# Pdsa



## Tink82 (Mar 22, 2009)

I was at the PDSA a lot this weekend, emergency on Saturday.. while I was there, a couple came in with an 8 week old puppy (pedigree apparently) and I was ear wigging.. they were students and couldn't afford to take it to the vets.

It got me thinking, is it fair to buy a puppy with no income coming in? if you can fork out for the initial price of the dog, food, bedding etc etc but you can't take it to the vets, is it ok?

I know people's circs change, myself included and the PDSA do an amazing job.

But, it got me thinking, should pets be for those with an income and can work or does everyone deserve the 'right' to have a pet within their household??


----------



## kodakkuki (Aug 8, 2011)

Hmm, that's a tough one.
as a rule, I would say no, it's not ok- not if you know from before you get the dog that's it's going to need pdsa help for vet visits (I'm assuming this was for vaccines).
I don't think pets should be a right... You should have to earn the privilege to have them. Take my cousin for example. A few months ago he bought a pup (and I was Very angry about it) after he left his last dog at the shelter for being too messy and be never took her to an other vet for anything- just the pdsa so he wold only have to give a Small donation- heaven forbid he pay for her spay instead of buying a tv that week!
So new pup was the same- every jab and checkered was at the expense of the pdsa- then the pup got left up to the pound (this was without me being told btw) at 6 months when he had Evans to much bother.

I wen with a friend to pdsa wen his dog was ill (she had been adopted out from the pound pg and developed mastitis) and they were pretty fab- and such a relief that they were there to help. When he had adopted her he had made sure he could get er everything when she needed it- but that was an emergency he couldn't really have been prepared for, so needed their help, but some do seem to abuse the system terribly.


----------



## MeganRose (Apr 13, 2008)

I had a conversation recently with a friend, who said no one should be allowed a dog unless they work. Which I really disagree with! 
I've been on the sick since I was 18, and have accepted it's a long term thing; I wont be getting a job any time soon at all, but I don't think that should deprive me from owning a dog. I do get more on ESA than those on JSA, and I think I could afford to keep a dog, but insurance is one thing I'm unsure about; whether I'd use PDSA or pay for insurance.. I'd prefer to pay for everything myself, but it's something I really know little about!
But as I'm planning on fostering first, it's something I'll think more into nearer the time.

I think if you're on JSA, it's the wrong time to get a pet. I'm not saying if you're out of work you can't have a pet, but if you're 'looking for work', waiting till you're working is alot more sensible! But then, when you're out of work, you're at home more...

I dunno about being a student and getting a pup, as I've never been a student. It really doesn't seem ideal though!


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

I don't think it is right that the pdsa should provide first vaccines for a puppy, pedigree or otherwise. Someone else might have bought them the pup, but they should be able to pay for simple vaccines. And what benefits were they on to qualify anyway? According to their website it has to be either housing benefit or council tax benefit. I looked at it when I got council tax benefit and found that I am out of their area so not qualified, which I think is quite bad really. It isn't like I want them to come out.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

MeganRose said:


> I had a conversation recently with a friend, who said no one should be allowed a dog unless they work. Which I really disagree with!
> I've been on the sick since I was 18, and have accepted it's a long term thing; I wont be getting a job any time soon at all, but I don't think that should deprive me from owning a dog. I do get more on ESA than those on JSA, and I think I could afford to keep a dog, but insurance is one thing I'm unsure about; whether I'd use PDSA or pay for insurance.. I'd prefer to pay for everything myself, but it's something I really know little about!
> But as I'm planning on fostering first, it's something I'll think more into nearer the time.
> 
> ...


So does your friend think that if someone loses their job and has trouble finding another, they should rehome the dog? It is all very well having these ideals until it happens to you.


----------



## Tink82 (Mar 22, 2009)

It was actually the insurance that led me to the PDSA! cat is insured but it was an absolute emergency and would have been £200+ which the vet would want instantly and the insurance would pay me back (possibly) after.. I didn't have that sort of money on me!

I believe everyone should be paying for vacc's and worming/flea treatment and that the PDSA should be for sick and injured pets only.. but then it comes back round in a circle, if you can't afford the emergency vets at the time of buying your pet, is it fair to get them? but is it fair that a loving family should be denied a pet?

Tough one!


----------



## Tink82 (Mar 22, 2009)

newfiesmum said:


> I don't think it is right that the pdsa should provide first vaccines for a puppy, pedigree or otherwise. Someone else might have bought them the pup, but they should be able to pay for simple vaccines. And what benefits were they on to qualify anyway? According to their website it has to be either housing benefit or council tax benefit. I looked at it when I got council tax benefit and found that I am out of their area so not qualified, which I think is quite bad really. It isn't like I want them to come out.


There are actually two in my area


----------



## RabbitMonster (Mar 20, 2012)

I'd like to post form a student point of view, although I've a cat, not a dog, so slightly different.

When I rescued Molly, I had a job and the then boyfriend (now ex) also had money coming in too. Had she been in better conditions I would've left her where she was, but the conditions she was in were bad and I couldn't leave her there. She's now currently in foster care which has caused no end of problems, and I've spent all my measly savings on her food.

I love her more than anything and from a love point of view, I wouldn't hesitate to do it again. From a financial point of view, I most certainly wouldn't even entertain the idea. I've been very lucky that she's been fostered and I can get her back next year. The threat of rehoming her was very real and still is, and as much as I love her, I know that if this foster doesn't work out, she will need a new permanent home. 

So no, students shouldn't have pets unless the pet is living with and is wanted by the parents. There's no stable income and no stable home. I don't think people on JSA should own a pet too, unless they owned the pet when they were working and have since been made redundant. It's not fair on the animal, and as harsh as it sounds, if you can't afford to get off your backside and work for your animal, you don't deserve one.


----------



## Kirkland (Aug 28, 2012)

As a student myself I think this couple are incredible irresponsible. I want a cat I know that it is not a good idea. For starters the majority of students live in accommodation which is small and shared. Then there is the issue of finances most students don't have a lot of money to spend on pets. There are a whole host of reasons I could come up to as to why a student should not have cats or dogs.

As for non students I personally believe it has more to do with commitment than anything else. I would never want a situation where those on disability allowance were frowned on because they had a pet and may not be able to afford treatment especially since pets have been shown to increase the quality of life of their owners.

To be honest I think a lot depends on how committed the owner is to the animal.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Tink82 said:


> There are actually two in my area


Well, you've obviously got my one as well!


----------



## MontyMaude (Feb 23, 2012)

I shall await my flaming but I do believe that animals are a luxury and you shouldn't even consider taking one on without making sure you have adequate finances to afford one.

I understand that people lose their jobs and that the RSPCA/CP/Blue Cross/PDSA are there to help when things do go wrong, but they should not be looked at as a convenient way to not pay vet bills, people take huge advantage of them and I have seen first hand on here people advising others to get a friend/relative on benefits to take the animal to the PDSA etc and claim it's theirs so they are entitled to free veterinary care.

I also believe that they should refuse to treat new pets that people have taken on whilst having other animals already being treated by the charities, I believe the PDSA where looking at or have brought in a rule about treating no more than 2 pedigrees per person, but they are charities and they are there to help in a time of need not to be taken advantage of.


----------



## Tink82 (Mar 22, 2009)

MontyMaude said:


> I shall await my flaming but I do believe that animals are a luxury and you shouldn't even consider taking one on without making sure you have adequate finances to afford one.
> 
> I understand that people lose their jobs and that the RSPCA/CP/Blue Cross/PDSA are there to help when things do go wrong, but they should not be looked at as a convenient way to not pay vet bills, people take huge advantage of them and I have seen first hand on here people advising others to get a friend/relative on benefits to take the animal to the PDSA etc and claim it's theirs so they are entitled to free veterinary care.
> 
> I also believe that they should refuse to treat new pets that people have taken on whilst having other animals already being treated by the charities, I believe the PDSA where looking at or have brought in a rule about treating no more than* 2 pedigrees per person,* but they are charities and they are there to help in a time of need not to be taken advantage of.


There were signs up saying no more than 1 per person..

The vet refused to treat someones dog that was in labour as the owner had already been told of their breeding policy and they ignored it, went ahead and are expecting financial help for vet fees but will make money from the puppies?!?


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

Personally I think if you can't afford the necessary routine stuff then no, you shouldn't get a pet. 

Already having the pet and losing your job is a bit different and don't begrudge anyone needing a bit of help then but to get a pet knowing you can't afford even the routine care it needs is just wrong imo.


----------



## Guest (Sep 3, 2012)

When we got Max as a pup, we made sure he was insured from the off...huge vets bills might of been a struggle so we wanted to make sure whatever happened, he would get looked after...

Its a bit irresponsible really to take on an animal and not be able to pay for any care it may need...


----------



## MontyMaude (Feb 23, 2012)

Tink82 said:


> There were signs up saying no more than 1 per person..
> 
> The vet refused to treat someones dog that was in labour as the owner had already been told of their breeding policy and they ignored it, went ahead and are expecting financial help for vet fees but will make money from the puppies?!?


Oh it sounds like they are getting stricter then, hard as it is it is the only way they will be able to survive and help treat the animals that really need it.


----------



## RabbitMonster (Mar 20, 2012)

MontyMaude said:


> Oh it sounds like they are getting stricter then, hard as it is it is the only way they will be able to survive and help treat the animals that really need it.


It is good that they're getting stricter, but I do feel for the animals that will suffer because of stricter guidelines. Then again, I suppose you have to be cruel to be kind.


----------



## Aurelie (Apr 10, 2012)

So many people buy or accept a pet on a whim, making the assumption that because they can afford to feed it they can afford a pet. 

I think that if the costs of insurance, general health care (flea and worming treatments) and keeping the animal in a safe environment cannot be met then no, that person should not have it. Situations change and I believe that animal charities are for supporting people during periods of need - not for propping up fools who think that they have a right to free animal care. 

As for the student debate, I don't think students should have pets - not only because of the transient nature of their living arrangements and unstable earning potential, but also because this should be a time when you can be completely selfish and take a badly paying job because you love it, jump on a plane and travel and blow an entire paypacket on a pair of shoes - in my opinion having a pet is a responsibility that can wait a while.


----------



## IrishEyes (Jun 26, 2012)

Hi,

DH and I discussed the possibility of rescuing for quite a few years before we actually did as we wanted to be absolutely certain that it was what we both wanted and that we had the commitment required for a pet.

We brought Horace home a few months ago, changed his poor diet around, saw the life come back into him and built up a bond and trust and a deep love. He has long walks daily, a good garden to nosey around etc and seems very content.

We use the PDSA but I wouldn't say that deems us irresponsible or taking advantage of the charity. We understand that they are a charity so we give as much as we can afford, we are genuinely happy to be able to use the service and we respect them. 

I do realise that many can/do take advantage but many do not and make loving, commited and dedicated pet owners. Dogs make such wonderful and theraputic companions to people who may be disabled/housebound etc.. it would be wrong to try to say that they shouldn't have a pet just because they are on DLA etc.

Just my thoughts!


----------



## LolaBoo (May 31, 2011)

Tink82 said:


> It was actually the insurance that led me to the PDSA! cat is insured but it was an absolute emergency and would have been £200+ which the vet would want instantly and the insurance would pay me back (possibly) after.. I didn't have that sort of money on me!
> 
> I believe everyone should be paying for vacc's and worming/flea treatment and that the PDSA should be for sick and injured pets only.. but then it comes back round in a circle, if you can't afford the emergency vets at the time of buying your pet, is it fair to get them? but is it fair that a loving family should be denied a pet?
> 
> Tough one!


You do pay for there vacs at the PDSA and flea and worming treament we are with the PDSA and pay for lolas flea treatment every month and her worming every 3 months she had her booster jab in july which cost us £27


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

personally i would rather someone on benefits who was in all day have a dog than someone who was out all day working and leaving the dog by themselves!

ive been unemployed, i had pets (hamsters) they were well looked after, yes we took one to the PDSA one time but i was actually willing to pay £60 just to get her looked at (it was a bank holiday) it was actually my dad who suggested the PDSA as i didnt even know it existed, i would have then (and now) have been willing to pay the £60, even though at the time it would have meant me and my OH not eating for a week

i would do ANYTHING for my animals and even though im now working (self employed working from home) if i was to become unemployed again there is no way in hell i would get rid of my pets just because some idiots think those on benefits shouldnt be allowed them!

i and those unemployed would spend more time looking after their pets than those workers who are at work all day and say the unemployed shouldnt have pets


----------



## LolaBoo (May 31, 2011)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> personally i would rather someone on benefits who was in all day have a dog than someone who was out all day working and leaving the dog by themselves!
> 
> ive been unemployed, i had pets (hamsters) they were well looked after, yes we took one to the PDSA one time but i was actually willing to pay £60 just to get her looked at (it was a bank holiday) it was actually my dad who suggested the PDSA as i didnt even know it existed, i would have then (and now) have been willing to pay the £60, even though at the time it would have meant me and my OH not eating for a week
> 
> ...


Couldnt have said it better myself, just coz people happen to be unemployed dont mean they shouldnt have a pet, i dont work thro being disabled and my husband is my carer there is always someone with lola if not both of us she has the best we can give her, and yes at times we do go without for her, nobody should be judged on if they can work or not, the PDSA isnt actually just for unemployed you have to be getting housing benefit so ppl who are working can use the PDSA as well if there income is low so i wish people would stop and think before they judge others


----------



## MontyMaude (Feb 23, 2012)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> i and those unemployed would spend more time looking after their pets than those workers who are at work all day and say the unemployed shouldnt have pets


But if it wasn't for the workers that earn a wage and donate to the charity then it wouldn't be there for people in their times of need now would it.


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

MontyMaude said:


> But if it wasn't for the snooty ignorant workers that earn a wage and donate to the charity then it wouldn't be there for people in their times of need now would it.


even when you take your pet in they ask for a donation (me and my OH gave £20)

so it isnt only workers who donate, get your facts right!


----------



## poohdog (May 16, 2010)

I used the PDSA a couple of years back for a tooth extraction for one of mine.I gave them a £50 donation which was as much as I could get together.

What annoyed me was the number at the counter that pushed just a couple of pounds across and then left in their £10,000 cars.Even those on limited benefits should be prepared to donate a reasonable amount.


----------



## Guest (Sep 3, 2012)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> personally i would rather someone on benefits who was in all day have a dog than someone who was out all day working and leaving the dog by themselves!
> 
> ive been unemployed, i had pets (hamsters) they were well looked after, yes we took one to the PDSA one time but i was actually willing to pay £60 just to get her looked at (it was a bank holiday) it was actually my dad who suggested the PDSA as i didnt even know it existed, i would have then (and now) have been willing to pay the £60, even though at the time it would have meant me and my OH not eating for a week
> 
> ...


there is another problem , many unemployed people take on reptiles , seen it happen many , many times on another place because they think they are `cheap` pets.
problem is when they fall sick they are not. PDSA won`t treat or even look at reptiles as they are not companion animals , infact most vets won`t that have no reptile experience.
so what to folks do then???

i`ve known good kind hearted folks loan people money on another place from the goodness of their hearts so folks can get some care for their sick or injured reptiles - then refuse to pay the money back when it`s due.
some folks really don`t think at all , before taking specialist pets on.


----------



## LolaBoo (May 31, 2011)

As ive said in a previous post not everything is free, you pay for vacs and flea trement n worming among others like spadeing and so on, i also when lola is seen give a donation


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

diablo said:


> there is another problem , many unemployed people take on reptiles , seen it happen many , many times on another place because they think they are `cheap` pets.
> problem is when they fall sick they are not. PDSA won`t treat or even look at reptiles as they are not companion animals , infact most vets won`t that have no reptile experience.
> so what to folks do then???
> 
> ...


i agree that some people dont think

but that doesnt mean its right to tar all unemployed with the same brush and say they shouldnt be allowed pets


----------



## MontyMaude (Feb 23, 2012)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> even when you take your pet in they ask for a donation (me and my OH gave £20)
> 
> so it isnt only workers who donate, get your facts right!


I can see that you are just spoiling for an argument  but did your £20 cover the entire treatment of your animal ? If so good for you, if not where did the extra money come from ?

Whilst you may not use and abuse their services there are plenty that do and if it carries on then they just won't be able to do for anyone and then ultimately then it will be the animals that suffer.


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

MontyMaude said:


> I can see that you are just spoiling for an argument  but did your £20 cover the entire treatment of your animal ? If so good for you, if not where did the extra money come from ?
> 
> Whilst you may not use and abuse their services there are plenty that do and if it carries on then they just won't be able to do for anyone and then ultimately then it will be the animals that suffer.


no i certainly do not use and abuse the PDSA, ive taken one pet, once, ive been lucky enough not to need to take another but if i had to i would, without question

for those that do abuse it the ones that dont should not be tarred with the same brush and be subjected to narrow minded comments


----------



## Guest (Sep 3, 2012)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> i agree that some people dont think
> 
> but that doesnt mean its right to tar all unemployed with the same brush and say they shouldnt be allowed pets


i never said unemployed people shouldn`t have pets BUT there should be rules in place for animals that are not considered companion animals , such as , snakes , lizards , amphibians etc. because when push comes to shove there is NO PDSA or any other kind of help out there for those that own exotics.
i could point you to a thread on another place right now where a snake was in DIRE need of treatment instead it was left to die a slow painful death because the owner was unemployed and couldn`t afford to get some treatment for it.
in times like that words do actually fail me.


----------



## Aurelie (Apr 10, 2012)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> those workers who are at work all day


Aren't they the people who's tax contribution pays for the benefits which then go towards supporting the charity or in some case make the actual donations to the charities?

