial case was heard and the family appealed to try and get him exempted that was based soley upon his behaviour NOT on his looks - pure bred pit bulls and pit bull "types" can be "exempted" provided that the courts are satisfied that the dog poses no danger to the public AND that the family can be trusted to abide by all the conditions required for exemption (neutering/spaying, insurance, tattooing, muzzling in public etc.) Lennox was found to be a very dangerous and unpredictable dog, the families OWN original behaviourist who examined him FOR THE DEFENCE never gave evidence in court & the family have never used her report, their second behaviourist stopped his examination of Lennox when he suddenly lunged at him, the third one did not physically touch Lennox nor did she enter his kennel. Caroline Barnes (Lennox's owner) herself gave evidence under oath that the dog had always been unpredictable. The courts have a duty of care to the public and having been deemed dangerous then the destruction order was upheld.
Facts are pesky things which some of the Lennox campaigners would very much prefer no one knew about - anyone even supporters who might innocently ask for clarification of things is immediately attacked, branded a troll or a hater and accused of supporting BSL - including the very agencies who have spent YEARS fighting against it! A very well respected rescue based in Eire who has provided a place of safety for pit bulls and who has successfully been able to offer a secure safe place for exempted dogs with full court backing; had offered to take Lennox - the family refused.
This is their statement: http://www.llaav.com/
This rescue has since been subjected to threats, intimidation, cyber attacks & had shot gun cartridges sent through the post.
Whilst you are on that website linked above - take time to read the court docs and explanations for more of those pesky facts about this case.
Some irony for you .... one of the photos causing so much outrage amongst campaigners and which is used to show the "appalling conditions" Lennox was held under and the "awful abuse" he was suffering whilst in the care of BCC is in fact the families OWN photograph of Lennox in their own backyard. Try telling that to the supporters ....
Another photo doing the rounds is puportedly of a march of thousands of protestors in support of Lennox - it's not - it is in fact a photoshopped photo taken from a site which makes the photo available for websites to write their own slogan on, the original "Lennox" version even had the websites address included on the photograph, the lady supporter who made the photo has posted repeatedly that this was NOT a real photo of a real protest and she had MADE it herself - they don't beleive her and that photo is now being sent all over the internet.
BSL is a VERY flawed law, it needs to be completely rewritten if not removed from the books entirely, however, the Lennox case IS not the case to base the fight on, indeed the behaviour of some of those puporting to be acting in Lennoxs name is damaging that fight.
By all means fight BSL, more than that PLEASE fight BSL, but base the fight on facts and not on the mass hysteria this case has become.
I have been involved in fighting against BSL for YEARS - I helped to set up (in a very small background way) one of the most active and prominent lobby groups in the UK who have had REAL success in getting the amendment onto the books allowing exemption, in working WITH the police and councils to allow seized dogs to remain WITH their families whilst the case is awaiting a court date. They supply FREE legal advice, they provide FREE telephone support, they attend court and they help save dogs lives every damned day most of it funded out of their own pockets, they provide accurate factual information about the LAW the DDA and the COURTS and yet because they did exactly that provided FACTUAL information they have been the target of a disgusting and quite frightening campaign of hatred by the so called Lennox supporters.
The facts really are quite simple, under a very flawed law Lennox IS a pit bull type, that was based purely on his looks and a set of standard measurements which apply to lots of dogs including pure bred Labradors. That part of the law is something that needs tightening up as at the moment dogs with NO bull breed in their ancestry let alone pit bull bloodlines can and are deemed to be of "type". For that part of this case there is no dispute and he rightly was classified "type" thus the owners WERE guilty of owning a banned breed.
