…
you should have been put down instead. Or maybe I mean
‘as well’…
Two women who were in charge of a Staffordshire Bull terrier when it attacked a man in Regent Street have said the dog should not have been put down.
Oh, and a lethal injection for your defence wouldn’t be a bad idea:
Rob Ross, defending, said the dog was usually well-tempered and the defendants had simply been trying to look after him.
“It is quite clear that the dog did not belong to these two ladies,” he said. “They have indicated they took the chance to take this dog for a walk at any opportunity because it was not being looked after properly.
“CCTV shows the dog running up to the victim, who probably did not stand still and ignore it, which is the only way to deal with it in those circumstances. ”
Not true. This
New York cop has another way.
The defendants, speaking after the hearing, said the dog was not dangerous and they had been trying to care for him.
“He was being passed from pillar to post, and his owner was not keeping him in a steady home,” said Leanne.
“We were just looking after him. He was not a dangerous dog. We always walked him on the leash and only took him off when we felt confident he was not going to cause any harm.
“It was an unfortunate accident that happened. Even our children have been around the dog and we have never had any problems. He did not deserve to be put down.”
Right, and just how bad was the real owner if these two were a better option, relatively speaking?
The two women were ordered to pay compensation to the victim of £75 each and court costs of £85 between them.
Out of their well-paying jobs, I suppose?
The 'defence', presumably taxpayer funded, was as disgraceful as it was ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteAnd full marks to the New York cop. A controlled and fully justified response has to be further applauded for one-shot marksmanship and professional restraint.
XX He was not a dangerous dog. We always walked him on the leash and only took him off when we felt confident he was not going to cause any harm.
ReplyDeleteLogic failure!
XX And full marks to the New York cop. XX
ReplyDeleteHEY Melvyn, someone has stolen your screen name!
Aren't they 'The Fat Slags' off Viz.?
ReplyDeleteI'm also staggered that (a) I understood an MTG comment and (b) I agree with him.
@ FT - no logic with chavscum. They should be made to pay the costs but then again us taxpayers can't afford to.
@FT: You're right, it can't be the real MTG BECAUSE I understood it!
ReplyDeleteGolly, Herr Spreuth. I appreciate how difficult it may have been to cobble a comment without the usual 'FUCK' and 'CUNT'. Accept my sincere thanks for that.
ReplyDeleteHere in the UK, our equivalent will more often chop limbs from beneath stationary animals so that many a beast survives target practice when armed retards run out of ammunition.
.......... and he's back!
ReplyDeleteXX chop limbs from beneath stationary animals XX
ReplyDeleteMelvin, you excell yourself. THAT was actualy amusing.
Wunderbar schön, Führer. If only good humour could winkle the family's wartime recipe for Dresden crispy Kraut flambé. Mmm-mmm.
ReplyDeleteOh Dear, not nice Melv, still, the truth (that you are a deeply unpleasant gobbet of hateful bile) will out.
ReplyDelete@ Anonymous Plod
ReplyDeleteGosh, what a cabbage! To parade ignorance of a vegetarian delicacy in your haste to smear me as 'hateful'.
"And full marks to the New York cop. "
ReplyDeleteNot quite. Even at that range, he failed to kill the thing.
"Logic failure!"
As so often in these cases, their mouths are quite a bit faster than their brains...