I don't think anyone has said that the unemployed shouldn't have pets - a change in circumstances such as losing a job or being unable to work is exactly what those charities (and all financial aid) are for. Its the people who take on an animal without any forethought into what that might entail financially that are the problem.


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

diablo said:


> i never said unemployed people shouldn`t have pets BUT there should be rules in place for animals that are not considered companion animals , such as , snakes , lizards , amphibians etc. because when push comes to shove there is NO PDSA or any other kind of help out there for those that own exotics.
> i could point you to a thread on another place right now where a snake was in DIRE need of treatment instead it was left to die a slow painful death because the owner was unemployed and couldn`t afford to get some treatment for it.
> in times like that words do actually fail me.


i think there should be rules in place for exotic animals for everyone, not just those unemployed


----------



## Guest (Sep 3, 2012)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> *i think there should be rules in place for exotic animals for everyone*, not just those unemployed



why should that be then ? exotics could literally mean anything , including birds.


----------



## BullyMolly (Sep 26, 2011)

My mother used to use them a few years back, and as far as looking after her dogs was concerned, you couldn't fault her! She isn't in work due to ill health but was up at the crack of dawn taking them out and they never wanted for anything!! She went without for those dogs. They were wormed and de flead regular, and ate fresh chicken nearly every night. She treated them dogs better than me :scared::thumbup: 
When they did need to see the vet at the PDSA, she would put a minimum of £50 donation. 
She doesn't use them now, but thats due to the new additions needing specialist vet care. She has two rescues, ex racing Grey Hound and a X staff. These are both insured and have regular trips to a vet, therefore she believes the PDSA would be able to benefit others better. 
My mother would still use them if her dogs didn't need specialist vet care, and I don't blame her. She loves dogs with all her heart, always has and always will. So that leads me to believe that she above most is more than entitled to have pets as her companions 
PDSA is a great charity, and if used properly and not abused should long continue


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> its got sod all to do with anyone who has pets
> 
> personally i would rather someone on benefits who was in all day have a dog than someone who was out all day working and leaving the dog by themselves!
> 
> ...


No one said that unemployed people shouldn't have pets at all, maybe you should read the posts clearly. It has been pointed out that if you cannot afford to care for apet then don't take one onwhilst you are struggling financially - why is that difficult to understand :confused1:

IMO the PDSA should be there as a safety net for those people in genuine need of help when times are tough, not to cover peoples veterinary care for there multiple animals. Why do people feel they are justified intaking on more pets when they expect charities to support their exisitng ones?

People who take the p*ss so blatantly are basically taking money away form other people who genuinely need help & ultimately it will be aniamls who suffer because people want to add to the pet collections that they cannot support. I work & would never take on more animals then expect someone else to pay for them - that would be completely irresponsible & selfish of me.


----------



## lymorelynn (Oct 4, 2008)

I have already removed one post but I am closing this to read through as there seems to be a lot of unwarranted hostility.


----------



## lymorelynn (Oct 4, 2008)

Re-opened ..........


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

diablo said:


> why should that be then ? exotics could literally mean anything , including birds.


why not, if its going to be in place for those unemployed then it should be for everyone


----------



## Guest (Sep 3, 2012)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> why not, if its going to be in place for those unemployed then it should be for everyone


problem is it`s been proved time and time again that unemployed people cannot afford exotics when it comes to veterinary treatment , so why should hard working folk who have been in the hobby for over 20 years loose out to folks that cannot afford veterinary treatment for their sick or injured exotic`s??
don`t make sense to me.

when you can`t afford what is sometimes around a £99 consultation fee for an exotic animal , then maybe perhaps you shouldn`t keep them and when theres NO help out there whatsoever with animals that are not considered companion animals maybe there should be rules in place for those kinds of animals for people that really can`t afford to keep them.


----------



## RabbitMonster (Mar 20, 2012)

It's not a case of someone being unemployed, it's about them taking advantage of the PDSA and other such charities. There's also a very big difference between someone being unemployed because of illness, redundancy, etc. and someone being unemployed because they can't be bothered to get off their backsides and find a job. 

If you fall into the second category, I don't think you should get a pet simply because you don't deserve one. People in the second category do, in general (although not all), tend to be the members of society that do take advantage of charities like the PDSA. On the flip side there are people who make ££££ every year and still take advantage, which is also wrong, but there are significantly less of those than the ones on JSA I have just mentioned.

I don't think anyone is tarring with the same brush (although I think we are all of the same mind regarding students), but a lot of people do take advantage when they shouldn't and that is the issue here.


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

MontyMaude said:


> I shall await my flaming but I do believe that animals are a luxury and you shouldn't even consider taking one on without making sure you have adequate finances to afford one.
> 
> I understand that people lose their jobs and that the RSPCA/CP/Blue Cross/PDSA are there to help when things do go wrong, but they should not be looked at as a convenient way to not pay vet bills, people take huge advantage of them and I have seen first hand on here people advising others to get a friend/relative on benefits to take the animal to the PDSA etc and claim it's theirs so they are entitled to free veterinary care.
> 
> I also believe that they should refuse to treat new pets that people have taken on whilst having other animals already being treated by the charities, I believe the PDSA where looking at or have brought in a rule about treating no more than 2 pedigrees per person, but they are charities and they are there to help in a time of need not to be taken advantage of.


Monty Maude: Yes. You are right about the two pedigrees per client, I heard that from a friend of mine who goes to one (I believe in Croydon). They know that people are making money from breeding and don't see why they should subsidise them. You can see their point. They should insist on them being spayed I guess to be sure that they are not footing the bill for people to sell pups on Gumtree for £600 and more.


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

LolaBoo said:


> Couldnt have said it better myself, just coz people happen to be unemployed dont mean they shouldnt have a pet, i dont work thro being disabled and my husband is my carer there is always someone with lola if not both of us she has the best we can give her, and yes at times we do go without for her, nobody should be judged on if they can work or not, the PDSA isnt actually just for unemployed you have to be getting housing benefit so ppl who are working can use the PDSA as well if there income is low so i wish people would stop and think before they judge others


There is normally something people can cut down on if they want to keep their pet after being made redundant.


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

poohdog said:


> I used the PDSA a couple of years back for a tooth extraction for one of mine.I gave them a £50 donation which was as much as I could get together.
> 
> What annoyed me was the number at the counter that pushed just a couple of pounds across and then left in their £10,000 cars.Even those on limited benefits should be prepared to donate a reasonable amount.


I didn't realise they only asked for a donation, RSPCA charges a consultaion fee apparently out of hours that is ?40 without medication. My neighbour had to go at the w/end. PDSA should have set charges, they wouls still be quids cheaper than a High St vet.


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

MontyMaude said:


> I can see that you are just spoiling for an argument  but did your £20 cover the entire treatment of your animal ? If so good for you, if not where did the extra money come from ?
> 
> Whilst you may not use and abuse their services there are plenty that do and if it carries on then they just won't be able to do for anyone and then ultimately then it will be the animals that suffer.


I think Celia Hammond just asks for a donation too, but I stand to be corrected on that. They have a branch in SE London. And you can make an appointment, not just turn up and queue for hours.


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

diablo said:


> problem is it`s been proved time and time again that unemployed people cannot afford exotics when it comes to veterinary treatment , so why should hard working folk who have been in the hobby for over 20 years loose out to folks that cannot afford veterinary treatment for their sick or injured exotic`s??
> don`t make sense to me.
> 
> when you can`t afford what is sometimes around a £99 consultation fee for an exotic animal , then maybe perhaps you shouldn`t keep them and when theres NO help out there whatsoever with animals that are not considered companion animals maybe there should be rules in place for those kinds of animals for people that really can`t afford to keep them.


on the flip side there are unemployed people with exotics that would go without for their pets, i also know people like that


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

Calvine said:


> There is normally something people can cut down on if they want to keep their pet after being made redundant.


agree with this

me and my OH cut down on heating and hot water


----------



## RabbitMonster (Mar 20, 2012)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> agree with this
> 
> me and my OH cut down on heating and hot water


The point being raised in this discussion though is that not everyone does that and the question is is it fair for people who don't do it to continue abusing the system?


----------



## Guest (Sep 3, 2012)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> on the flip side there are unemployed people with exotics that would go without for their pets, i also know people like that


few and far between. whole shed full of threads on another place asking whether RSPCA and PDSA will treat exotic's , they don't full stop. they will refer you to a practice that will but they won't treat them , themselves.
usually theres never a problem with exotic's until the problem of needing a vet arises , then they can't afford treatment for them. that's the problem i have. and when folks take money from hard working folks to get their animals to a vet as others have paid for it , then that person refuses point blank to pay it back because 'they cant afford it' why have the animals in the first place if you can't afford them and theres NO outside help from charities that will only treat what is considered a 'companion' animal.


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

Rabbitmonkee said:


> The point being raised in this discussion though is that not everyone does that and the question is is it fair for people who don't do it to continue abusing the system?


no its not fair at all

thing is though if you start saying those on benefits cant have pets that will penalise those that dont abuse the system and those that do go without for their pets

why should those people be punished


----------



## RabbitMonster (Mar 20, 2012)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> no its not fair at all
> 
> thing is though if you start saying those on benefits cant have pets that will penalise those that dont abuse the system and those that do go without for their pets
> 
> why should those people be punished


But no one said people on benefits can't have pets, they said _some_ people on benefits _shouldn't_ have pets because they abuse the system.


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

Rabbitmonkee said:


> But no one said people on benefits can't have pets, they said _some_ people on benefits _shouldn't_ have pets because they abuse the system.


yes but what is the solution

how can you stop some people having pets?

a couple of years ago i got the most beautiful rescue hamster who was taken from someone who wasnt allowed to keep pets (i dont know the reason why) but the fact is this person managed to get a hold of not only a hamster but other pets too


----------



## Guest (Sep 3, 2012)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> a couple of years ago i got the most beautiful rescue hamster who was taken from someone who wasnt allowed to keep pets (i dont know the reason why) but the fact is this person managed to get a hold of not only a hamster but other pets too


well they had their animals taken away didnt they , hence them ending up in rescue so they got found out by someone that knew they were not allowed to keep them.


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

As long as there are charities, there are people ready to 'fleece' those charities. Fact.

No-one is saying people in genuine hardship, that own pets, should get rid of them.

I actually rehomed my dog to my auntie, when I found myself a single mother of a 2 year old. I just couldnt afford to keep my dog - if I had known things like the PDSA had existed back then I would have kept her - it broke my heart to let her go. The only silver lining was, we are a close family, so I saw her regularly - but she was _my _baby, and I made the decision to give her up, because if I _had_ needed a vet I couldnt have afforded to see one.

I think people get p'eed off when they see irresponsible people deciding to get pets, which they know full well, they cant afford, and just _expect_ other people to pick up the tab for their needs.

There is a _world_ of difference between people the genuinely need some help to keep their pets fit and healthy, and the ones that just _expect _help as some sort of human right.


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

diablo said:


> well they had their animals taken away didnt they , hence them ending up in rescue so they got found out by someone that knew they were not allowed to keep them.


yes but it doesnt always mean they will get found out though


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> yes but it doesnt always mean they will get found out though


You're absolutely right - but thats a whole other thread in itself.

Look at the amount of people that get banned from driving - how many carry on driving? If they dont get a speeding ticket, or pulled over for some reason or another, they could drive through a 10 year driving ban and no-one would ever know.

Just like all these people that end up in the news for something the papers deem 'extra horrifying'. They get banned from owning pets. There isnt going to be someone that is going to their house on a regular basis to check they dont have pets. There just isnt the resources. Its only if someone grasses them up, or they re-offend, that they will actually ever be caught out.

Its not right, but its a fact of life, unfortunately


----------



## RabbitMonster (Mar 20, 2012)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> yes but it doesnt always mean they will get found out though


No, it doesn't, but that's not what we're discussing. We're not discussing how these people can be stopped getting pets because there's no real way of doing that. What we're discussing is PF member's opinions on should people who know they cannot afford animals get animals? The resounding answer has been no.


----------



## Guest (Sep 3, 2012)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> yes but it doesnt always mean they will get found out though


they usually always do if they are banned and continue keeping animals , i'm sure tabs are kept on those successfully prosecuted and banned from keeping animals , they arent just forgotton about.


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

Rabbitmonkee said:


> No, it doesn't, but that's not what we're discussing. We're not discussing how these people can be stopped getting pets because there's no real way of doing that. What we're discussing is PF member's opinions on should people who know they cannot afford animals get animals? The resounding answer has been no.


actually OP is basically saying/asking should those who work be the only ones that can keep animals

basically shes saying/asking should anyone who doesnt work be able to keep pets not just those who cant afford them


----------



## RabbitMonster (Mar 20, 2012)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> actually OP is basically saying/asking should those who work be the only ones that can keep animals
> 
> basically shes saying/asking should anyone who doesnt work be able to keep pets not just those who cant afford them


No, this is what was said:



Tink82 said:


> I was at the PDSA a lot this weekend, emergency on Saturday.. while I was there, a couple came in with an 8 week old puppy (pedigree apparently) and I was ear wigging.. they were students and couldn't afford to take it to the vets.
> 
> It got me thinking, is it fair to buy a puppy with no income coming in? if you can fork out for the initial price of the dog, food, bedding etc etc but you can't take it to the vets, is it ok?
> 
> ...


Income can mean anything, JSA, ESA, a job, whatever. The question she's asking is should anyone who _doesn't_ have an income have a pet? Should anyone who can't cover the cost of vet's bills on a regular basis have a pet?

This covers people like students (already discussed) and people with no income or no desire to work (again already discussed). I'm not quite sure which bit you have an issue with, I think Tink's original question opening a healthy, friendly debate and you seem to be getting offended over statements that were never made.


----------



## Guest (Sep 3, 2012)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> actually OP is basically saying/asking should those who work be the only ones that can keep animals
> 
> basically shes saying/asking should anyone who doesnt work be able to keep pets not just those who cant afford them


as i've previously stated , i have no problem with people having pets and using clinic's such as pdsa , rspca , bluecross etc.
what i do have a problem with is folks that keep certain other pets that don't fall under 'companion animals' that those centers refuse to treat , owners then won't or can't afford to take them to the vets when they fall sick. i've seen numerous other topic's unfold elsewhere where folks have no shame in saying they can't afford to take their exotic's to vets , leaving their animals to either die , or suffer slowly until someone actually offers to stump up the cash so they can take them.
as i said previously , there are some animals that people simply should not have if they can't afford veterinary treatment when they do fall sick. it's a big commitment anyway as those pets usually live a whole lot longer than the average dog or cat , usually people do fail to consider this.


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> actually OP is basically saying/asking should those who work be the only ones that can keep animals
> 
> basically shes saying/asking should anyone who doesnt work be able to keep pets not just those who cant afford them


This is what she wrote - and her first question is *'should you get a pet you can afford the initial outlay for, if you cant afford its upkeep.'*



Tink82 said:


> I was at the PDSA a lot this weekend, emergency on Saturday.. while I was there, a couple came in with an 8 week old puppy (pedigree apparently) and I was ear wigging.. they were students and couldn't afford to take it to the vets.
> 
> *It got me thinking, is it fair to buy a puppy with no income coming in? if you can fork out for the initial price of the dog, food, bedding etc etc but you can't take it to the vets, is it ok?*
> 
> ...


She even says shes realises peoples circumstances change - she is asking if you should_ initially_ get a pet, when you know full well you can't afford all aspects of keeping that pet fit and healthy.


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

Rabbitmonkee said:


> No, this is what was said:
> 
> Income can mean anything, JSA, ESA, a job, whatever. The question she's asking is should anyone who _doesn't_ have an income have a pet? Should anyone who can't cover the cost of vet's bills on a regular basis have a pet?
> 
> This covers people like students (already discussed) and people with no income or no desire to work (again already discussed). I'm not quite sure which bit you have an issue with, I think Tink's original question opening a healthy, friendly debate and you seem to be getting offended over statements that were never made.


she said



> should pets be for those with an income and can work


its the and can work bit that leads me to think she only means people who get their income from work


----------



## RabbitMonster (Mar 20, 2012)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> she said
> 
> its the and can work bit that leads me to think she only means people who get their income from work


I really don't mean to be rude but if you're getting offended over a small writing error, you need to take a chill pill. Given the way the rest of the post is phrased, I don't think she meant that pets are exclusively for people who work, I think she meant people who have a regular income, who take full responsibility for the pet and who do not abuse animal charities should have free reign over what pets they have, but people who don't do the things listed above should not be allowed pets. Also, as MC said, should you be allowed to get a pet knowing you cannot afford all of the costs that entails? The answer is no. That is the main point of the topic.


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> she said
> 
> its the and can work bit that leads me to think she only means people who get their income from work


Well maybe you should read the_ whole_ thing, instead of picking bits out that you think 'make' your argument work :mad2:

I _guess_ you are on benefits and have pets - or it sure seems that way from what you are posting.

Guess what - we _really_ don't care.

The question was - 'should you get a pet, knowing full well, you cant afford all aspects of that animals care, *at the time you get said pet*?'

The resounding answer is 'NO'!

If you already have a pet, and need help caring for it, because you are out of work, or whatever, then fine - thats what the charities are there for.

They are not there for people to get things they cant afford, because they think its there 'right', and someone else can pay for it 

Let me just thank you - you have wound me up enough to say what I am thinking, and will probably now get banned for not being pink and fluffy - some things just need to be said


----------



## RabbitMonster (Mar 20, 2012)

MC, use my mantra:

Haters gonna hate, potatoes gonna potate, tomatoes gonna tomate.