The reason why Lennox was ordered to be destroyed was originally based on his being deemed "type" under the law as it stood then the courts had very little option, however the ammendment was passed into law after the initial case was heard and the family appealed to try and get him exempted that was based soley upon his behaviour NOT on his looks - pure bred pit bulls and pit bull "types" can be "exempted" provided that the courts are satisfied that the dog poses no danger to the public AND that the family can be trusted to abide by all the conditions required for exemption (neutering/spaying, insurance, tattooing, muzzling in public etc.) Lennox was found to be a very dangerous and unpredictable dog, the families OWN original behaviourist who examined him FOR THE DEFENCE never gave evidence in court & the family have never used her report, their second behaviourist stopped his examination of Lennox when he suddenly lunged at him, the third one did not physically touch Lennox nor did she enter his kennel. Caroline Barnes (Lennox's owner) herself gave evidence under oath that the dog had always been unpredictable. The courts have a duty of care to the public and having been deemed dangerous then the destruction order was upheld.
Facts are pesky things which some of the Lennox campaigners would very much prefer no one knew about - anyone even supporters who might innocently ask for clarification of things is immediately attacked, branded a troll or a hater and accused of supporting BSL - including the very agencies who have spent YEARS fighting against it! A very well respected rescue based in Eire who has provided a place of safety for pit bulls and who has successfully been able to offer a secure safe place for exempted dogs with full court backing; had offered to take Lennox - the family refused.
This is their statement: http://www.llaav.com/
This rescue has since been subjected to threats, intimidation, cyber attacks & had shot gun cartridges sent through the post.
Whilst you are on that website linked above - take time to read the court docs and explanations for more of those pesky facts about this case.
Some irony for you .... one of the photos causing so much outrage amongst campaigners and which is used to show the "appalling conditions" Lennox was held under and the "awful abuse" he was suffering whilst in the care of BCC is in fact the families OWN photograph of Lennox in their own backyard. Try telling that to the supporters ....
Another photo doing the rounds is puportedly of a march of thousands of protestors in support of Lennox - it's not - it is in fact a photoshopped photo taken from a site which makes the photo available for websites to write their own slogan on, the original "Lennox" version even had the websites address included on the photograph, the lady supporter who made the photo has posted repeatedly that this was NOT a real photo of a real protest and she had MADE it herself - they don't beleive her and that photo is now being sent all over the internet.
BSL is a VERY flawed law, it needs to be completely rewritten if not removed from the books entirely, however, the Lennox case IS not the case to base the fight on, indeed the behaviour of some of those puporting to be acting in Lennoxs name is damaging that fight.
By all means fight BSL, more than that PLEASE fight BSL, but base the fight on facts and not on the mass hysteria this case has become.
If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you may have misjudged the situation.
Re: Ban Belfast for Barnes
Cheers RB, nice to know the facts!
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
-
Reality Bytes
- Posts: 534
- Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 9:52 pm
Re: Ban Belfast for Barnes
FACT: Sandy Lightfoot (the dog warden in those photos) took 6 MONTHS to be able to enter the kennel with Lennox and is the ONLY person he bonded with, she has never disputed those photos but it changes nothing about her evidence it is a snapshot of a moment in time after 6 MONTHS of his behaviour with someone he trusted - unfortunately for Lennox he has to be trustworthy around people he does not know, and even his own family gave evidence on OATH that he wasn't.loCAtek wrote:
If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you may have misjudged the situation.
-
Reality Bytes
- Posts: 534
- Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 9:52 pm
Re: Ban Belfast for Barnes
FACT: They did NOT license him - that has been proven to be a photoshopped license, the FAMILY had allowed his license to lapse and had IGNORED several written reminders to get him licensed. Had they licensed him then the dog warden would never have visited them and Lennox would never have been seized.loCAtek wrote:He was held in a small cell for the last two years by the BBC, with nothing but sawdust and his own feces, and allowed no visitation.
While his family loved him and did every cert, license and requirement for a disabled person's therapy dog. The law only knew of him because they were working on another warrent at another address, and mistakingly went to the wrong place.
Fact: He was NOT and never has been registered as a "disabled persons therapy dog" nor have the family ever claimed that he was, btw the phot is of a standard dog license required in NI.
