Littlefair was ordered to have the dog destroyed, fined £350 and ordered to pay £500 compensation to Mrs Taylor and £100 to Mr O’Hare. He was also ordered to pay £85 costs and a £38 surcharge.
He said losing his pet and people being injured has been very upsetting.
The councillor said: “It came as a huge shock to everyone who had met the dog that it had attacked.
“I am a farmer, I know animals and this dog had never shown any aggression.
“But, I have to take their word for it they were attacked.”You have to take their word for it? So…you weren’t present? The dog was out of your immediate control?
Whoops! Quite an admission…
Serious question; what is your history with dogs? You seem to be very anti.
How is this case different from he 'lovable labrador' saga in Devon when you went off on one because the local police dared to take a dog owner to court for having an out of control dog? Is it perhaps because the owner of the dog in this case is a farmer and a local councillor and the owners of the labrador owned an upmarket wedding venue and you fell for their publicity?
"Serious question; what is your history with dogs? You seem to be very anti."
My history? Grew up with dogs - a rescue crossbreed from Battersea called Max, who loved water. A puddle, the sea, a reservoir once on a Yorkshire holiday, which caused a few anxious moments. And a pet shop 'impulse' purchase crossbreed puppy called Brad, who had a lot of Alsatian in him and loved to round us all up on walks.
I don't hate dogs, though I prefer cats. I hate people who can't keep control of their dogs, and cause others' distress or harm.
"How is this case different from he 'lovable labrador' saga in Devon..."
Lots of ways - public place, injury caused, etc.
Errr as was the lovable labrador saga - reading the reports in the paper once you had got beyond the obvious publicity campaign by the owners it seems the mutt had been the subject of repeated complaints by the manager of the catering company and members of the public who live nearby. The wedding venue seems to me to meet the definition of a public place - the magistrates agreed. The young lad had quite a nasty injury to his nose and wasn't the dog
suspected of sheep worrying but the owner said it was mistaken identity? Still, as the owner said, the dog is harmless. That's what they all say. Double standards on your part I feel as if it was Wayne's lovable pitbull you'd be all upset.
"...and wasn't the dog suspected of sheep worrying but the owner said it was mistaken identity?"
So we convict on hearsay without proof now? I thought we just reserved that for dead 70s DJs...
Post a Comment