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

MCWillow said:


> Well maybe you should read the_ whole_ thing, instead of picking bits out that you think 'make' your argument work :mad2:
> 
> I _guess_ you are on benefits and have pets - or it sure seems that way from what you are posting.
> 
> ...


oh the irony, accusing me of not reading the whole thing when you yourself have not read the whole of what ive said

if you had you will see ive said im self employed

i do have pets though and i have had pets when ive been unemployed

when we became unemployed we didnt think we would be able to afford pets but as i said we gave up things to be able to afford them

i shouldnt think you will get banned, nothing youve said here has been that bad


----------



## RabbitMonster (Mar 20, 2012)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> oh the irony, accusing me of not reading the whole thing when you yourself have not read the whole of what ive said
> 
> if you had you will see ive said im self employed
> 
> ...


You're really missing the point entirely. The initial post isn't slagging off people like you who work then find themselves unemployed for one reason or another. The post is asking if people who know they cannot afford all the costs of a pet should still go ahead and get a pet.


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

Rabbitmonkee said:


> You're really missing the point entirely. The initial post isn't slagging off people like you who work then find themselves unemployed for one reason or another. The post is asking if people who know they cannot afford all the costs of a pet should still go ahead and get a pet.


i never said it was slagging off people like me


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> i never said it was slagging off people like me


Then what are you saying? I really am confused :confused1:

I will catch up in the morning.


----------



## RabbitMonster (Mar 20, 2012)

:mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2:

This is what you said:



tinktinktinkerbell said:


> i would do ANYTHING for my animals and even though im now working (self employed working from home) if i was to become unemployed again there is no way in hell i would get rid of my pets just because some idiots think those on benefits shouldnt be allowed them!
> 
> i and those unemployed would spend more time looking after their pets than those workers who are at work all day and say the unemployed shouldnt have pets


This implies that you are offended by what was originally asked and suggests that you feel like you were being put in a negative light because of your having to go on benefits.


----------



## zany_toon (Jan 30, 2009)

If you can't afford the basics of an animal (including vet fees) *when you take them on, *then *regardless *of whether you are working or not you shouldn't take them on. People's circumstances change - I know this only too well when my family went bankrupt and my parents were left with my sister and I and our cat and dog to pay for when we were being told we might end up on the streets years ago.

Too many charities are being abused by a large number of people who expect everyone else to pay for their animals, or worse (as has been pointed out already) the animals are abandoned, left to suffer or die - and there are also those who sell on their new pet or let it go for free within days or weeks of getting it because they suddenly realise they can't afford it. Taking on a pet then rehoming it a few days later is just as wrong - one can surely learn to budget and find out if they can afford it before taking on a pet (but of course not everyone has the sense to do research into things like this before getting an animal.) It also causes a lot of completely unnecessary upset to the animal. Then there are those who are looking for a quick buck - I know of people who are on benefits, who get the "free" cats or dogs and breed them wrecklessly to sell on for money and the poor animal never sees a vet when it falls ill. Apparently they can't afford it as their 50 inch TV, brand new car, or holiday are all far more important 

We all know all too well that circumstances can change and try to do what we can to make sure we keep our animals safe, fed and provide vet treatment if necessary and the charities out there are meant for those who are in situations that genuinely need it. Unfortunately I don't ever see the government ever forcing a law through that prevents people keeping a pet unless they can prove they have the knowledge and funds to look after it at the time they are going for one. But until they do it's the charities and the animals that are bought by people who don't think about the costs involved when they start out that are going to suffer.

Edit: sorry if it is long and makes no sense, it makes sense in my head but my head is a little mushed today


----------



## CharleyRogan (Feb 20, 2009)

I have a friend who worked at the PDSA and some of the stories she has told me about the place. She would see idiots who shouldn't even own animals.

What sort of pedigree breeder would sell a student a puppy? 

I think it should have to be declared how much you earn, and insurance taken out as a prerequisite to having an animal so that you have safeguards in place. I wouldn't want a scally doley to have an animal because on £70 a week, how are they going to afford to look after it when they have other things to pay for. 

I cannot use the PDSA despite being a student because I work. I am sure its certain benefits now, its like that in the one in Bootle.


----------



## Guest (Sep 4, 2012)

CharleyRogan said:


> I wouldn't want a scally doley to have an animal because on £70 a week, how are they going to afford to look after it when they have other things to pay for.


i think that is rather judgmental , i wouldn't dream of calling anyone a 'scally doley' as everyones circumstances are different. i'd never begrudge anyone the companionship of a dog , cat or any other small animal , they are what keep some people going when they have nothing else.
only problem i have is the issues raised concerning exotic's not every vet will see them and certainly no cover as far as rspca and pdsa are concerned , consultations are usually expensive because your having to pay for the expertise of an exotic's vet , then theres the cost of any treatment after that consultation is over. as far as i am aware there is only a handful of insurance companies that cover the likes of snakes , lizards etc 'exotic's dirent' is the best one but premiums are extremely high if you need cover for more than 3 reptiles  
problem being in the great scheme of things reptiles aren't a great deal to buy corn snakes can be obtained for as little as £10 my bosc monitor cost a grand total of £35 to purchase theres part of the problem , so easily readily available and cheap to buy , folks just don't think or get past anything other that initial set up costs and buying that reptile , as i pointed out they aren't a 'normal pet' most living much longer in captivity than would be expected i know folks who have snakes in their 30th and 40th years so it's not just a big commitment it becomes a way of life for most folks with an interest in these animals which is exactly what some folks don't realize.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> oh the irony, accusing me of not reading the whole thing when you yourself have not read the whole of what ive said
> 
> if you had you will see ive said im self employed
> 
> ...


OK, as you don't seem to be able to grasp the initial question that people have repeatedly reposted  let me put it another way ... do you think it is accpetable for people who are already struggling financially, & are already rely on charity assistance for the pets, should take on more pets who will also be supported by a charity?

I have no problem with unemployed people having pets but I am totally against people who are already struggling who take on more & then expect help with this new arrivals. I also understand that everyone has times in theirlife when they are struggling & this is what the charities are for, not for long term help but just when people really do need it.

I was amazed when I saw people on JSA turn up at the PDSA vet clinics (where I used to work) with a new pedigree pup, or with another dog/cat when they were already receiving help with their exitiing animals, or the abuse we would get when we refused to treat for free yet another of their 'babies', or when they turned up in their new BMW's, or asked for help selling their pups despite being offered free neutering/spaying for their pets :mad2:

No most people are not like that but the number of people who seem to 'want' things regardless of their circumstances seems to be increasing, people seem to think they have a 'right' to everything in life when that simply isn't possible.


----------



## CharleyRogan (Feb 20, 2009)

diablo said:


> i think that is rather judgmental , i wouldn't dream of calling anyone a 'scally doley' as everyones circumstances are different. i'd never begrudge anyone the companionship of a dog , cat or any other small animal , they are what keep some people going when they have nothing else.
> only problem i have is the issues raised concerning exotic's not every vet will see them and certainly no cover as far as rspca and pdsa are concerned , consultations are usually expensive because your having to pay for the expertise of an exotic's vet , then theres the cost of any treatment after that consultation is over. as far as i am aware there is only a handful of insurance companies that cover the likes of snakes , lizards etc 'exotic's dirent' is the best one but premiums are extremely high if you need cover for more than 3 reptiles
> problem being in the great scheme of things reptiles aren't a great deal to buy corn snakes can be obtained for as little as £10 my bosc monitor cost a grand total of £35 to purchase theres part of the problem , so easily readily available and cheap to buy , folks just don't think or get past anything other that initial set up costs and buying that reptile , as i pointed out they aren't a 'normal pet' most living much longer in captivity than would be expected i know folks who have snakes in their 30th and 40th years so it's not just a big commitment it becomes a way of life for most folks with an interest in these animals which is exactly what some folks don't realize.


There are a lot of scally doleys round here, driving round in their BMWs and their new audis. There is a difference between a scally doley, and one who is looking for a job. In my area, you know the dossers. For example: My mum- if she got a pet then I'd be peeved because she lives off benefits, has done for last 20 years, gets everyone else to foot her bill, if you are on all these benefits then why get an animal which you obviously cannot afford. My dad on the other hand, retired, has Woody and is a real animal lover.

I didn't mean for it to sound judgemental, I just think on £70 a week, it just doesn't go far enough to be able to afford an animal. I'm on around £175 a week and its hard going to keep myself afloat. My friend who worked at the PDSA now has 3 cats because they were brought in as kittens and they were told if they did not take them, they would be drowned. one of the vets took on 6 kittens when the mum came in for a caesarian and the owners didn't want the kittens because it would be too much bother.

Some people who do have rights to the PDSA treat the like shite, threatening to drown kittens, breeding their dogs to make money, and wanting free vet treatment when it all goes wrong. Maybe if they would only treat 2 animals per person, or limit their resources per person because after all it is a charity, and some people use them and make a minimum donation because they don't want to pay vets fees. If you can't afford vets fees then don't get an animal. You may be able to give it all the time in the world, but what happens when your animal needs treatment.


----------



## suewhite (Oct 31, 2009)

I do tend to think that most people what ever there circumstances could manage the most basic insurance cover for there pets,but that said I would hate to think of any animal turned away from the PDSA where would that animal get treatment it would be left to suffer.There are alot that use them when they should'nt a couple near me own 2 shops and have 2 poodles which they always take to the PDSA.I work hard and have a massive credit card bill because one of my oldies (uninsurable)needed treatment but I had to pay a private vet.


----------



## CRL (Jan 3, 2012)

diablo said:


> why should that be then ? exotics could literally mean anything , including birds.


i agree diablo. rats and other rodents are classed as exotic pets. i work 30 hours a week, i have 29 pet rats. because i work 4 days a week does that mean i shouldnt have my rats? 
and why should there be rules for certain people owning exotics and not about owning cats or dogs. 
my vet is a pdsa vet but i have never needed those services and even when i was jobless for 4 months i paid full price treatment for all my boys who needed it. at 1 point while i was jobless i paid £200 for an out of hours emergency treatment for a rat, £20 wouldnt have covered it. 
an ex friend of mine was on diability and her husband on benefits. at 1 point she owned 125 rats. about 6 months ago she had around 100 rats and gave half if not more to a rat rescue. then 4 months later she got her numbers back up again to the 125 i mentioned. when she was having trouble she gave another 60 to a rat rescue, then she moved house, i heard from her again a month ago, she now has 80 rats, 2 cats, 4 guinea pigs and 4 ferrets. now she was always complaining that every month her vets bill for the rats alone was £400, so on the benefits she received how the hell can she afford so many rats and other animals. i have trouble with vets bills some months working a 30 hour week as a carer. now tbh i dont think she should have any pets, she kept 63 male rats in a cage fit to hold 13, she kept getting more rats to then give them away to a rescue that pays for vet treatment, food and cages out of their own pocket. 
why should people think they are entitled to a pet? if you cannot afford the outlying costs for the pet, the vet care and the things that pet needs then you are not entitled to that pet, get a rock, its cheaper.


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

CharleyRogan said:


> I wouldn't want a scally doley to have an animal because on £70 a week, how are they going to afford to look after it when they have other things to pay for.


wow, what a narrow minded, judgemental view 

i was a 'doley' at one point (im not using the term scally because i dont believe i was one)

and i had pets but they were the best cared for and the most spoilt pets ever

you will usually find that those 'scally doleys' will go without for their pets


----------



## RabbitMonster (Mar 20, 2012)

tinktinktinkerbell - I feel like you're spoiling for a fight. You have ignored everything that is in opposition to what you perceive is the discussion and you're just picking up stuff that adds fuel to your fire. I'm not sure whether you're being deliberately obtuse and awkward or if you're just so blind you cannot see what the majority of this thread is saying.

I don't agree with some of the terminology that has been used on this thread, but the general consensus remains that those people who are struggling for money and still continue to get a pet, or those people with no fixed and regular income, or indeed those people who take the mickey out of animal charities, should not get pets.

Furthermore, not all people do what you do - go without for their pet. Far too many people in this world don't, and the question that is being asked is should those people be allowed to use charities when they're not giving their pet adequate care? The answer is no. That doesn't mean that's someone on the dole, that could be *anyone!*

I will repeat again - no one is saying that all people on benefits can't have pets. They have said that _some_ people on benefits - those who abuse the systems put in place for those in actual need - do not deserve to have a pet nor do they have the right to use the emergency systems that are in place because they haven't thought it through and taken responsible ownership.

How much clearer does it need to be said?


----------



## suewhite (Oct 31, 2009)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> wow, what a narrow minded, judgemental view
> 
> i was a 'doley' at one point (im not using the term scally because i dont believe i was one)
> 
> ...


I think in the times we live now anyone can suddenly find there circumstances change and become as it has been put a doley and already have there pets and agree with you will go without themselves for them.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

Rabbitmonkee said:


> tinktinktinkerbell - I feel like you're spoiling for a fight. You have ignored everything that is in opposition to what you perceive as the discussion and you're just picking up stuff that adds fuel to your fire. I'm not sure whether you're being deliberately obtuse and awkward or if you're just so blind you cannot see what the majority of this thread is saying.
> 
> I don't agree with some of the terminology that has been used on this thread, but the general consensus remains that those people who are struggling for money and still continue to get a pet, or those people with no fixed and regular income, or indeed those people who take the mickey out of animal charities, should not get pets.
> 
> ...


Just thought I would highlight your point as it keeps being missed for some reason


----------



## Muze (Nov 30, 2011)

Tricky topic IMO.
There are good and bad owners from all walks of life, on all levels of income IME.

Also, nobody can really predict how much an individual animal will cost over a lifetime. Some animals sail through life needing relatively little, some seem to be born money pits! 

I'm on a low income and get housing benefit but I was turned away by the PDSA this year when I was struggling, after a series of unexpected household bills that devoured my savings, on the grounds that Diz was insured  I felt penalised for doing what I consider to be the responsible thing. 

I saved hard and went without a lot to take on Diz and give her a good start (paid for all vaccs, worming, de-flea, best insurance, Demodex and Giardia treatment etc.) and it's frustrating that some people spend hundreds on pedigree pups then rely on charities to burden the costs of vet care, when people in genuine need are not elligible for support.

IMO, the subsidised vet care should be aimed at those who have tried their best but fallen on hard times, not those who just want a pet on the cheap.

JMHO.


----------



## MontyMaude (Feb 23, 2012)

I think TinkTinkTinkerbell is selectively reading posts and missing an important word in most post of *some*

We are not tarring everybody with the same brush as you seem to do with 'workers' in your earlier posts, but there a hell of lot of people taking advantage of the benefits systems, but if you feel so aggrieved by it all then maybe you have a guilty conscience or something as you seem to have a real bee in your bonnet about it and are leaping on people for their opinions and you are twisting them or interpreting them wrongly.

I think the PDSA is fantastic in that they offer help for those that *genuinely* need it but for every one that genuinely needs it there are at least one or two taking advantage, as their appears to be a rising tide of people who just want to take take take without any regard to others.


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

Muze said:


> Also, nobody can really predict how much an individual animal will cost over a lifetime. Some animals sail through life needing relatively little, some seem to be born money pits!


100% this

out of the 26 hamsters weve had only 2 have had to be taken to vet (one for wet tail and the other to have his claws clipped)

to answer the question, everyone (bar those who are cruel to animals) have the right to have a pet


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> 100% this
> 
> out of the 26 hamsters weve had only 2 have had to be taken to vet (one for wet tail and the other to have his claws clipped)
> 
> *to answer the question, everyone (bar those who are cruel to animals) have the right to have a pet*


*
*

Even if they can't afford to pay for their on going upkeep *at the time they are obtained?*


----------



## Aurelie (Apr 10, 2012)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> 100% this
> 
> out of the 26 hamsters weve had only 2 have had to be taken to vet (one for wet tail and the other to have his claws clipped)
> 
> to answer the question, everyone (bar those who are cruel to animals) have the right to have a pet


No, they don't. If we all thought that way the world would be a mess. Everybody has the right to freedom of expression, to feel safe and in this country at least people have the right to medical care, somewhere to live and food. Everything else is just icing.

People thinking they have the right to take on a pet despite being unable to afford its living costs are draining our animal charities.


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

MCWillow said:


> [/COLOR][/B]
> 
> Even if they can't afford to pay for their on going upkeep *at the time they are obtained?*


if they can afford the food (because thats all a lot of pets need on a daily basis) then yes


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

Really? So not even a little extra put aside in case of accidents then?

I hadnt had the kittens long when one of them tried to jump on the kitchen worktop, slipped and fell.

Total vet bill including 2 visits, sedation, xray and painkillers was £300.

But I guess as long as I could chuck a tin of food down it would have been OK to leave him in pain with a possible fracture


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

MCWillow said:


> Really? So not even a little extra put aside in case of accidents then?
> 
> I hadnt had the kittens long when one of them tried to jump on the kitchen worktop, slipped and fell.
> 
> ...


and people accuse me of twisting things 

my point is no one has the right to tell anyone else whether or not they can/should have pets or not


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> and people accuse me of twisting things
> 
> my point is no one has the right to tell anyone else whether or not they can/should have pets or not


What exactly have I twisted? :confused1:

No-one is saying they can tell people whether to have pets or not.

They are giving their opinion on whether they think it is right and fair for people to get pets, while knowing they dont have the funds to pay for vet care when its needed


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> if they can afford the food (because thats all a lot of pets need on a daily basis) then yes


LOL, you really don't understand the proper meaning of 'responsible' pet ownership do you?! 

