The family of tragic Lexi Branson last night called for new laws surrounding the re-homing of dogs following an inquest into her horrific death.
Because there needs to be legislation to stop single mothers paying £50 for a bulldog of dubious history & installing it in a flat with their tiny daughter, clearly…
An inquest into her death was told staff knew the dog was not suitable to be housed with small children - yet still agreed to sell it.
They also failed to carry out a home visit despite knowing Jodi, 31, lived with Lexi in a two-bedroom flat with no secure back garden.
So, of course, we need immediate legislation, don’t we?
According to the usual grandstanding coroner desperate to place the blame elsewhere than on the grieving parent…
Senior coroner Trevor Kirkman was told kennel staff had no external training because incredibly there are no current laws in relation to re-homing dogs.
Recording a narrative conclusion, Mr Kirkman said he would be writing a report with recommendations to try and "prevent future such deaths".
He added: "It seems to me, having heard the evidence, there are no national standards by which any policy for re-homing is considered.
"There is also no statutory requirement to make a home visit. The decision on whether she should have the dog was left up to Jodi.
Well, yes. She was
an adult, wasn’t she? We trust adults to be competent to make their own decisions, don’t we?
"A coroner has a statutory duty to report facts which he or she believes should be reported with a view of trying to prevent future deaths.
"I will be making a report as a result of the evidence in this case, making my recommendations to the appropriate authorities."
Good grief! The RSPCA must be rubbing their hands with glee – another costly overhead for rescue centres will drive a few more of them out of business, and who will benefit?
Lexi’s grandfather, Alan Tait, 67, welcomed the move, saying: "We are pleased the coroner is going to look at the law.
"There should be some sort of legislation so the owners of kennels have to abide by some sort of strict rules with regard to rehoming stray dogs."
"We were very surprised to hear there are currently no guidelines. I’d strongly call for them to be implemented."
Wait, which is it, thickos? ‘Strict rules’ or ‘guidelines’?
And are you aware those aren’t the same things?
"You think something is there protecting people, but when you realise it isn’t, it is really quite shocking. Hopefully this will never happen again."
Spoken like good little ‘the State knows best, save us from ourselves!’ drones…
But maybe the rescue centre is culpable to some degree, after all we were just told “staff knew the dog was not suitable to be housed with small children”, weren’t we?
Well, turns out that’s utter crap too:
The hearing was told its last owner had the animal for less than 24 hours before it attacked another dog - leaving him fearing for the safety of his children.
He then lied to a council dog warden by telling them it was a stray so it would be taken away for free - rather than having to pay a fee.
It meant kennel staff were unaware of the previous incident and wrongly believed it was a stray that had been wandering a city park.
Kennel worker Sammi Pestell said she carried out an assessment with a colleague on Mulan before he was cleared to be re-homed.
She added the animal had a "lovely temperament" and was "very loving and sweet", showing "no signs of aggression at all".
So, the rescue centre didn’t know anything of it’s suitability or non-suitability with children based on its prior history. They can only assess what they see before them.
And – while you might say they shouldn’t have given it to someone unsuited to it’s needs, and I’d agree with you on this – there’s no fault to be placed on them for the death.
That, I’m afraid, rests squarely with the mother.