Wednesday, 13 February 2013

A Likely Story!

A dad who strangled his pet dog to death and dumped the body in a wheelie bin has been cleared of animal cruelty.
Wh..? How can this be? you ask.

Well, turn the lamps down low, set a roaring fire in the hearth, and hearken to a thrilling tale of a man's desperate battle for survival against the untamed savagery of...a year-old Staffordshire terrier?
Bolton, who is a full-time carer for his wife, told the court it was the only humane method of killing available at the time. He said: "She was ferocious, jumping up and lunging at my face and throat, and snapping at my hands and wrists. She was foaming at the mouth and baring her teeth."
Oh, no! *clutches cushion*
"She was a medium sized-dog with an awful lot of strength and power. I knew there was a very real threat to my family's safety. It was very traumatic."
*swoon* How brave!
The court heard Bolton, who also has three other dogs, acquired Nellie from a neighbour who was concerned about its vicious behaviour.
Ummm.... Hang on!
Bolton had agreed to take her for a trial period, but after two weeks, noticed her acting aggressively towards his other dogs and growling at his children. He later found out the former rescue dog was not supposed to have been re-homed with a family with children.
So...instead of passing it back to the rescue home, this chap palms it off on his neighbour?
Concerned for the safety of his family, Bolton decided to have her euthanased.
Whew! What a sensible ma...

Oh. Wait.
He said he sought advice from agencies including the police, the city council, the PDSA and the RSPCA, but claimed they refused to help.
He also said he phoned several veterinary practices in Canterbury, but claimed each of them refused to offer payment plans to help Bolton meet the high cost of putting Nellie to sleep.
Riiiiight. He didn't want 'help' at all. He wanted someone else to pay! 
He said: "I was quite upset that there was no help available. I got to a point of desperation. I had a dangerous dog in the house that I was pretty much being forced to keep."
Umm, no. It's not that expensive. They weren't asking for the soul of your first born child, after all!
Bolton told the court he kept Nellie in a large cage for the majority of the time, but on the day she died, she had broken free and started attacking his other dogs.
Addressing the bench, Bolton said: "It was probably one of the most unpleasant experiences of my life.
"I'm not proud of what I did. Never would I have done it under any other circumstances. But if I was in the same situation again, I would do it again to cease the threat to my family."
You just wouldn't pay any money to avoid that threat...
Prosecuting for the RSPCA, Elizabeth Spence said Bolton could have avoided the situation by refusing to take in a dog known to be aggressive, and suggested Nellie's suffering was unnecessary.
Well, who couldn't agree with that?
Magistrates deliberated for more than two hours, before reaching a verdict of not guilty.
*sigh*
Chairman of the bench David Ellerby said: "Mr Bolton was under sustained attack, was desperate and reasonably believed that strangulation was the most humane method available at the time to protect himself and his family.
"We accept there was suffering to the dog, but we find this could not have been avoided or reduced at the time, and was therefore necessary."
 In other words: "We believe this total pack of old fanny we are told by this man who doesn't work, has three dogs already, took in a fourth and didn't fancy forking out for the costs of having it destroyed. Also, we think the Tooth Fairy exists, and that man who leaves presents at the foot of our beds comes from the North Pole"
Speaking after the verdict, Bolton told the Canterbury Times: "I'm very relieved. I've always had dogs and I support the Staffordshire Bull Terrier breed in particular.
"But I'm here today because there was no help available to me in that situation. The different agencies need to look into cases like this and perhaps re-think their protocols."
Well, I certainly agree there - I think they should, when they get calls like this one, turn up and put the dog to sleep.

Followed by the owner.

10 comments:

  1. "I think they should, when they get calls like this one, turn up and put the owner to sleep."

    Edited it for you, no need to thank me.

    I'm no fan of the rSSpca but in this case...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Followed by the owner ?

    How humane of you !

    ReplyDelete
  3. Lets just hope his wife and kids are suitably well behaved hey?

    ReplyDelete
  4. The RSPCA turned out? Without a camera crew?

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Bolton, who is a full-time carer for his wife, told the court it was the only humane method of killing available at the time. He said: 'She was ferocious, jumping up and lunging at my face and throat, and snapping at my hands and wrists. She was foaming at the mouth and baring her teeth'."

    Perhaps his wife should have been put down too.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Another fine example of the convenience of routine arming:

    "Can you pop two into ma' bitch, officer? Chriiiisst...yer might as well do the dog whilst yer here, mate."

    ReplyDelete
  7. It's a dog and his property. If he chooses to kill it for what ever reason that's his business. The method of killing it is also his business. This court case has just been a waste of tax payers money.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "The method of killing it is also his business."

    That is specified in law and he must conform to that, although he can do it himself. Strangling would only be a method to use in an emergency, which he says this was.

    The prior question is why the RSPCA and the PDSA who both have constitutional obligations as charities to prevent unnecessary suffering did not stump up the £30 for a barbiturate injection. The RSPCA in particular does it all the time and receive millions of pounds to spend to this end. An injection is always cheaper than a lawyer.

    The police aren't a service in this general social sense but they could have removed the dog if it was becoming dangerous, or at the very least advised him of the Dogs Trust, a national charity which would have taken the animal.

    You are correct, though in that the method of disposal must not be confused with the absolute right of the owner to dispose of his property.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Lets just hope his wife and kids are suitably well behaved hey?"

    LOL!

    "Perhaps his wife should have been put down too."

    :D

    "The method of killing it is also his business. This court case has just been a waste of tax payers money."

    No - we have laws against animal cruelty for a good reason.

    "The prior question is why the RSPCA and the PDSA who both have constitutional obligations as charities to prevent unnecessary suffering did not stump up the £30 for a barbiturate injection. "

    Because they will then be inundated with benefit-dependent scum demanding free euthanasia for their unwanted pets.

    If he can feed all these animals (and wife and children) he isn't poor, is he?

    ReplyDelete