Affording the food is the easiest part!! No wonder rescues are over flowing & animals are being negelected if others think along the same lines as you

Seriously, you are either just winding people up or really have no idea of how to look after animals


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

Cleo38 said:


> LOL, you really don't understand the proper meaning of 'responsible' pet ownership do you?!
> 
> Affording the food is the easiest part!! No wonder rescues are over flowing & animals are being negelected if others think along the same lines as you
> 
> Seriously, you are either just winding people up or really have no idea of how to look after animals


dont patronise me, i know how to look after animals thank you


----------



## Guest (Sep 4, 2012)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> if they can afford the food (because thats all a lot of pets need on a daily basis) then yes


costs roughly £1 a week to feed a large snake each week (could be less depending on where you buy and whether you buy in bulk).
it's easy for most people to be able to afford that. but what happens when they need to see a vet and your looking at £99 consultation fee? how many unemployed people have that , just like that??? 
you can't take them to _*any*_ vet , they have to be specialist vets that deal with exotics. no pdsa backup , no rspca back up or any other charity willing to take the risk with those types of pet , so , what do you do - this is before any treatment is involved £99 will cover the consultation and consultation only.


----------



## auspiciousmind (Sep 2, 2012)

... Wow :mad2: Reading the posts in this thread was so frustrating.. I think somebody is just looking for an argument to be honest

I think the use of "Scalley Doley" wasn't the right terminology to use but I don't think it was done on purpose.

My answer to the original question is that I think the charities should be used for people genuinely facing hardship and I don't think every unemployed person should have the right to own a pet BUT there are some that do ie; Disabled , People who already owned the pet before they became unemployed and are genuinely looking for work , and older people.

I have used the PDSA before and found ALL the staff to be very very friendly and helpful.. I donated £100 which is what I had left in my bank account to them. I know it wouldn't of covered the treatment but it's all I had. When I did donate it I thought the receptionist was going to jump over the desk and hug me.. she even asked if I was sure?!

Play nicely people 

Also forgot to add.. whenever I can I donate clothes , toys, books etc to Animal Charities to help them raise money.. you don't necessarily have to give somebody money to help!


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> 100% this
> 
> out of the 26 hamsters weve had only 2 have had to be taken to vet (one for wet tail and the other to have his claws clipped)
> 
> to answer the question, everyone (bar those who are cruel to animals) have the right to have a pet


No, you don't really have any rights to anything unless they're bestowed on you by kind hearted people in this world quite frankly. You are given rights, you don't always deserve them, nor should you always have them. Furthermore just because you have a right doesn't mean you should abuse it just because you can or just because there are kind people in the world.


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

auspiciousmind said:


> there are some that do ie; Disabled , People who already owned the pet before they became unemployed and are genuinely looking for work , and older people.


you forgot one

those that are unemployed but can afford pets


----------



## auspiciousmind (Sep 2, 2012)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> you forgot one
> 
> those that are unemployed but can afford pets


What do you mean by "can afford pets" ?
Do you mean they can afford to feed them, Worm them and deflea? And the basics that that particular animal needs?

If thats the case.. how many unemployed people do you know could afford to pay for a dog that needed it's spleen removed for example? Or are you going to throw in something about lottery winners that don't work?

I'm not sure if you were looking for an argument or not during this thread.. but now I can see you are. Sad really I only joined this forum a day or two ago and the only people I've met so far are people who are happy to help, kind and love animals. You on the other hand...


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

auspiciousmind said:


> What do you mean by "can afford pets" ?
> Do you mean they can afford to feed them, Worm them and deflea? And the basics that that particular animal needs?
> 
> If thats the case.. how many unemployed people do you know could afford to pay for a dog that needed it's spleen removed for example? Or are you going to throw in something about lottery winners that don't work?
> ...


i love mine (and other) animals thank you very much

and i meant exactly what said

those who would go without to give their pets the best


----------



## auspiciousmind (Sep 2, 2012)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> i love mine (and other) animals thank you very much
> 
> and i meant exactly what said
> 
> those who would go without to give their pets the best


I never said you didn't I just said "you on the other hand" if were going to be picky about wording where exactly did I say you didn't?

When I have been unemployed I know that I could cope with the basics such as feeding , deworming , defleaing blah blah but I KNOW that I could NOT afford to pay for major operations on my pets that came suddenly.

I could sell my things? - But by the time I found anyone to buy my crap the animal would probably be dead! If I'm unemployed it's going to be VERY hard for me to take out any sort of loan because I'm not working..

I'm lucky enough to only be unemployed for very short periods and now I have a partner that runs his own business I don't have to worry about not having a job as much as when I was by myself...

If I was by myself and unemployed I would NOT go and buy a pet.
It's my opinion I'm not going to change it for anyone. I don't think it is right to take on a pet without the financial means to be able to support it.

I know more than most people that circumstances can change VERY quickly and majorly.


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

auspiciousmind said:


> I never said you didn't I just said "you on the other hand" if were going to be picky about wording where exactly did I say you didn't?
> 
> When I have been unemployed I know that I could cope with the basics such as feeding , deworming , defleaing blah blah but I KNOW that I could NOT afford to pay for major operations on my pets that came suddenly.
> 
> ...


where did i said you said i didnt 

you arent going to change your opinion and im not going to change mine so agree to disagree?


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

OK.

Lets say we have a single person over the age of 25. They will get a maximum of £71 per week. Their rent and council tax will be covered by housing and council tax benefit.

Out of that £71 (assuming they get the maximum amount) they have to pay the bills.
Gas/electric, water, TV Licence, phone, internet connection, maybe run a car or have public transport costs and food.

Get rid of non-essentials they are still paying for gas/electric, water and food.

We will assume they have no tv, no internet, no phone and walk everywhere they go.

Out of the money they saved by getting rid of the tv etc they buy a nice new puppy.

This puppy has escaped from the garden and been run over 

He is rushed to the vet - he needs an immediate operation to save his life. He will need further operations to mend his broken bones, but the internal bleeding has to be sorted out first.

Where is the money coming from to pay the vet for this _emergency_?


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Cleo38 said:


> LOL, you really don't understand the proper meaning of 'responsible' pet ownership do you?!
> 
> Affording the food is the easiest part!! No wonder rescues are over flowing & animals are being negelected if others think along the same lines as you
> 
> Seriously, you are either just winding people up or really have no idea of how to look after animals


I paid a lot of money for Ferdie and even more for Joshua. I could afford their food, their vaccinations, and luckily their insurance, even though they are one of the most expensive dogs to insure.

Joshua's total vet bills over only three years was £3,500. Had I only been able to afford his food, where would that have come from? And that was without his expensive medicines, supplements and hydrotherapy.

Ferdie has cost little more than his food over six years, but I still keep up his insurance.


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

MCWillow said:


> OK.
> 
> Lets say we have a single person over the age of 25. They will get a maximum of £71 per week. Their rent and council tax will be covered by housing and council tax benefit.
> 
> ...


well since its a hypothetical situation

maybe the person saved? but a bit aside each fortnight when they got their money

maybe instead of paying a bill on time they use the money for the vets bill

friends/family lend it to them

band overdraft

from my experience if people need money they usually find some way of getting it


----------



## auspiciousmind (Sep 2, 2012)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> where did i said you said i didnt
> 
> you arent going to change your opinion and im not going to change mine so agree to disagree?


I wasn't arguing with your opinion though.. I just gave mine If you believe what you believe thats fine I have no problem with it. The only problem I have with you is you are constantly nit picking at the way something is written.. you are finding anything you can and twisting it. Really really sad.


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

auspiciousmind said:


> I wasn't arguing with your opinion though.. I just gave mine If you believe what you believe thats fine I have no problem with it. The only problem I have with you is you are constantly nit picking at the way something is written.. you are finding anything you can and twisting it. Really really sad.


i havnt twisted anthing


----------



## MontyMaude (Feb 23, 2012)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> if they can afford the food (because thats all a lot of pets need on a daily basis) then yes


I took on two 'healthy' kittens from a rescue centre (a big named one) they have just turned 3 and they have cost me in-excess of £3000 for treatments at the vet and one is on lifetime medication, so that is slightly more than food needed on daily basis  I waited for years until I had pets so I could afford them (I was 27), rather than on a whim take on an animal that I couldn't afford, to me it's pure selfishness to take on a pet with no means of affording vet treatment as the only one that suffers is the animal.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> dont patronise me, i know how to look after animals thank you


Obviously you don't though, if you think it's just about being able to afford food then I (& probably others!) would beg to differ!


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

Cleo38 said:


> Obviously you don't though, if you think it's just about being able to afford food then I (& probably others!) would beg to differ!


bef to differ all you want


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

the thing is people are just talking about the expensive pets (dogs, reptiles, snakes etc)

what about the cheaper animals, for instance hamsters or mice? they are called pocket money pets for a reason, aside from the cost of getting a epic cage the cost of them is relatively low


----------



## auspiciousmind (Sep 2, 2012)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> i havnt twisted anthing


I think you'll find you are.. And I'm not the only person that's noticed it.. you are the sole reason that this thread has been so frustrating :mad2: to read.. I think the initial question asked was a very good question to ask.


----------



## RabbitMonster (Mar 20, 2012)

Gonna put this huge writing so it's as plain as day:

Should someone who cannot afford the initial cost of a pet - this includes food, insurance, regular check-ups, de-flea treatment, de-worming treatment and a little in case of an emergency - be allowed to own an animal?

No, they should not be allowed to own an animal.

This person could be of any age, social class, colour, race, religion, sexual orientation, or on any weekly/monthly/yearly income.

You can have as many rights as you want, it doesn't mean you can or should exercise them. If everyone went round saying "It's my right to do it so I'll do it", we would end up with mass world chaos. Ohh wait a minute, what's the Syria? What's that America?

No one here is picking on anyone's income or home situation. The fact is is that there are too many animals in rescues because people think it's their God-given right to own an animal, and they don't care what happens to said animal.

Some people give the world to their pets, but these people are few and far between. We're lucky that this forum has so many dedicated animal lovers but unfortunately it skews the reality of the world, and the reality is this:

People do not care about their pets. They want something that's cute but they don't want the bills or the hassle. These are the people that abuse animal charities. These are the people that should not be allowed pets, rights or not.

Can I put it any simpler?!


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> well since its a hypothetical situation
> 
> maybe the person saved? but a bit aside each fortnight when they got their money
> 
> ...


Thats a lot of weeks to put money aside to save up the thousands of pounds that vet bill will total.

I think I will leave you in your own little bubble now - I am missing the real world.


----------



## Guest (Sep 4, 2012)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> the thing is people are just talking about the expensive pets (dogs, reptiles, snakes etc)
> 
> what about the cheaper animals, for instance hamsters or mice? they are called pocket money pets for a reason, aside from the cost of getting a epic cage the cost of them is relatively low


i've never heard of hamsters or mice being called 'pocket money pets'
few pages back i asked you a question , seems you can't or won't answer.
i highlighted the plight of reptiles for a reason mainly because they are so easy to obtain and cheap to buy , yet little else is taken into consideration , most of all , veterinary treatment when they need it.


----------



## auspiciousmind (Sep 2, 2012)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> the thing is people are just talking about the expensive pets (dogs, reptiles, snakes etc)
> 
> what about the cheaper animals, for instance hamsters or mice? they are called pocket money pets for a reason, aside from the cost of getting a epic cage the cost of them is relatively low


As somebody who has been unemployed... The cost of just a VISIT to the vets would of been too expensive for me at the time. Like I said previously I HAVE used the PDSA for one of my animals before but that was after I was made redundant it wasn't just for vaccines or worming tablets ... It was a broken bone.. that happened totally out of the blue. I made maximum donation of what I could afford and I donate clothes , toys , books etc to the charity.

I just wouldn't buy a pet without being employed or having enough money or means to afford a sudden expensive treatment.


----------



## MontyMaude (Feb 23, 2012)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> the thing is people are just talking about the expensive pets (dogs, reptiles, snakes etc)
> 
> what about the cheaper animals, for instance hamsters or mice? they are called pocket money pets for a reason, aside from the cost of getting a epic cage the cost of them is relatively low


I had a hamster that got several respiratory infections and they cost me £££ at the Vets, I know someone at the moment who is facing an expensive vet bill for a tumour removal on their Gerbil and the extra cost to have it tested, so no little critters can cost just as much as big ones but many people don't or won't take them to the vets because of the costs and that they are cheaper to buy a replacement rather than get them treated.


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

Rabbitmonkee said:


> Gonna put this huge writing so it's as plain as day:


i'll say again

what about the cheaper animals? hamsters, mice, goldfish?

i think saying they shouldnt be allowed a pet AT ALL is harsh, they might not be able to afford a dog but they might be able to handle a cheaper animal


----------



## MontyMaude (Feb 23, 2012)

diablo said:


> i've never heard of hamsters or mice being called 'pocket money pets'
> few pages back i asked you a question , seems you can't or won't answer.
> i highlighted the plight of reptiles for a reason mainly because they are so easy to obtain and cheap to buy , yet little else is taken into consideration , most of all , veterinary treatment when they need it.


I know the local 'Exotic' vet here is run of feet and people will travel miles to see him as he is the only one who is a true specialist and has a great reputation but he charges a lot.


----------



## RabbitMonster (Mar 20, 2012)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> i'll say again
> 
> what about the cheaper animals? hamsters, mice, goldfish?
> 
> i think saying they shouldnt be allowed a pet AT ALL is harsh, they might not be able to afford a dog but they might be able to handle a cheaper animal


No animal is cheap. My hamsters cost me over E200 in vet's bills which is more than molly! They cost £40 a month in food, again more than Molly.


----------



## Guest (Sep 4, 2012)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> maybe the person saved? but a bit aside each fortnight when they got their money


would be bare minimum though wouldn't it , wouldn't mount to much for emergencies.



tinktinktinkerbell said:


> maybe instead of paying a bill on time they use the money for the vets bill


maybe they do , in the longterm it isnt a fix though is it , it just encourages debt , robbing peter to pay paul.



tinktinktinkerbell said:


> friends/family lend it to them


don't always happen , as usually those people are in exactly the same boat.



tinktinktinkerbell said:


> band overdraft


i wouldn't think many longterm unemployed had those , if they did wouldn't be a great deal to cover emergencies.



tinktinktinkerbell said:


> from my experience if people need money they usually find some way of getting it


from my experience they usually go on a forum similar to this one and regular members hear the 'woe is me' sob story  usually generates lots of kind hearted donations in one form or another. seen it happen so many times now. leaves a sour taste in some folks mouths though when they find out something weren't quite true.


----------



## CharleyRogan (Feb 20, 2009)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> well since its a hypothetical situation
> 
> maybe the person saved? but a bit aside each fortnight when they got their money
> 
> ...


I think this is the point we are making, a pet owner cannot expect to borrow money in order to give their pet what they need. In this scenario above, the owner cannot afford to look after their pet.

I am far from closed minded. I see that we have differing opinions. I just believe if you cannot afford proper food, insurance, vets bills and other items at the time of taking on the pet, then maybe they should not have the animal. There is a difference between scally doleys, and others.

I also do not agree with buying an animal then leaving alone 24/7. Along with money to provide your animals you need to have time to spend with your animal, so even if you earn 100k a year, getting a pet is not always a good idea.


----------



## CRL (Jan 3, 2012)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> the thing is people are just talking about the expensive pets (dogs, reptiles, snakes etc)
> 
> what about the cheaper animals, for instance hamsters or mice? they are called pocket money pets for a reason, aside from the cost of getting a epic cage the cost of them is relatively low


really? have you ever owned a 'pocket pet' as you put it? i have rats, over the 4 years ive owned them ive paid over £2500 in vets fees, thats at 1 vets practice alone, not including the 2 i visit in out of hours emergency, where at one i spent £200 to keep one of my boys breathing, best money i ever spent. 
rats and many other rodents do not die nice deaths. they die from mycoplasma, kidney disease, pituatry tumours, zymbols tumours, cancer, heart disease, HLD, strokes, seizures. all of the rats ive had have died from these things except the zymbols which i am thankful for. so please get your facts right about 'pocket pets'.


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

diablo said:


> i've never heard of hamsters or mice being called 'pocket money pets'
> few pages back i asked you a question , seems you can't or won't answer.
> i highlighted the plight of reptiles for a reason mainly because they are so easy to obtain and cheap to buy , yet little else is taken into consideration , most of all , veterinary treatment when they need it.


you havnt? ive heard them called that (ever heard people say they are the ideal pets for kids? well the reason why is that they are cheap)

re the reptiles, ive always wanted a snake but never had one and i wouldnt because looking into it i know i wouldnt afford it, sadly there are some people who will go out and get one regardless and that goes for other pets

hell it even goes for having kids too (but thats a while other topic)



auspiciousmind said:


> As somebody who has been unemployed... The cost of just a VISIT to the vets would of been too expensive for me at the time. Like I said previously I HAVE used the PDSA for one of my animals before but that was after I was made redundant it wasn't just for vaccines or worming tablets ... It was a broken bone.. that happened totally out of the blue. I made maximum donation of what I could afford and I donate clothes , toys , books etc to the charity.
> 
> *I just wouldn't buy a pet without being employed or having enough money or means to afford a sudden expensive treatment*.


i personally wouldnt either, all of the pets weve had (weve had most when unemployed) but we could afford it



MontyMaude said:


> I had a hamster that got several respiratory infections and they cost me £££ at the Vets, I know someone at the moment who is facing an expensive vet bill for a tumour removal on their Gerbil and the extra cost to have it tested, so no little critters can cost just as much as big ones but many people don't or won't take them to the vets because of the costs and that they are cheaper to buy a replacement rather than get them treated.


