# Dogs ordered to be put to death due to clerical error.



## alison (Mar 14, 2008)

Dogs Ordered to be Put to Death due to 'Clerical Error'


----------



## RebeccaArmstrong (May 23, 2008)

OMG thats horrible ... whoever has made this 'clerical error' should be sacked not that it helps the dogs


----------



## Guest (Sep 29, 2008)

RebeccaArmstrong said:


> OMG thats horrible ... whoever has made this 'clerical error' should be sacked not that it helps the dogs


Don't worry Rebecca no dogs were actually put to sleep. The OP's post title is very misleading - their owners were merely sent the wrong set of forms. It could have been very nasty though if DDA Watch hadn't stepped in ............


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

spellweaver said:


> Don't worry Rebecca no dogs were actually put to sleep. The OP's post title is very misleading - their owners were merely sent the wrong set of forms. It could have been very nasty though if DDA Watch hadn't stepped in ............


just goes to show, reading the titles of thread can be so misleading...thanks spellweaver.


----------



## Guest (Sep 29, 2008)

JANICE199 said:


> just goes to show, reading the titles of thread can be so misleading...thanks spellweaver.


You're welcome.  It must have been dreadful for the owners, though. Apparently it happened over a weekend and they couldn't contact anyone - imagine haveing to wait a whole weekend thinking your pet was being put to sleep ...........


----------



## alison (Mar 14, 2008)

Strictly speaking the title is not misleading as that is exactly what happened. However sad but true, people are more likely to read a title that grabs them. As mentioned in the article its not unheard of for this sort of "error" to lead to dogs dying. The Hardwicks mentioned in the article where owners I dealt with personally. I took the call from them when the truth came out and it is something i never want to do again. If the title made you read it, it did its job because for a tiny moment, you felt a little of what those owners felt.


----------



## Guest (Sep 29, 2008)

alison said:


> Strictly speaking the title is not misleading as that is exactly what happened. However sad but true, people are more likely to read a title that grabs them. As mentioned in the article its not unheard of for this sort of "error" to lead to dogs dying. The Hardwicks mentioned in the article where owners I dealt with personally. I took the call from them when the truth came out and it is something i never want to do again. If the title made you read it, it did its job because for a tiny moment, you felt a little of what those owners felt.


The title is misleading and is typical of journalism at its worst. I would much rather have a title that told the truth - I would still have read an article entitled "Clerical error leaves pet owners worried and angry". Sadly, as you admit, deliberate sensationalism such as this sells stories, whereas the truth doesn't always.


----------



## alison (Mar 14, 2008)

To mislead you would imply something that was not true. The title is true, the owners recieved destruction orders. Would be true re sales if the idea was to get a sale. The article attempts to show what is happening and theres no sales involved. As you said, had the article been anything less, less people would read it and less would know what is going on. 

Still lets all hope for the day when these articles dont need to be written, that is the ultimate aim anyhow


----------



## Guest (Sep 29, 2008)

alison said:


> To mislead you would imply something that was not true. The title is true, the owners recieved destruction orders.


But the title reads (not suggests) "dogs ordered to be put to death....". The dogs weren't ordered to be put to death, just their owners made to think they were. Or have I missed something?


----------



## Guest (Sep 29, 2008)

alison said:


> To mislead you would imply something that was not true. The title is true, QUOTE]
> 
> Hmm. Seems from the replies from Rebecca, Janice and AJ that your title misled them. I rest my case.


----------



## kateyblue (Aug 2, 2008)

To be fair it does say 'ordered' to be put to death it doesnt say they actually were


----------



## alison (Mar 14, 2008)

kateyblue said:


> To be fair it does say 'ordered' to be put to death it doesnt say they actually were


Exactly 

You read a title and read the article then you get the full story. Dont read the article and you are unlikely to know the full facts of anything. The article makes it very clear what happened.


----------



## Guest (Sep 30, 2008)

alison said:


> You read a title and read the article then you get the full story. Dont read the article and you are unlikely to know the full facts of anything. The article makes it very clear what happened.


Unfortunately Alison a lot of people only read the headlines and don't read the article. Anyone reading your title as a headline without reading the article is automatically led to believe that dogs have actually been put to death, as has been proved by the responses it has had from posters on this site. That is why it is wrong; that is why it is journalism at its worst. I'd much prefer you to post the truth rather than resorting to sensationalism.


----------



## Guest (Sep 30, 2008)

kateyblue said:


> To be fair it does say 'ordered' to be put to death it doesnt say they actually were


But they weren't ordered to be put to death so it's a blatent lie.


----------



## alison (Mar 14, 2008)

They had a court order stating the dogs are to be pts. They werent PTS because the legal rep put a stop to it. Had it been left theres a good chance the dogs would have been destroyed. 

The title is not wrong, if people chose not to read it all then thats where the error lies imho  Either or, the situation is still an awful position for owners to be in .


----------



## Guest (Sep 30, 2008)

alison said:


> The title is not wrong, if people chose not to read it all then thats where the error lies imho


No, you have to take responsibility for your actions. Because of your misleading headline you have made people think that dogs have been killed. I was going to add that *that* is where the error lies, but I suspect that it was done purposely and so is no error.



alison said:


> the situation is still an awful position for owners to be in .


Now I will agree wholeheartedly with you here. This is the whole point, a point which has sadly been hidden by your misleading headline. Did you think that something more accurate like "Clerical error leaves owners worrying all weekend that innocent pets had been sentenced to death" wasn't as sensationalist as the one you did write?


----------



## Methical (Jul 11, 2008)

Regardless of the main story being true to the title or not, the article 'covers its back' in one of the closing paragraphs...



> Although this clerical error has not resulted in the deaths of any dogs clerical error has claimed the life of at least one dog held under the Dangerous Dogs Act. Last year, Jeanette and Stephen Hardwick's pet dog , Oscar was put to sleep after being logged into the computer as a stray by mistake.


So weather you believe the title is wrong because all the initially mentioned dogs were not ordered to be put to sleep / saved from being put to sleep. Oscar, a dog, was ordered to be pts due to clerical error.

Anyone who feels they were mislead by the title as no Notting Hill Carnival dogs were pts or ordered to be pts can rest assured that dogs did die due to clerical error.

And yes it is a crying shame. If i was in charge, guess who would be carrying out the destruction of the dog and the *personal* notifications to the owners


----------