FACT: That is not a photo of Lennox in his "cell" it is a screen shot taken from the video of his assessment, that in fact was a stable he was taken to for the assessment, there are no feces in the photo those are chewed up bits of wood and bark which can be very clearly seen when the unphotoshopped original photo is used.He was held in a small cell for the last two years by the BBC, with nothing but sawdust and his own feces, and allowed no visitation.
FACT: It is TRUE the family were NOT allowed to visit, indeed they were not even allowed to know where he was being held, that is NO DIFFERENT to ANY seized dog and is standard policy throughout the UK - they were not being singled out - and is to ensure the safety of the dog, the staff and to prevent anyone from trying to "liberate" the seized dog. It is NOT true he had "no visitation" the dog warden was with him most days.
FACT: see above re license; as for the warrant thing - where on earth has that come from? The "law" went there specifically to see Lennox and notified the family IN ADVANCE that they were coming! The only confusion over the "warrant" was a very minor typo which the court looked at and dismissed, if thats where this little gem has originated from then could someone explain to me how the "law" with a warrant showing the families "incorrect" address happened to end up at the CORRECT address by mistake?The law only knew of him because they were working on another warrent at another address, and mistakingly went to the wrong place.
FACT: there is no one registered disabled in the Barnes family - their daughter has asthma - along with millions of other children who are also not registered disabled.
If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you may have misjudged the situation.
Re: Ban Belfast for Barnes
Well, apparently the dog had never been vicious towards anyone prior to his being seized..."The council's expert described the dog as one of the most unpredictable and dangerous dogs he had come across."
If somebody took me away from my family, and shoved me in a small cage surrounded by strangers, and I had no idea why this was happening to me, I might become "unpredictable" too....
Re: Ban Belfast for Barnes
Oh please, dogs are kennelled away from their owners all the time, for all kinds of reasons of which the dog has "no idea why this is happening"; if all of them became dangerous under those circumstances then no one would ever be able to kennel their dogs, for any reason.
"Hang on while I log in to the James Webb telescope to search the known universe for who the fuck asked you." -- James Fell
Re: Ban Belfast for Barnes
A golden retriever puppy would do.loCAtek wrote:...and how will you comfort the family of the disabled daughter who lost her best friend?
yrs,
rubato
Re: Ban Belfast for Barnes
A couple of comments:
Before RB posted in this thread, it seemed to me that there was an exchange taking place that comes close to violating the spirit of the Board's position that we'd be happy to have loCA here if she'd quit trolling - I haven't seen any in days. Has anyone else?
As to Lennox, if it's true he was unpredictable and dangerous, then I guess the outcome was required by law. If the family avoided opportunities to save him, they suck. If the dog wardens and experts fabricated the 'dangerousness' findings, they suck, too.
My new neighbors have a pit bull. He's beautiful, well-behaved, and friendly to strangers. I wouldn't leave him alone with a child any more than I would my own, or ANY, dog. It's heartbreaking that ANY dog breed be vilified due to what is, in fact, human error - poor training, poor supervision.
We should euthanize the human masters of dangerous dogs.
Before RB posted in this thread, it seemed to me that there was an exchange taking place that comes close to violating the spirit of the Board's position that we'd be happy to have loCA here if she'd quit trolling - I haven't seen any in days. Has anyone else?
As to Lennox, if it's true he was unpredictable and dangerous, then I guess the outcome was required by law. If the family avoided opportunities to save him, they suck. If the dog wardens and experts fabricated the 'dangerousness' findings, they suck, too.
My new neighbors have a pit bull. He's beautiful, well-behaved, and friendly to strangers. I wouldn't leave him alone with a child any more than I would my own, or ANY, dog. It's heartbreaking that ANY dog breed be vilified due to what is, in fact, human error - poor training, poor supervision.