*sigh* my point is that the lower maintenance pets do not require things like de worming/fleaing(sp) insurance etc


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

diablo said:


> i wouldn't think many longterm unemployed had those , if they did wouldn't be a great deal to cover emergencies.


actually anyone can have a bank overdraft whether long term unemployed or not


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

CRL said:


> really? have you ever owned a 'pocket pet' as you put it? i have rats, over the 4 years ive owned them ive paid over £2500 in vets fees, thats at 1 vets practice alone, not including the 2 i visit in out of hours emergency, where at one i spent £200 to keep one of my boys breathing, best money i ever spent.
> rats and many other rodents do not die nice deaths. they die from mycoplasma, kidney disease, pituatry tumours, zymbols tumours, cancer, heart disease, HLD, strokes, seizures. all of the rats ive had have died from these things except the zymbols which i am thankful for. so please get your facts right about 'pocket pets'.


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

get my facts right? get YOUR facts right

in my whole life i have had a total of 30 hamsters and 7 mice all bar 4 ive had in my adult life and that includes raising two successful hamster litters

so i do know quite a bit about keeping them thank you very much 

out of all i have had only ONE has had to go to the vet because of illness (wet tail) and another we took to have his claws clipped, we will be taking another to have his claws clipped soon

i currently have 6 mice and possible babies (accident, male who we were told was a female was bought) and 5 hamsters


----------



## Guest (Sep 4, 2012)

MontyMaude said:


> I know the local 'Exotic' vet here is run of feet and people will travel miles to see him as he is the only one who is a true specialist and has a great reputation but he charges a lot.


there are a couple of exotic's vets here , one is great , problem is you can't get him in an emergency and the one you can charges a £99 consultation fee he is brilliant though and i'd pay it over and over again if i couldn't get hold of my usual one , saying that though my usual one isn't exactly cheap but a fair bit cheaper than the other one if memory serves me correctly he charges a £45 consultation fee problem is you can't always get to see him as he has a strict appointment only policy and he don't cover for emergencies so in those your pretty much bummed unless you go to the other one and pay the £99 consultation fee and then whatever treatment is needed he's the one round here that covers the zoo's and safari parks so i suppose he can pretty much charge what he likes very expensive but i do understand you are paying for their expertise , nothing more. most 'normal' vets won't touch exotic's with a barge pole , saying you have a snake is usually enough to send most running for the hills


----------



## auspiciousmind (Sep 2, 2012)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> you havnt? ive heard them called that (ever heard people say they are the ideal pets for kids? well the reason why is that they are cheap)


A few people on here have just said how much it cost them to get their so-called 'pocket-money' pets treatment... I don't know any kids that have that amount of money! - Maybe they are pocket money to buy and feed - But again the argument I've had all along is that if an emergency came... you would not be able to afford veterinary treatment!



> i personally wouldnt either, all of the pets weve had (weve had most when unemployed) but we could afford it


I'm not sure what animals you have but god forbid anything serious (or at all) happens to them because I know for fact (BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN UNEMPLOYED) that I would not be able to afford the treatment!



> *sigh* my point is that the lower maintenance pets do not require things like de worming/fleaing(sp) insurance etc


But they can become ill and cost 100's / 1000's of £££'s to treat!


----------



## MontyMaude (Feb 23, 2012)

CharleyRogan said:


> There is a difference between scally doleys, and others.


I read it like that, as I'm guessing your scally doley is the the same as what I would call a dole bludger, it's just all down to area and local dialect 

All I can say TinkTinkTinkerbell you have had extraordinary luck with all your healthy pets.


----------



## CRL (Jan 3, 2012)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
> 
> get my facts right? get YOUR facts right
> 
> ...


oh forgive me gracious one. i bow down and ask forgiveness from the almighty rodent expert. 
i was however talking about rats, not mice, hamsters and gerbils. but then again if the only care you give them is just food i think i will continue with my own knowledge. and ofcourse taking them to a vet when they need it. 
but please do go on, i do love a bot of entertainment, and you sure are entertaining me, i would love to here more of your worthy opinions.


----------



## Aurelie (Apr 10, 2012)

This post has turned into a farce, I'm out. :mad2:


----------



## Guest (Sep 4, 2012)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> you havnt? ive heard them called that (ever heard people say they are the ideal pets for kids? well the reason why is that they are cheap)


no. pocket money pets round here are giant african land snails and domino cockroaches OR roaches of somesort.

as for overdrafts , suppose a lot depends on your bank , when a relative of mine informed their bank they'd become unemployed , their overdraft service was taken away from them.


----------



## RabbitMonster (Mar 20, 2012)

Well, what a waste of an evening :lol:


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> i'll say again
> 
> what about the cheaper animals? hamsters, mice, goldfish?


Hardly 'cheap' unless you provide the minimal care requirements, cheap food, etc



tinktinktinkerbell said:


> you havnt? ive heard them called that (ever heard people say they are the *ideal pets for kids*? well the reason why is that they are cheap)


That's not down to cost I wouldn't have thought, more that they are good as first pets for children to learn how to care for living things, a responsible parent would be the real 'owner' & paying the costs.

I'm amazed how lucky you've been with your rodents! They must have come from really healthy lines


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

Rabbitmonkee said:


> Well, what a waste of an evening :lol:


Lol, I'm just waiting for The Great British Bake Off to start so thought I'd check the latest ramblings!


----------



## CharleyRogan (Feb 20, 2009)

MontyMaude said:


> I read it like that, as I'm guessing your scally doley is the the same as what I would call a dole bludger, it's just all down to area and local dialect
> 
> All I can say TinkTinkTinkerbell you have had extraordinary luck with all your healthy pets.


Scally doleys are people in which live off benefits because they think they have a right to them, refuse to look for a job, often they wear trackies and 'trainees' and shout obscenities, and have a number of children. This however is not all of them and this is a generalisation but describes my mother perfectly.


----------



## RabbitMonster (Mar 20, 2012)

Cleo38 said:


> Lol, I'm just waiting for The Great British Bake Off to start so thought I'd check the latest ramblings!


I was waiting for my film to download on iTunes. I shall watch it now - it's subtitled so can't waste my time coming back on here, I might miss something!


----------



## CRL (Jan 3, 2012)

im currently watching Game of Thrones. 
will catch up with british baker 2moro morning before work


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

auspiciousmind said:


> I'm not sure what animals you have but god forbid anything serious (or at all) happens to them because I know for fact (BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN UNEMPLOYED) that I would not be able to afford the treatment!


i have hamsters and mice



MontyMaude said:


> All I can say TinkTinkTinkerbell you have had extraordinary luck with all your healthy pets.


i have indeed and im very grateful for that



CRL said:


> but then again if the only care you give them is just food i


its not



diablo said:


> *no. pocket money pets round here are giant african land snails and domino cockroaches OR roaches of somesort.
> *
> as for overdrafts , suppose a lot depends on your bank , when a relative of mine informed their bank they'd become unemployed , their overdraft service was taken away from them.


*oh right i see, well round here they are hamsters and mice*

why did he/she tell them? i never have nor has anyone ive known

just curious not trying to start anything


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

simplysardonic said:


> Hardly 'cheap' unless you provide the minimal care requirements, cheap food, etc


well we managed to keep hamsters/a mouse on £89 (between us) so they arent exactly what i would call expensive



> I'm amazed how lucky you've been with your rodents! They must have come from really healthy lines


yes ive been very lucky


----------



## paddyjulie (May 9, 2009)

Rabbitmonkee said:


> Well, what a waste of an evening :lol:


is it worth starting at the beginning? as theres a lot of pages to get through and my fave TV programmes are starting soon

and no.I don't think people should buy a pet if they cannot afford to feed it and pay for vetinary care....if they fall on hard times then fine..but to buy a pup and rely on a charity for help from the very start.. is just wrong


----------



## Guest (Sep 4, 2012)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> why did he/she tell them? i never have nor has anyone ive known


i presume to save themselves potentially getting into one big fat mess. don't really know the inns or outs as it's really non of my business and don't like to pry , all i can confirm is their overdraft facility was taken away after they informed their bank of becoming unemployed.
most banks do ask that you contact them immediately anyway if you have such facilities in place and become unemployed because of course they then have to worry about how your going to pay that back if you do use that overdraft.


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

diablo said:


> i presume to save themselves potentially getting into one big fat mess. don't really know the inns or outs as it's really non of my business and don't like to pry , all i can confirm is their overdraft facility was taken away after they informed their bank of becoming unemployed.
> most banks do ask that you contact them immediately anyway if you have such facilities in place and become unemployed because of course they then have to worry about how your going to pay that back if you do use that overdraft.


oh ok fair enough

like i say its never happened to me or anyone i know but there ya go, every bank is different i guess


----------



## tashax (Jun 25, 2011)

TBH i dont think you should purposefully buy a pet knowing full well you wouldnt be able to pay for its care. Obviously if you lose your job etc then it really cant e helped and you just budget. What i absolutely hate is when people get animals and know full well they are going to use places like the pdsa for vet treatment.


----------



## RabbitMonster (Mar 20, 2012)

paddyjulie said:


> is it worth starting at the beginning? as theres a lot of pages to get through and my fave TV programmes are starting soon
> 
> and no.I don't think people should buy a pet if they cannot afford to feed it and pay for vetinary care....if they fall on hard times then fine..but to buy a pup and rely on a charity for help from the very start.. is just wrong


I wouldn't bother, more entertainment in Jeremy Kyle than there is on here - here's there's just people spouting rubbish, at least on JK the audience get involved :lol:


----------



## MontyMaude (Feb 23, 2012)

CharleyRogan said:


> Scally doleys are people in which live off benefits because they think they have a right to them, refuse to look for a job, often they wear trackies and 'trainees' and shout obscenities, and have a number of children. This however is not all of them and this is a generalisation but describes my mother perfectly.


and my brother in law 



tinktinktinkerbell said:


> oh ok fair enough
> 
> like i say its never happened to me or anyone i know but there ya go, every bank is different i guess


It's responsible lending and banks withdraw your overdraft facility so you cannot go overdrawn and rack up even larger debts in late fees and interest when you've got very little chance of paying it back.


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

MontyMaude said:


> It's responsible lending and banks withdraw your overdraft facility so you cannot go overdrawn and rack up even larger debts in late fees and interest when you've got very little chance of paying it back.


fair enough


----------



## paddyjulie (May 9, 2009)

Rabbitmonkee said:


> I wouldn't bother, more entertainment in Jeremy Kyle than there is on here - here's there's just people spouting rubbish, at least on JK the audience get involved :lol:


cheers , I watched the Accused instead :lol:


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

MontyMaude said:


> and my brother in law
> 
> It's* responsible* lending and banks withdraw your overdraft facility so you cannot go overdrawn and rack up even larger debts in late fees and interest when you've got very little chance of paying it back.


The operative word here is *'responsible'* - a bit like_ not_ getting a new pet when you know you cant afford to care for all its needs would be responsible pet ownership.....


----------



## tashax (Jun 25, 2011)

Just read the whole thread and wow, people would really get a pet knowing if something happened then they could just pop to the local pdsa and get it sorted for £50??

Here is a very good example of people who should not own pets: Woman and man have 3 dogs, 1st dog is 13, second is 7, third is 5. 5 year and 13 year old dog have fight, 5 year old dog manages to literately rip the skin off half of the 13 year old dogs leg.Takes dog to pdsa, pdsa asks for a minimum donation of £30 for dogs leg, owner says put to sleep. Then 7 year old dog develops a lump on chest, same as above, owner says pts. Left with one dog, 5 year old. Now 5 year old develops breast cancer, full price of the op is well over £600, owner donates £40, (who pays the rest??) Then owner decides they want another dog, and another. End up with two 2 year old dogs. First dog develops eyes problems, owner can have no more animals registered, so ignores it. 5 year old dog suddenly gets very very ill, cant breathe etc. Owner leaves dog for 3 days as its a bank holiday so doesnt want to pay vet fees (infact calls me over to look at her instead, yes of course im vet trained  ) Cancer has spread to lungs, dog is pts. 3 weeks later, another dog this one a pup. Pup doesnt get vaccinated, wormed or flead. Now owner starts to realise she can not handle the exercise needed for one of the 2 year old dogs, so rehomes. Now other dog has eyes seen to as can be registered. Suddenly owner has another puppy. Now they are on beifits but guess what, they do not deserve animals. RSPCA say there is no cruelty going on, they are fed (minimal and rubbish food) and have shelter and water. 

Just so you know this is a true story and the new pup came along about 2 weeks ago.


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

Tashax - just want you to know I 'liked' your post because it illustrates perfectly what I am trying (and failing) to get across.

I didnt 'like' it because of the content.


----------



## RabbitMonster (Mar 20, 2012)

MCWillow said:


> Tashax - just want you to know I 'liked' your post because it illustrates perfectly what I am trying (and failing) to get across.
> 
> I didnt 'like' it because of the content.


Echo what MC said.


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

tashax said:


> Just read the whole thread and wow, people would really get a pet knowing if something happened then they could just pop to the local pdsa and get it sorted for £50??
> 
> Here is a very good example of people who should not own pets: Woman and man have 3 dogs, 1st dog is 13, second is 7, third is 5. 5 year and 13 year old dog have fight, 5 year old dog manages to literately rip the skin off half of the 13 year old dogs leg.Takes dog to pdsa, pdsa asks for a minimum donation of £30 for dogs leg, owner says put to sleep. Then 7 year old dog develops a lump on chest, same as above, owner says pts. Left with one dog, 5 year old. Now 5 year old develops breast cancer, full price of the op is well over £600, owner donates £40, (who pays the rest??) Then owner decides they want another dog, and another. End up with two 2 year old dogs. First dog develops eyes problems, owner can have no more animals registered, so ignores it. 5 year old dog suddenly gets very very ill, cant breathe etc. Owner leaves dog for 3 days as its a bank holiday so doesnt want to pay vet fees (infact calls me over to look at her instead, yes of course im vet trained  ) Cancer has spread to lungs, dog is pts. 3 weeks later, another dog this one a pup. Pup doesnt get vaccinated, wormed or flead. Now owner starts to realise she can not handle the exercise needed for one of the 2 year old dogs, so rehomes. Now other dog has eyes seen to as can be registered. Suddenly owner has another puppy. Now they are on beifits but guess what, they do not deserve animals. RSPCA say there is no cruelty going on, they are fed (minimal and rubbish food) and have shelter and water.
> 
> Just so you know this is a true story and the new pup came along about 2 weeks ago.


wow


----------



## RabbitMonster (Mar 20, 2012)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> wow


I hope you understand that these are the kind of people we were referring to during this whole debate.


----------



## auspiciousmind (Sep 2, 2012)

Rabbitmonkee said:


> I hope you understand that these are the kind of people we were referring to during this whole debate.


I think you've hit the nail on the head perfectly.


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

Rabbitmonkee said:


> I hope you understand that these are the kind of people we were referring to during this whole debate.


well i did actually say that those who are cruel to animals should not have pets

and these people are being cruel


----------



## RabbitMonster (Mar 20, 2012)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> well i did actually say that those who are cruel to animals should not have pets
> 
> and these people are being cruel


Thank you so much for clearing up your definition of cruel. Probably would've made a lot more sense to do that 6 hours ago, but there you go.


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

Rabbitmonkee said:


> Thank you so much for clearing up your definition of cruel. Probably would've made a lot more sense to do that 6 hours ago, but there you go.


i thought the definition of cruel was pretty obvious

clearly not


----------



## RabbitMonster (Mar 20, 2012)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> i thought the definition of cruel was pretty obvious
> 
> clearly not


:mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2:

I'm going to bed.


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

Rabbitmonkee said:


> :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2:
> 
> I'm going to bed.


night..........


----------



## auspiciousmind (Sep 2, 2012)

Rabbitmonkee said:


> :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2:
> 
> I'm going to bed.


Goodnight hun... I've taken some headache tablets!!! :mad2:


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> i thought the definition of cruel was pretty obvious
> 
> clearly not


The definition of cruel is also subjective - the RSPCA don't think there is any cruelty occurring as the animals have food, water and shelter.

Many people, including the ones in Tashaxs post, think if they provide food, water and shelter they are _not_ being cruel.

Many of the people involved in this debate believe you should be able to provide a lot more than that, to be a responsible pet owner.

Which is why they are of the opinion _if you can't afford to pay for *all* your pets needs, when you decide to get that pet, then you should *not* get it._


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

MCWillow said:


> The definition of cruel is also subjective - the RSPCA don't think there is any cruelty occurring as the animals have food, water and shelter.
> 
> Many people, including the ones in Tashaxs post, think if they provide food, water and shelter they are _not_ being cruel.
> 
> ...


it was the 'forgetting' about the dogs eye problem that struck me as cruel

EDIT: sorry ignoring the eye problem


----------



## RabbitMonster (Mar 20, 2012)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> it was the 'forgetting' about the dogs eye problem that struck me as cruel
> 
> EDIT: sorry ignoring the eye problem


So you don't think it's cruel that these people bought dogs when they clearly couldn't afford to care for them, and then used the PDSA without donating?!


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

They 'ignored' it because they couldnt afford the vets fees - which part are you having trouble understanding? :mad2:


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

Rabbitmonkee said:


> So you don't think it's cruel that these people bought dogs when they clearly couldn't afford to care for them, and then used the PDSA without donating?!


from what i read they did donate 

(for the one with breast cancer)


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

MCWillow said:


> They 'ignored' it because they couldnt afford the vets fees - which part are you having trouble understanding? :mad2:


i never had trouble understanding that

you need to calm down


----------



## tashax (Jun 25, 2011)

Just to add, at this moment in time i do not work. I have 8 years of saving behind me to live on while im not working. I pay my own rent and counsel tax. I am not on any kind of benifit. Why do i have 8 years of savings behind me?? Because when i got my first job i became the only provider for my then dog, as agreed with my mum when i got her at 14. I continued to save after she died not only because i had other dogs (they were all insured) but because i knew that if i was suddenly in the position i am in now my animals could still get the same level of care that they were getting when i had a job. Infact my dog is on even better quality of food. My animals will never ever go without, even if i had to beg and borrow. If for one moment i felt like i couldnt do it then i would do the best by them whether that be rehoming or fostering, the whole point is that they come _first_ i took them on knowing the full responsibility behind getting them and they will never want for anything


----------



## auspiciousmind (Sep 2, 2012)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> i never had trouble understanding that
> 
> you need to calm down


I thought maybe you weren't very 'clued-up'.. (lights are on but nobodies home) I still do think that. but it also strikes me that you get off on being deliberately difficult and annoying.

I have no idea why you have not been banned... :confused1:


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

I don't 'need' to do anything.

I think you are actually being very obtuse and _trying_ to wind people up - or you really are as stupid as you are trying to make out - and look I can do pretty pictures too


----------



## tashax (Jun 25, 2011)

£40 for a £600 operation?? Who paid the rest of that then?? Vet and vet nurses wages?? cost of drugs and equipment?? all paid for by the working people of this country that pay out of their arses for other people to sail by on their money?? not accetable in any shape or form


----------



## RabbitMonster (Mar 20, 2012)

Obtuse is the word that best describes stuff like this:



tinktinktinkerbell said:


> from what i read they did donate
> 
> (for the one with breast cancer)


Do you really think £40 or £60, whichever it was, really covers the cost of *every single one of those checkups for all 3 of those dogs including the PTS injections?!*

Wake up and smell the jojo!!


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

auspiciousmind said:


> I thought maybe you weren't very 'clued-up'.. (lights are on but nobodies home) I still do think that. but it also strikes me that you get off on being deliberately difficult and annoying.
> 
> I have no idea why you have not been banned... :confused1:


banned? for what? ive broken no rules


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

Rabbitmonkee said:


> Do you really think £40 or £60, whichever it was, really covers the cost of *every single one of those checkups for all 3 of those dogs including the PTS injections?*


*

did i say it did?

i was correcting someone who said that they didnt donate*


----------



## RabbitMonster (Mar 20, 2012)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> did i say it did?
> 
> i was correcting someone who said that they didnt donate


The point is is that they might as well have donated a banana, that's how helpful that donation was.


----------



## auspiciousmind (Sep 2, 2012)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> banned? for what? ive broken no rules


Deliberately being a pain in the backside.


----------



## CRL (Jan 3, 2012)

And i thought alot of people on the preloved pet forums were annoying. maybe you should join them and you can be a big happy family on your own little pet planet. 

I think from the start of this thread till now i have lost atleast 30 iq points just from shaking my head so often. i pity those who have been banging their heads against a brick wall.


----------



## tashax (Jun 25, 2011)

Okay how about i put it this way. The dog had 3 nipples removed and 4 very large lumps off her chest. They paid £40 for it. My dog got skin cancer, she had a lump removed off her leg and a buster collar, i paid £490 for that. I then paid more and more on top of that when it came back for skin stretching exercises and pain relief. I even started paying towards a very very very expensive course of chemotherapy, unfortunately she died before any of this happened but i paid it because that is what you do when you have animals. You choose to either bring them in to this world or your home therefore you have 15 years of vet treatment to pay for. Yes you may have to use a charity sometimes and you may lose your job but you still have to pay, because part of being an adult is being responsible for what is yours


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

Rabbitmonkee said:


> The point is is that they might as well have donated a banana, that's how helpful that donation was.


every little helps as they say

i suppose those charity collection boxes in shops are a waste of time too, i mean lets face it its not like people are putting cheques in for millions of £s are they



auspiciousmind said:


> Deliberately being a pain in the backside.


grow up


----------



## RabbitMonster (Mar 20, 2012)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> every little helps as they say
> 
> i suppose those charity collection boxes in shops are a waste of time too, i mean lets face it its not like people are putting cheques in for millions of £s are they


Ohh my, I don't think I've ever come across someone quite as thick as you. Thank goodness stupidity isn't contagious..


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

tashax said:


> Okay how about i put it this way. The dog had 3 nipples removed and 4 very large lumps off her chest. They paid £40 for it. My dog got skin cancer, she had a lump removed off her leg and a buster collar, i paid £490 for that. I then paid more and more on top of that when it came back for skin stretching exercises and pain relief. I even started paying towards a very very very expensive course of chemotherapy, unfortunately she died before any of this happened but i paid it because that is what you do when you have animals. You choose to either bring them in to this world or your home therefore you have 15 years of vet treatment to pay for. Yes you may have to use a charity sometimes and you may lose your job but you still have to pay, because part of being an adult is being responsible for what is yours


you didnt say about their working situation really

when they got the original dogs were they working?


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

Rabbitmonkee said:


> Ohh my, I don't think I've ever come across someone quite as thick as you. Thank goodness stupidity isn't contagious..


and people say i should be banned :lol:


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

i wonder how many who are slagging off people for having pets they cant afford have kids they cant afford


----------



## tashax (Jun 25, 2011)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> every little helps as they say
> 
> i suppose those charity collection boxes in shops are a waste of time too, i mean lets face it its not like people are putting cheques in for millions of £s are they
> 
> grow up


Now your being stupid. The boxes are for funds to help towards a charity. Now when this charity does you a public service, which is what a vets basically is then surely you would donate as much as the cost as possible?? Well at least moral people would. What you dont realise is the pdsa are very very close to going into liquidation. Most cant even neuter pets this year. Different subject but the cats protection were given a £12,000 neutering budget this year, they have less than £1000 left. People who are on benefits can surely pay for the general upkeep of their pets (which neutering is classed as) here it is only £33 for a male cat to be done, yet they still take money form a charity to have it done.


----------



## auspiciousmind (Sep 2, 2012)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> every little helps as they say
> 
> i suppose those charity collection boxes in shops are a waste of time too, i mean lets face it its not like people are putting cheques in for millions of £s are they


The people that put money into the collection boxes in shops are NOT using the charities services are they? THAT MONEY IS PAYING FOR THE PEOPLE WHO THINK ITS OK TO RUN UP A BILL OF £500 AND ONLY PAY £40!!!


----------



## RabbitMonster (Mar 20, 2012)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> you didnt say about their working situation really
> 
> when they got the original dogs were they working?


The job is irrelevant, there obviously wasn't enough of an income, whatever that may be, to provide for these pets.


----------



## tashax (Jun 25, 2011)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> you didnt say about their working situation really
> 
> when they got the original dogs were they working?


Ohhh there working situation is even better, they claim housing and counsel tax benifit and jsa as a couple, he works 30 plus hours a week. Yep reported them years ago, nothing was done and they are still doing it now. They are not the minority they are the majority, trust me.


----------



## auspiciousmind (Sep 2, 2012)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> i wonder how many who are slagging off people for having pets they cant afford have kids they cant afford


I Don't have children and at this very moment in time do not want them yet. If I do decide to have children I will make sure that I (YES ME!) will have enough money, a stable home, a job/career and the emotional stability needed to bring up a child. The state will not raise my children!


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

tashax said:


> Now your being stupid. The boxes are for funds to help towards a charity. Now when this charity does you a public service, which is what a vets basically is then surely you would donate as much as the cost as possible??


of course



> What you dont realise is the pdsa are very very close to going into liquidation.


i did know that as it happens and its a massive shame



> People who are on benefits can surely pay for the general upkeep of their pets (which neutering is classed as) here it is only £33 for a male cat to be done, yet they still take money form a charity to have it done.


now you see, that does annoy me, those that CAN afford to pay for it but still use a charity


----------



## zany_toon (Jan 30, 2009)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> the thing is people are just talking about the expensive pets (dogs, reptiles, snakes etc)
> 
> what about the cheaper animals, for instance hamsters or mice? they are called pocket money pets for a reason, aside from the cost of getting a epic cage the cost of them is relatively low


I think you will find that you have been very lucky. It doesn't matter what animal a person takes on, they should have at least some money to afford vet fees. I've been keeping mice for almost 4 years and spend every penny I have on them. And out of almost 100 mice who have passed away, I can count on one hand the number that passed away in their sleep and that didn't need vet treatment, operations, mite treatments, change of diets, specialised diets, pts or specialised environments because of the problems they developed - problems including: tumours, abscesses, recurring abscesses, ear infections, spinal degeneration, organ failure, fur loss, obstruction of the bladder, bowel blockages, megacolon, allergies, degloving of their tails, self mutilation, OCD scratching, fungal infections. I have spent over £5000 just on medications in the last 4 years, and completely agree with those who have said that a lot of owners with these so called "pocket money pets" ignore the problems (isn't ignorance bliss?) because after all, mice and hamsters never need vets - like the person I took in three mice from. Apparently they were lovely, well loved mice and "very talkative." Mice don't talk - I've only ever had 4 and the vet diagnosed them!! - the poor "healthy, well loved mice" were so ill with a respiratory infection that one of them died within hours of me getting her and the only reason the other two are still here is because I have an amazing vet and have been able to pay out for the lifelong drugs they need. And given that I'm facing being paid off in the next few months, it's going to be a struggle to keep them but I will do without food for my mice and cats if I needed to as it's the only way I will afford the £40 consultation fee given that my mice are "exotic animals." Not everyone will, most of the people on here will, but we are hardly representing the majority of the UK (or wherever we come from given that it is an international forum.) I just need to look in my street to know that I'm in a minority - most of my street is on benefits, a fair few of which are people diddling the system as I don't believe that they are too ill to ever work a day in their life when they are driving taxis or working on farms on the side for cash. Most of my street have pets, and there are a large number of them that have never seen a vet despite it being obvious to someone like me that the animals need it. Apparently burying your head in the sand is fine as long as it's the animal that is suffering and you can still afford all the luxuries :mad2: If I hadn't been able to save money for my mice and been able to afford some of the vet consultations, I wouldn't have them. I would rather not have them than take a chance that any one of them would suffer because I couldn't afford the vets, and unfortunately very few people who take on a pet think that way. If you can't afford an animal before taking it l, you shouldn't have it period and I don't care who you are (JMHO.) There might be people out there on benefits who already have pets and just manage to afford them. But I don't see how someone already on benefits can afford all the needs of an animal and can take on a new pet of any sort when they are already struggling fianancially. If they could there would be so many animal charities overflowing with abandoned and surrendered animals (AJMHO.)

And re the overdraft and the banks, you are actually under a legal obligation to inform your bank of any changes in your circumstances (or at least you are with the bank I work for and the other bank I have an account with) - I know the bank I work with removes all overdrafts for any customer that is unemployed. If you fail to inform your bank about the changes and take out borrowing with them, be prepared for repercussions - someone in my street is delighting in telling anyone who will listen about being unemployed, running up her overdraft and then going bust. Her bank found out and are taking legal action against her for knowingly running up debt when facing bankruptcy. So running up an overdraft is very unlikely to be an option for most people who are unemployed and have pets.


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> i wonder how many who are slagging off people for having pets they cant afford have kids they cant afford


Probably the same ones that have the same mindset as you - _'its everyones *right* to have a pet/child, and no-one has the right to tell them they cant if they decide thats what they want - and who cares if I cant afford it - the idiots that go to work and pay taxes will pay for it because its my *right*'...........
_


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

tashax said:


> Ohhh there working situation is even better, they claim housing and counsel tax benifit and jsa as a couple, he works 30 plus hours a week. Yep reported them years ago, nothing was done and they are still doing it now. They are not the minority they are the majority, trust me.


oh so they are crooks 

so wait, they have no rent or council tax to pay, they claim JSA (which i think is £111 a week) he works 30 + hours (on lets say for instance min wage)

and they STILL couldnt afford vets fees? what they hell were they spending their money on 



auspiciousmind said:


> I Don't have children and at this very moment in time do not want them yet. If I do decide to have children I will make sure that I (YES ME!) will have enough money, a stable home, a job/career and the emotional stability needed to bring up a child. The state will not raise my children!


good on you!

and no i wasnt being sarcastic there, i was being genuine


----------



## tashax (Jun 25, 2011)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> of course
> 
> i did know that as it happens and its a massive shame
> 
> now you see, that does annoy me, those that CAN afford to pay for it but still use a charity


But the majority of people do  lets think about this. A single person on their own gets what £130 quid every 2 weeks, now if you cannot budget for £33 of that to get you animal neutered then you do not deserve animals. Why?? because you are running the risk of this animal bringing more animals into the world and making the rescue crisis worse, catching Fiv or lukemia (cats) so now tell me im wrong?? A one of payment of £33 is nothing when it come to you beloved pets life and safety


----------



## tashax (Jun 25, 2011)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> oh so they are crooks
> 
> so wait, they have no rent or council tax to pay, they claim JSA (which i think is £111 a week) he works 30 + hours (on lets say for instance min wage)
> 
> ...


They had the money, they didnt want to pay. Now like i have said there is more of those people in the world than ones who will do right buy their animals. Thats my PO obviously i cant prove it but i have worked in the animal charity world long enough to know this fact


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

Its the same for any charity - I also work for a charity and you see it all the time.

Its the people that have the mindset of 'its my right and no-one can tell me it isnt' that take from charities, and stop us helping the people that genuinely need it.


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

tashax said:


> But the majority of people do  lets think about this. A single person on their own gets what £130 quid every 2 weeks, now if you cannot budget for £33 of that to get you animal neutered then you do not deserve animals. Why?? because you are running the risk of this animal bringing more animals into the world and making the rescue crisis worse, catching Fiv or lukemia (cats) so now tell me im wrong?? A one of payment of £33 is nothing when it come to you beloved pets life and safety





tashax said:


> They had the money, they didnt want to pay. Now like i have said there is more of those people in the world than ones who will do right buy their animals. Thats my PO obviously i cant prove it but i have worked in the animal charity world long enough to know this fact


i have to say that in my POV of those situations its the opposite, all the people i know who have animals (myself included) would do anything for their pets and they would never abuse a charity

now im not saying everyone would because as has been proved there are some clowns out there

and its disgusting that they didnt want to pay!


----------



## tashax (Jun 25, 2011)

MCWillow said:


> Its the same for any charity - I also work for a charity and you see it all the time.
> 
> Its the people that have the mindset of 'its my right and no-one can tell me it isnt' that take from charities, and stop us helping the people that genuinely need it.


/\ this!! The phone calls i used to get on a daily basis have left me with no faith in the human race


----------



## MontyMaude (Feb 23, 2012)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> i wonder how many who are slagging off people for having pets they cant afford have kids they cant afford


:aureola: not me I chose not to have kids.

TinkTinkTinkerbell what sort of world do you live in seriously, how can you not understand that people willingly use and abuse the benefit system and the PDSA.


----------



## RabbitMonster (Mar 20, 2012)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> i have to say that in my POV of those situations its the opposite, all the people i know who have animals (myself included) would do anything for their pets
> 
> now im not saying everyone would because as has been proved there are *some *clowns out there


_Some_ doesn't even come close...


----------



## tashax (Jun 25, 2011)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> i have to say that in my POV of those situations its the opposite, all the people i know who have animals (myself included) would do anything for their pets and they would never abuse a charity
> 
> now im not saying everyone would because as has been proved there are some clowns out there
> 
> and its disgusting that they didnt want to pay!


And how many people do you know?? I used to get 40 phones calls a day, all from different people using the charity


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

MCWillow said:


> Its the same for any charity - I also work for a charity and you see it all the time.
> 
> *Its the people that have the mindset of 'its my right and no-one can tell me it isnt' that take from charities, and stop us helping the people that genuinely need it*.


erm no not always

i have that mind set but i do not take from charities and stop those that need it


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> i have to say that in my POV of those situations its the opposite, all the people i know who have animals (myself included) would do anything for their pets and they would never abuse a charity
> 
> now im not saying everyone would because *as has been proved there are some clowns out there*


They would be the ones that decide to get a pet they know full well they cant afford to look after (vet fees being the main point) would they?


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

MontyMaude said:


> :aureola: not me I chose not to have kids.
> 
> TinkTinkTinkerbell what sort of world do you live in seriously, how can you not understand that people willingly use and abuse the benefit system and the PDSA.


what have i said people dont abuse it 

i know people abuse the benefits system, my OHs mate is doing it right now



tashax said:


> And how many people do you know?? I used to get 40 phones calls a day, all from different people using the charity


and how did you tell the genuine from the none genuine?


----------



## tashax (Jun 25, 2011)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> erm no not always
> 
> i have that mind set but i do not take from charities and stop those that need it


Sorry but it is only your right to bring children and animals into this world if you can provide a lifetime of emotional and* financial* support. Some people should get out of the gene pool in my opinion, or get sterilized at birth


----------



## tashax (Jun 25, 2011)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> what have i said people dont abuse it
> 
> i know people abuse the benefits system, my OHs mate is doing it right now
> 
> and how did you tell the genuine from the none genuine?


The genuine were usually the ones that had lost their jobs and wanted to rehome their cats because they wanted whats best for them. They could provide full medical history and usually bought a house load of stuff with them, genuine calls are few and far between


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

MCWillow said:


> They would be the ones that decide to get a pet they know full well they cant afford to look after (vet fees being the main point) would they?


no, it would be the ones that are cruel to their animals


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

tashax said:


> or get sterilized at birth


:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

tashax said:


> The genuine were usually the ones that had lost their jobs and wanted to rehome their cats because they wanted whats best for them. They could provide full medical history and usually bought a house load of stuff with them, genuine calls are few and far between


fair enough

and what did the none genuine say/do?