We should euthanize the human masters of dangerous dogs.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan
~ Carl Sagan
-
Reality Bytes
- Posts: 534
- Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 9:52 pm
Re: Ban Belfast for Barnes
Lord Jim wrote:Well, apparently the dog had never been vicious towards anyone prior to his being seized..."The council's expert described the dog as one of the most unpredictable and dangerous dogs he had come across."
If somebody took me away from my family, and shoved me in a small cage surrounded by strangers, and I had no idea why this was happening to me, I might become "unpredictable" too....
Actually Jim the owner herself gave evidence that Lennox had to be muzzled and wasn't trustworthy around strangers or children, she said there had been an "incident" although there hasn't been any eloboration as to what that was. Certainly its true theres no record of him having attacked anyone, but its also true they kept him locked up in their back yard behind 8' fences day and night. There is only 1 photograph released by the family of this dog with the child or any other family member and thats the puppy shot one - if this dog was a trusted family member, the little girls life long pal etc why weren't any photographs produced in court to prove it?
See I have hundreds of photos of my dog, and hundreds of photos of every dog I've owned, they show my dog with my son or with us or interacting with other people and dogs, indoors and out - if ever a dog of mine was seized those photos would be all over the web as well as being used in court to show his temprement - and given the high profile of this case and the claims that this dog was the child constant companion and "assistance" dog wouldn't you think that if those pictures existed they would have used them?
If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you may have misjudged the situation.
Re: Ban Belfast for Barnes
That's certainly a valid point...if ever a dog of mine was seized those photos would be all over the web as well as being used in court to show his temprement - and given the high profile of this case and the claims that this dog was the child constant companion and "assistance" dog wouldn't you think that if those pictures existed they would have used them?
Re: Ban Belfast for Barnes
ThX RB, I came across this story only recently on Facebook. Why FB? Don't I think it's evil?
It most certainly it is, but I was searching for a way to send a birthday Ecard to a dear old friend [Who's b-day is today.] ...without paying for it and that led me to open the FakeBoot. From there, there is one page that I like to read and peruse, and that is: Real Men are Kind to Animals
....they usually have many uplifting stories of animal rescues: fight-dog recoveries; military airlifts of unit mascots; special needs adoptions [where I found the article on 'Stevie Wonder']; and the life-saving of pets, wildlife and live-stock by hardcore, caring, individuals, etc.
As you can see, they seem to be highlighting the 'Save Lennox' campaign, while providing many links to like-minded, supportive pages.
...till now, I had no reason to suspect that thier causes, were anything but legit, and I took them at thier word.
They are also claiming that dog behaviorist celebrities, like Victoria Stilwell and Cesar Millan tried to offer to 're-home', Lennox and were refused, is this true?
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/11/world/eur ... ?hpt=hp_t2
It most certainly it is, but I was searching for a way to send a birthday Ecard to a dear old friend [Who's b-day is today.] ...without paying for it and that led me to open the FakeBoot. From there, there is one page that I like to read and peruse, and that is: Real Men are Kind to Animals
....they usually have many uplifting stories of animal rescues: fight-dog recoveries; military airlifts of unit mascots; special needs adoptions [where I found the article on 'Stevie Wonder']; and the life-saving of pets, wildlife and live-stock by hardcore, caring, individuals, etc.
As you can see, they seem to be highlighting the 'Save Lennox' campaign, while providing many links to like-minded, supportive pages.
...till now, I had no reason to suspect that thier causes, were anything but legit, and I took them at thier word.
They are also claiming that dog behaviorist celebrities, like Victoria Stilwell and Cesar Millan tried to offer to 're-home', Lennox and were refused, is this true?
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/11/world/eur ... ?hpt=hp_t2
Re: Ban Belfast for Barnes
bigskygal wrote:A couple of comments:
Before RB posted in this thread, it seemed to me that there was an exchange taking place that comes close to violating the spirit of the Board's position that we'd be happy to have loCA here if she'd quit trolling - I haven't seen any in days. Has anyone else?
.