----------



## tashax (Jun 25, 2011)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> no, it would be the ones that are cruel to their animals


There are soooo many forms of cruelty. Cruelty differs from person to person because what i think is cruel you could think its not. Example: not walking your dog is cruel (i dont mean every day but not walking at all) over feeding is cruel, under feeding is cruel, not being able to provide the best food and the best care is cruel


----------



## auspiciousmind (Sep 2, 2012)

Anybody that brings children into the world because it "Is their right and they can" while claiming benefits from birth to 18yrs old is the reason for society going so badly down hill.


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> erm no not always
> 
> i have that mind set but i do not take from charities and stop those that need it


Actually you do stop those that need it.

Do you think charities have unlimited sources of money?

We have to get funding, and most charities do not get government funding.

We have to go out and fundraise to get money to help people in genuine need. The people that have been made redundant for example and _honestly_ cannot afford our services, and yet desperately need them.

Then you get the people pleading poverty, begging for funding to help them, that roll up in a brand new Mercedes and proceed to tell you they absolutely must be seen at your very latest appointment because they both work in London and couldnt possibly turn up any earlier - and how diabolicical that we dont open on a Sunday (for our minimum wage and not had a pay rise for the last 4 years)


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

tashax said:


> There are soooo many forms of cruelty. Cruelty differs from person to person because what i think is cruel you could think its not. Example: not walking your dog is cruel (i dont mean every day but not walking at all) over feeding is cruel, under feeding is cruel, not being able to provide the best food and the best care is cruel


i agree with all of those


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

MCWillow said:


> Actually you do stop those that need it.
> 
> Do you think charities have unlimited sources of money?


actually i dont!


----------



## tashax (Jun 25, 2011)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> fair enough
> 
> and what did the none genuine say/do?


Usually it was i just bought a kitten and cant afford to have it vaccinated, wormed, flead or neutered, can you help?? Ermmm so you went and bought an animal you cant afford?? even better you went and supported bad breeders when there is 189 cats sitting in this shelter looking for home?? then there is the usually, suddenly allergic after having the cat for 10 years?? of course you are. I once had someone say they needed to rehome their cat because there new puppy doesnt get on with it, the cat was 16.


----------



## RabbitMonster (Mar 20, 2012)

I'm really at a loss as to why the point is not being understood. It's not rocket science.


----------



## auspiciousmind (Sep 2, 2012)

tashax said:


> Usually it was i just bought a kitten and cant afford to have it vaccinated, wormed, flead or neutered, can you help?? Ermmm so you went and bought an animal you cant afford?? even better you went and supported bad breeders when there is 189 cats sitting in this shelter looking for home?? then there is the usually, suddenly allergic after having the cat for 10 years?? of course you are. I once had someone say they needed to rehome their cat because there new puppy doesnt get on with it, the cat was 16.


 Thats awful  I've had my little rescue kitten for 2 days and I know I couldn't part with him ever! I can't imagine how someone could have a cat of that age and just dump it because they got a new animal


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

tashax said:


> Usually it was i just bought a kitten and cant afford to have it vaccinated, wormed, flead or neutered, can you help?? Ermmm so you went and bought an animal you cant afford?? even better you went and supported bad breeders when there is 189 cats sitting in this shelter looking for home?? then there is the usually, suddenly allergic after having the cat for 10 years?? of course you are. I once had someone say they needed to rehome their cat because there new puppy doesnt get on with it, the cat was 16.


actually sudden allergies can happen, as can asthma

i had pets when i was younger and then my mam got asthma, we didnt get rid of the pet we had as we were the ones responsible for it but my parents said no more pets after that

but i see your point


----------



## tashax (Jun 25, 2011)

Im sorry but do you actually live in the real world?? have you ever spent a significant amount of you time with these charities and experienced it all first hand?? the people that fleece the charity are making it impossible for people that really really need help to get the help they need and deserve


----------



## auspiciousmind (Sep 2, 2012)

Rabbitmonkee said:


> I'm really at a loss as to why the point is not being understood. It's not rocket science.


It's a waste of time.. she either is really that dim or she has nothing better to do than come on to a forum and be deliberately awkward. :scared:


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

auspiciousmind said:


> Thats awful  I've had my little rescue kitten for 2 days and I know I couldn't part with him ever! I can't imagine how someone could have a cat of that age and just dump it because they got a new animal


from what i can see its that 'cute baby animal' thing

awww got a cute puppy, doesnt get on with old still cute but not cute as a baby animal cat so the cat has to go

its shocking


----------



## RabbitMonster (Mar 20, 2012)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> actually sudden allergies can happen, as can asthma
> 
> i had pets when i was younger and then my mam got asthma, we didnt get rid of the pet we had as we were the ones responsible for it but my parents said no more pets after that
> 
> but i see your point


Asthma cannot spontaneously occur, it's a genetic condition.


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

tashax said:


> Im sorry but do you actually live in the real world?? have you ever spent a significant amount of you time with these charities and experienced it all first hand?? *the people that fleece the charity are making it impossible for people that really really need help to get the help they need and deserve*


i never said they werent i just said I wasnt one of those people like MCWillow was trying to make out i did


----------



## tashax (Jun 25, 2011)

My elderly neighbor and his dog was attacked by a dog. As he went to hospital i took his dog to the pdsa for him, i donated £81.67, everything out of my purse. He only had 13 stitches but i wanted to let them know that there are still people out there that generally need their help and that they are doing a brill job with such little resources


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

Rabbitmonkee said:


> Asthma cannot spontaneously occur, it's a genetic condition.


my mam got it after she got bronchitis


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> actually i dont!


OK - please enlighten me, as I am having trouble understanding where you are coming from.

You think everyone has a right to have a pet whether they can afford its upkeep or not (we will include vet fees in the term 'upkeep', as all responsible pet owners would).

If you can't afford the upkeep of your brand new pet, it doesnt matter because some charity or other will just let you have it for free (for you, not for the charity).

Where exactly is the money coming from, in your opinion, to pay for all these pets, that people cant afford to keep, but want anyway, as its their right?


----------



## RabbitMonster (Mar 20, 2012)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> my mam got it after she got bronchitis


Ok, so she got it after a severe illness. It doesn't spontenously occur as you have just insinuated.


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

MCWillow said:


> OK - please enlighten me, as I am having trouble understanding where you are coming from.
> 
> You think everyone has a right to have a pet whether they can afford its upkeep or not (we will include vet fees in the term 'upkeep', as all responsible pet owners would).
> 
> ...


the money comes from those who donate to the charity (whether that be them donating money, things to sell in the shops, their time etc) including the people who use the charity

that still does not mean that I PERSONALLY stop those in genuine need using said charities


----------



## tashax (Jun 25, 2011)

MCWillow said:


> OK - please enlighten me, as I am having trouble understanding where you are coming from.
> 
> You think everyone has a right to have a pet whether they can afford its upkeep or not (we will include vet fees in the term 'upkeep', as all responsible pet owners would).
> 
> ...


Im also very interested on where the magical money tree lives


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

Rabbitmonkee said:


> Ok, so she got it after a severe illness. It doesn't spontenously occur as you have just insinuated.


ok, allergies can then


----------



## RabbitMonster (Mar 20, 2012)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> the money comes from those who donate to the charity (whether that be them donating money, things to sell in the shops, their time etc)
> 
> that still does not mean that I PERSONALLY stop those in genuine need using said charities


Not enough money comes from these donations though, that's the problem.


----------



## tashax (Jun 25, 2011)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> the money comes from those who donate to the charity (whether that be them donating money, things to sell in the shops, their time etc)
> 
> that still does not mean that I PERSONALLY stop those in genuine need using said charities


But is not enough, there is still a huge huge huge shortfall, so where does it come from??


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

tashax said:


> But is not enough, there is still a huge huge huge shortfall, so where does it come from??


i dont know


----------



## tashax (Jun 25, 2011)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> i dont know


Finally!! Want to know where it comes from??


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

tashax said:


> Finally!! Want to know where it comes from??


go on enlighten me


----------



## MontyMaude (Feb 23, 2012)

MCWillow said:


> OK - please enlighten me, as I am having trouble understanding where you are coming from.
> 
> You think everyone has a right to have a pet whether they can afford its upkeep or not (we will include vet fees in the term 'upkeep', as all responsible pet owners would).
> 
> ...





tashax said:


> Im also very interested on where the magical money tree lives


It brings it all back round to page 2 or 3 that the monies donated to the charities come from the ignorant arrogant workers that TinkTinkTinkbell so despises (but I think the Ignorant, arrogant workers bit got edited out by the mods)


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> i never said they werent i just said I wasnt one of those people like MCWillow was trying to make out i did


Excuse me?

I am not 'trying to make out' anything 



tinktinktinkerbell said:


> the money comes from those who donate to the charity (whether that be them donating money, things to sell in the shops, their time etc) including the people who use the charity
> 
> that still does not mean that I PERSONALLY stop those in genuine need using said charities


Every single person that uses a charity, just because they think its their 'right' to have whatever they want, whether they can afford it or not, and use charities to support their 'right', takes from a charity.

So if you personally, decide to get a pet, knowing full well, you _can't_ afford the total upkeep of that pet, *at that time*, then, yes, you do personally stop those in genuine need.


----------



## tashax (Jun 25, 2011)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> go on enlighten me


All that lovely tax you pay, all the lovely tax i have paid and everyone else has paid. So these people are getting animals they cant afford and are getting their vet treatment on you dime, your paying for these peoples animals


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

tashax said:


> All that lovely tax you pay, all the lovely tax i have paid and everyone else has paid. So these people are getting animals they cant afford and are getting their vet treatment on you dime, your paying for these peoples animals


so they get money from the government?

yet the PDSA receives no government funding its tun purely on donations


----------



## RabbitMonster (Mar 20, 2012)

Just when you think you've made a breakthrough, a tsunami of stupidity rolls into shore again.


----------



## auspiciousmind (Sep 2, 2012)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> so they get money from the government?
> 
> yet the PDSA receives no government funding its tun purely on donations


..... You really are ......

Ignorant Arrogant workers that donate money to the charities.


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

auspiciousmind said:


> ..... You really are ......
> 
> Ignorant Arrogant workers that donate money to the charities.


and also those that dont work who donate to the charities.....


----------



## RabbitMonster (Mar 20, 2012)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> and also those that dont work who donate to the charities.....


But it's still not enough because people continue to abuse the system!


----------



## auspiciousmind (Sep 2, 2012)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> and also those that dont work who donate to the charities.....


Ohh you mean the ones that claim benefits and then donate to charity? So they are using the governments money.. you know the money that working people pay ... Taxes I believe it's called?


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> so they get money from the government?
> 
> yet the PDSA receives no government funding its tun purely on donations


Oh thats OK then. The taxes us ignorant arrogant workers pay go to the government to help pay council tax benefit and housing benefit.

The donations we make,_ after_ our tax has been taken, go to pay for the vets bills of people that think its their right to have a pet they can't afford.

Well at least thats sorted that out.....

What horrible, ignorant, arrogant people we are - how dare we work full time and pay taxes to help people that don't, and then donate some of our hardearned cash just so they can get a pet they cant afford to keep.....


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

MCWillow said:


> Oh thats OK then. The taxes us ignorant arrogant workers pay go to the government to help pay council tax benefit and housing benefit.
> 
> The donations we make,_ after_ our tax has been taken, go to pay for the vets bills of people that think its their right to have a pet they afford.
> 
> ...


you're talking like your the only one who works


----------



## tashax (Jun 25, 2011)

Ohhhh dear, you have seriously damaged my brain. The individual pdsa centers do not receive government funding, but who runs them?? What you seem to not grasp is that big charities are first and foremost a business. Even the cats protection is a business, where do they get their money from??


----------



## auspiciousmind (Sep 2, 2012)

I'm off to say good night to the new arrival then off to bed myself!

Soo goodnight from: Robyn , Diesel , Button & Baby Romeo!!

xxxx


- You can't argue with stupid.


----------



## CRL (Jan 3, 2012)

The stupidity hurts.


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

tashax said:


> Ohhhh dear, you have seriously damaged my brain. The individual pdsa centers do not receive government funding, but who runs them?? What you seem to not grasp is that big charities are first and foremost a business. Even the cats protection is a business, where do they get their money from??


so the bosses get government money and it goes straight in their back picket

(and dont say it doesnt, we all know what goes in with charities and 'admin fees')


----------



## tashax (Jun 25, 2011)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> so the bosses get government money and it goes straight in their back picket
> 
> (and dont say it doesnt, we all know what goes in with charities and 'admin fees')


Some might, but all these centers get budgets for the year, once its gone it is gone. So cats protection gets £12, 000 from head office, provided by the tax payers. When everyone is done abusing it and its gone they have to fundraise to provide for people that actually need help. Now the pdsa dont actually have fundraising events, once their budget is gone they have to rely on donations, so because people have used and abused their budget they are left living off the couple off quid they are given through donations.


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

tashax said:


> Some might, but all these centers get budgets for the year, once its gone it is gone. So cats protection gets £12, 000 from head office, provided by the tax payers. When everyone is done abusing it and its gone they have to fundraise to provide for people that actually need help. Now the pdsa dont actually have fundraising events, once their budget is gone they have to rely on donations, so because people have used and abused their budget they are left living off the couple off quid they are given through donations.


sooooo, why do they say that they PDSA is not government funded then when technically they are, ok the money doesnt go straight from the government to the centres BUT it does go to them just VIA head office


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> you're talking like your the only one who works


No I'm not - I am talking like someone who works, and cant believe the sheer audacity of _some_ people that think they don't have to work to have everything they want in life - they want it, they can have it - and b*ll*cks if they can't afford - some other idiot that has the self respect to _not_ expect something for nothing can pay for it for me - it my human right.....

Believe me - I am _*not *_the only person who thinks you should pay your way, and work for what you have.


----------



## tashax (Jun 25, 2011)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> sooooo, why do they say that they PDSA is not government funded then when technically they are, ok the money doesnt go straight from the government to the centres BUT it does go to them just VIA head office


Because they arent. They are funded by head office. Where head office gets the money from is pretty irrelevant, because they still dont have any which is the point being made, which you are ignoring. How much money do you think the rspca head office has??


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

MCWillow said:


> No I'm not - I am talking like someone who works, and cant believe the sheer audacity of _some_ people that think they don't have to work to have everything they want in life - they want it, they can have it - and b*ll*cks if they can't afford - some other idiot that has the self respect to _not_ expect something for nothing can pay for it for me - it my human right.....
> 
> Believe me - I am _*not *_the only person who thinks you should pay your way, and work for what you have.


i also think you should pay your way too, i also work, i hated being on benefits,in actual fact the only thing that got me through was my pets

we are never going to stop those that abuse the system and trying to just hits those innocent


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

tashax said:


> Because they arent. They are funded by head office. Where head office gets the money from is pretty irrelevant, because they still dont have any which is the point being made, which you are ignoring. How much money do you think the rspca head office has??


im not ignoring it and i dont know how much they have as i dont work there

they are funded by head office who are funded by the government


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> i also think you should pay your way too, i also work, i hated being on benefits,in actual fact the only thing that got me through was my pets


So _why _do you think its OK for people that _cant_ afford the upkeep of their pets, to get their pets in the first place??


----------



## tashax (Jun 25, 2011)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> im not ignoring it and i dont know how much they have as i dont work there
> 
> they are funded by head office who are funded by the government


The rspca have about £19 million i believe it stands, but there individual centers gets none of it. They are funded by A COMPANY. It my belief that most company's get money from the government


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

MCWillow said:


> So _why _do you think its OK for people that _cant_ afford the upkeep of their pets, to get their pets in the first place??


because pets can mean a lot to people

maybe my views are skewed because of how much my pets helped me when i was unemployed

plus i edited the post to add a little

'we are never going to stop those that abuse the system and trying to just hits those innocent'


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

tashax said:


> The rspca have about £19 million i believe it stands, but there individual centers gets none of it. They are funded by A COMPANY. It my belief that most company's get money from the government


so where does the £19 million go?


----------



## tashax (Jun 25, 2011)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> because pets can mean a lot to people
> 
> maybe my views are skewed because of how much my pets helped me when i was unemployed
> 
> ...


Okay question time. Lets say the only income you have is jobseekers allowence. You have been on it for lets say 6 months. You decide that because you have time on your hands your going to get a puppy. Said puppy escapes the garden one day and is hit by a car, you have no money so you go to the pdsa. £2000 later and your puppy is fixed up and you donate as much as you can, but its not enough to cover the cost. Were you wrong getting the puppy knowing if something happened you would have to rely on other people to pay for its vet treatment??


----------



## tashax (Jun 25, 2011)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> so where does the £19 million go?


You tell me


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

tashax said:


> Okay question time. Lets say the only income you have is jobseekers allowence. You have been on it for lets say 6 months. You decide that because you have time on your hands your going to get a puppy. Said puppy escapes the garden one day and is hit by a car, you have no money so you go to the pdsa. £2000 later and your puppy is fixed up and you donate as much as you can, but its not enough to cover the cost. Were you wrong getting the puppy knowing if something happened you would have to rely on other people to pay for its vet treatment??


its hard for me to answer that as it would never happen

(and people would probably rip apart my answer anyway  )


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

tashax said:


> You tell me


hhhmmmmm so good old 'admin fees' then

maybe thats why charities are in the state they are


----------



## tashax (Jun 25, 2011)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> its hard for me to answer that as it would never happen
> 
> (and people would probably rip apart my answer anyway  )


I am generally interested in your answer, you can even pm it to me if you want. Im not going to rip you apart, im far too tired now


----------



## skip (Sep 25, 2011)

Wow just been reading this thread and have found it very frustrating typed a reply out and retyped a few times but think banging your head against a brick wall springs to mind


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

tashax said:


> I am generally interested in your answer, you can even pm it to me if you want. Im not going to rip you apart, im far too tired now


PMd it

hope it made sense cause im tired too lol


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

ok i'll answer it here because tasha said it was reasonable (thank you)

if i was in that situation i would pay what i could, even if that meant selling my things and going back and donating the money at a later date


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

If you are talking about 'admin fees' going to people who work for charities, you are sorely mistaken.

I am a paid worker for a charity. I get minimum wage, and have not had a payrise for the last 4 years. An office manager in the private sector will get at least _double _minimum wage.

I stay doing my job because I like it. I like being able to help people that really _need_ it. At the end of the day, if i have just one person thank me, and tell me how happy they are that they found the help they needed, I am a happy bunny. That is the reason I do my job.

When you help someone, and then find out that they could afford what they took for nothing, or they didnt actually care if they took something from someone else, just because they think its their 'right' - thats when I get annoyed.

I talk to a _lot_ of people every day - I try to help every single one of them - and some days I come home, and I actually cry, because we just dont have the resources to help them all - so when you find out some of them have taken you for a ride, just because they believe its their right to have whatever they want for nothing - it leaves a sour taste in your mouth.

Thats why I am so passionate in my posting - its not personal, and its absolutely nothing personally against you, I really hope you know that.

I juat hate this attitude of 'well I cant afford to get this right now, but I'm going to anyway - there will be someone somewhere that will pay for it for me'

Charities are there to help people in need, people that have been made redundant, people that are going through a divorce so have lost half their income, people that _need_ help.

So people that just decide they will get a pet, even though they know they cant afford to get one, really p!ss me off. The charities are there for people who need help, the ones that already had their pets, not ones who decide they will just get one anyway because someone else will pay for them.


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

MCWillow said:


> If you are talking about 'admin fees' going to people who work for charities, you are sorely mistaken.
> 
> I am a paid worker for a charity. I get minimum wage, and have not had a payrise for the last 4 years. An office manager in the private sector will get at least _double _minimum wage.
> 
> ...


i really can see where you are coming from and i can see why you are annoyed

you are a better person than me, i wouldnt have the emotional strength to work with a animal charity even though i would really love to work with animals


----------



## tashax (Jun 25, 2011)

I was also a paid worker. I found out the other day that they are making a hell of alot of people redundant because they simply cant afford to keep everyone anymore


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

Thats what I am facing right now - we have funding for clients, but with so many people claiming that funding (the Mercedes thing happened just this week :mad2: ) we just arent covering our overheads.

We dont know if our centre will be here in 4 months.


----------



## tashax (Jun 25, 2011)

MCWillow said:


> Thats what I am facing right now - we have funding for clients, but with so many people claiming that funding (the Mercedes thing happened just this week :mad2: ) we just arent covering our overheads.
> 
> We dont know if our centre will be here in 4 months.


They are looking at getting rid of all seconds, deputys and a hell of alot of cattery assistants. But like i said what are they going to do?? People are going to have to work 13 hours a day to get everything done


----------



## alan g a (Feb 23, 2011)

Tink82 said:


> I was at the PDSA a lot this weekend, emergency on Saturday.. while I was there, a couple came in with an 8 week old puppy (pedigree apparently) and I was ear wigging.. they were students and couldn't afford to take it to the vets.
> 
> It got me thinking, is it fair to buy a puppy with no income coming in? if you can fork out for the initial price of the dog, food, bedding etc etc but you can't take it to the vets, is it ok?
> 
> ...


I have I question about this. If they are students and can't afford thet vet fees, where did they get the money to buy a pedigree dog?


----------



## GoldenShadow (Jun 15, 2009)

God no no one should have pets if they are in the situ to rely on the PDSA.

I'm a student and I have a dog. I had £800 saved up and a job when I bought my pedigree 8 week old golden. He cost me £450 (yes from health tested parents), and the rest went on anything he needed. From the day he came home he had insurance.

That dog has cost me a relationship, a few thousand £'s and he's cost the insurance a couple thousand too, he's only just turned four years old. I think his quality of life would suck if I got him when I had no money, it's would have been hideously unfair to have gotten him. I've had times when I've not worked, but I've always had money saved up and right now I work 15 hours a week alongside Uni and other commitments.

The PDSA is there for people who fall on hard times and shouldn't be forced to give up their pets. NOT for those who want a pet and can't afford to take care of it from the off and possibly forseeable.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

GoldenShadow said:


> God no no one should have pets if they are in the situ to rely on the PDSA.
> 
> I'm a student and I have a dog. I had £800 saved up and a job when I bought my pedigree 8 week old golden. He cost me £450 (yes from health tested parents), and the rest went on anything he needed. From the day he came home he had insurance.
> 
> ...


This is exactly it! It makes me so angry when people abuse the system as ultimately they are stealing money from the genuinely needy.

My OH's ex bought a dog a few months ago despite being on benefits & constantly moaning she has no money. My OH tried to stress to her how expensive vets bills could be (she hasn't taken out insurance) but she replied that as she was on benefits all her vet care was free from the PDSA :mad2:

People seem to think it is their right to have a pet & their right for it to receive free treatment (like some sort of animal NHS) - they don't seem to realise that the treatment is being paid for but not by them!

I did used to donate to the PDSA but don't now as I genuinely belive the system is being abused so much. I realise that ultimately the animals will suffer in doing so but I also believe they need to tighten up their criteria.


----------



## CRL (Jan 3, 2012)

for the 2 people who work for animal charities. silly question but is there anyway you can refuse the people who turn up in expensive cars or means test people to see income before they register with you, then more people who need the treatment would get it and the people who dont need it wouldnt. 
ive needed to get treatmeant for my pets before when i had no money in the bank, but i asked my vets if i could pay it straight away on oay day, i didnt even consider using the pdsa part of my vets although i suspect quite a few of the people who do use it are better of than me anyway.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

alan g a said:


> I have I question about this. If they are students and can't afford thet vet fees, where did they get the money to buy a pedigree dog?


Who says they bought it? They could have been given it as a present, they could have taken it from a not very thorough shelter, it could have come from a litter that wasn't selling - no reason to suppose they actually paid full price for it. This is why I am against their discrimination against pedigree dogs - you don't have to have paid for them and suppose you already have two pedigree dogs or more, like me, when you find yourself out of work? Hardly fair to refuse treatment because they are prejudiced against pedigree dogs, is it? And what about these crossbreeds like labradoodles that cost a small fortune? Do they have the same prejudice against them?

Sorry, going off topic, but it makes me mad. It shouldn't matter how much you have paid for a dog, he still needs treatment.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

CRL said:


> for the 2 people who work for animal charities. silly question but is there anyway you can refuse the people who turn up in expensive cars or means test people to see income before they register with you, then more people who need the treatment would get it and the people who dont need it wouldnt.
> ive needed to get treatmeant for my pets before when i had no money in the bank, but i asked my vets if i could pay it straight away on oay day, i didnt even consider using the pdsa part of my vets although i suspect quite a few of the people who do use it are better of than me anyway.


As I understand it from their website, it has nothing to do with your income but whether you are getting housing or council tax benefit. If you don't get either of those, you don't get pdsa, no matter how hard up you are.


----------



## grumpy goby (Jan 18, 2012)

Obviously circumstances change, and most people will come against hard times in their lives, which we endure with our pets by our side and often give up our own meals so they can have theirs...

However, it is HUGELY irresponsible on every level, imo, to take on an animal that you know you cannot support financially. It is a sad fact of society that people can act in the knowledge that someone else will pick up the bill, and leach someone elses funds for their own selfish act of "I Want".

Any responsible person knows that luxuries, like pets, come at a cost - we work, we save, we make sacrifices in order to indulge in those luxuries, initial and ongoing... they are not for someone else to foot the bill.

You cant stop anyone from getting a pet, but that doesnt make it morally correct when they do so if they truly cannot afford to pay for its general health upkeep without relying totally the resources of a charity that should be there for the unexpected hard times, from the word go.




/rant off.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Haven't read the whole thread but some comments really do stand out - a little too much emphasise on rights and not enough on responsibilities.

I wonder how far the PDSA actually go with treatment is it just emergencies or do they fund long term illnesses? My previous dog had an auto immune disease, just the medication was almost £2,000 a year


----------



## grumpy goby (Jan 18, 2012)

DoodlesRule said:


> Haven't read the whole thread but some comments really do stand out - a little too much emphasise on rights and not enough on responsibilities.
> 
> I wonder how far the PDSA actually go with treatment is it just emergencies or do they fund long term illnesses? My previous dog had an auto immune disease, just the medication was almost £2,000 a year


I think many people, especially in todays society, mistake "rights" with wants. A pet, IMO is not a RIGHT. 
Its almost as much as saying I have a right to a nice car because my friends have nice cars, so expect someone to then pay for the expensive service and repairs that go with nice cars - when in reality they have nice cars because they worked, saved and indulged in their desire to have it!

No-one has the right to have whatever they want. This is where responsibilties step in.


----------



## Guest (Sep 5, 2012)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> i wonder how many who are slagging off people for having pets they cant afford have kids they cant afford


no-one is actually 'slagging off' people that can't afford pets , it's not reading that way to me , folks are having real problems trying to understand why unemployed people take on pets knowing they can't afford them - there is a big difference. 
i have no objections regarding unemployed folks having pets , you have got to know your limits though , some folks sadly don't.

the 'having children' issue is a whole different topic and whilst i don't agree with that either , just like pets , children are a privilege not a natural born right - that said everyone IS entitled to make one mistake in life , it's when folks keep making them it becomes an issue.


----------



## Tink82 (Mar 22, 2009)

Tut.... I leave you all for 5 mins and an extra 23 pages of replies appears  That took some reading!!

Ok, so there are some very interesting replies and points that have been made but i think I should probably clarify my initial post a little more

What I meant was, you have the money to buy your cat/dog/fluffy bunny, you buy it a bed/hutch/toys and you know you can put money aside for food/hay/litter each week/month out of your budget

You love it, play with it, walk it, give it all the emotional attention it requires

You know what vacc's are due and when so you can maybe put money aside for those with enough notice. No problems.

But one day, your pet becomes dangerously sick. The vets want £40-60 (depending on day of the week) just to look at it.. then the meds it will most likely need on top, your bill suddenly explodes into the hundreds

The vet wants that money NOW.. do you have it? no? because you are on £70 a week.. Is it right that you should have the pet to begin with?

The cat I took in was insured, however the vets he is registered with demand full payment upfront and I didn't have that sort of money. His food, litter, toys, vacc's and everything else is sorted no problem but I didn't have a few hundred saved up for this..

AS I said, I understand circs change, people lose jobs.. but the student couple in question had the puppy for one week and had to fall back on the PDSA, is this ok??

Is it ok to buy a pet with the ability to feed it but not be able to take it to a high street vet and rely purely on th PDSA as it seemed there were a lot of people waiting in that room that had appointments..

Are vet fees and medicine charges justified or are they so high they are making pets a privilidge for those working with a good household income?


----------



## Tink82 (Mar 22, 2009)

alan g a said:


> I have I question about this. If they are students and can't afford thet vet fees, where did they get the money to buy a pedigree dog?


Pass. It was from a breeder as they told the nurse. They didn't look overly hard done-by, dressed tidy and the puppy had a nice new box and glittery pink collar.. I presumed it was from Student finance but as a student, I know we don't get it for a few more weeks yet


----------



## grumpy goby (Jan 18, 2012)

Tink82 said:


> ...


I think an unexpected vet fee is not the same as going in after a week - they got the dog knowing they couldnt afford vet bills so i dont think thats right. Most of us, struggle with unexpected vet bills; and excesses etc dont make it easier with insurances, but i think there is a difference between being able to afford a pet and struggling a way down the line, and struggling within days!

Vet fees are high because Meds are high, clinic running costs are high. Vets are not well paid people in the scheme of things, which suprised me, but they have a lot of costs to cover and that money isnt going to come off magic money trees - so there is no "hidden" motives behind making pets a priviledge - just the normal motives of being able to run and sustain a successful business. (wages for at least 2 vets, number of nurses, clinic itself, meds, kennel area and upkeep for overnighters, Continual development for vets to keep up to date..... it all costs)


----------



## Tink82 (Mar 22, 2009)

grumpy goby said:


> I think an unexpected vet fee is not the same as going in after a week - they got the dog knowing they couldnt afford vet bills so i dont think thats right. Most of us, struggle with unexpected vet bills; and excesses etc dont make it easier with insurances, but i think there is a difference between being able to afford a pet and struggling a way down the line, and struggling within days!
> 
> Vet fees are high because *Meds are high*, clinic running costs are high. Vets are not well paid people in the scheme of things, which suprised me, but they have a lot of costs to cover and that money isnt going to come off magic money trees - so there is no "hidden" motives behind making pets a priviledge - just the normal motives of being able to run and sustain a successful business. (wages for at least 2 vets, number of nurses, clinic itself, meds, kennel area and upkeep for overnighters, Continual development for vets to keep up to date..... it all costs)


I suspected that to be the case.. but again, it begs the question, why are they so high? is it justified or money making?


----------



## grumpy goby (Jan 18, 2012)

Tink82 said:


> I suspected that to be the case.. but again, it begs the question, why are they so high? is it justified or money making?


There are probably many points to this.

Vets have to buy food for their overnighters - so they have to pay for food manufacturers profits.

Vets have to pay for Medication. If animal meds are anything like people meds, these will be VERY expensive - the company producing has to pay for R&D costs, plus manufacture in very demanding environments in terms of standards and then of course profits. They are normally high because they invest the profit into keeping the business running and developing new products...
(They must be high, my friend is a vet and even insures her own dogs! She treats them herself bust still has to pay for the meds)

Vets have to pay for the clinic upkeep costs. not cheap, as we all know from our own bills.

Vets have to pay for their proffessional devlopment, and most likely institution fees. These will not be cheap, and the CPD costs are not cheap either - there will of course be the suppliers profits to pay for.

Then wages - vets earn around mid 30k to mid 40k i believe, if they are experianced. then vet nurse wages. that needs to be covered. Vets study for 7 yrs so their wage is poor IMO for the effort to get where they are plus the CPD throughout their career.

Obviously they will get some income from other sources, like advertising and whatnot in the clinic but I doubt its huge amounts...

The rest has to be covered by the customers. and if it made no money then there wouldnt be any vets as they have lives to live as well, they are not charities, they dont get donations or help from anywhere else.... all the money they have to pay out in order to function is passed on to the customer, plus a little bit in order to make the business practical, you are after all paying for a service. But after all the costs I cannot see that it is a huge amount you pay.


----------



## Polimba (Nov 23, 2009)

Tink82 said:


> I suspected that to be the case.. but again, it begs the question, why are they so high? is it justified or money making?


I think generally people have a skewed perception of how much drugs and medical cost, because of the NHS.

Without going too deep into things drug companies spend millions on on R&D and most drugs don't even reach the patient. There has to be a return on investment. Not hat I agree with everything drug companies do, you understand, but it's not just the physical tablet you are paying for. Vets train for 7 years(?), again I feel they should be rewarded for their skills and knowledge, the same as human doctors and surgeons.

Vets are businesses, so yes there is a certain amount of money making, which is the point of a business really.

Going back to the original case, surely they won't be covered by PDSA anyway. Do you get Council Tax or Housing Benefit as a student?

Don't start me off on 'rights' I could rant all day


----------



## tashax (Jun 25, 2011)

CRL said:


> for the 2 people who work for animal charities. silly question but is there anyway you can refuse the people who turn up in expensive cars or means test people to see income before they register with you, then more people who need the treatment would get it and the people who dont need it wouldnt.
> ive needed to get treatmeant for my pets before when i had no money in the bank, but i asked my vets if i could pay it straight away on oay day, i didnt even consider using the pdsa part of my vets although i suspect quite a few of the people who do use it are better of than me anyway.


Most of the time you hvae no choice whether or not to help, they will threaten to dump the cat or alot have just left them on my desk and walked away. You see here is the funny thing. Cats protection is split into 2 parts, there are branches which are run completely voluntarily and there are the adoption centers run by head office. Now branch run a voucher day out of the little shops every first thursday of the month where you take proof of benefits and a fiver and you get a voucher that covers the complete cost of the neutering. The adoption center doesnt do that, they get a phone call asking to help with neutering and because of policies set in place by head office they are not allowed to refuse. They write out the voucher and send it to the vets where the cat is being done, If its female the voucher covers £26 of the op and if its a tom it covers £20, but we never see proof of benefits. There is no way of knowing whether these people are on benefits or not. I had a woman ring me and everything was good until she told me her name and address and it was a woman i did a home check for and she couldnt have a cat because she lived on an extremely busy road and the cat in question had to be a house cat and she refused to keep her as one. I know for a fact that she worked and that she was not hard up. She had gone and bought 2 kittens because we said no and she wanted help getting them neutered and i couldnt even say no. I was talking to my friend from the center the other day and she has said that head office is now allowing them to ask people to take proof of benefits to the vets on the day and if they can not provide proof then they dont get the cat done.


----------



## tashax (Jun 25, 2011)

Polimba said:


> I think generally people have a skewed perception of how much drugs and medical cost, because of the NHS.
> 
> Without going too deep into things drug companies spend millions on on R&D and most drugs don't even reach the patient. There has to be a return on investment. Not hat I agree with everything drug companies do, you understand, but it's not just the physical tablet you are paying for. Vets train for 7 years(?), again I feel they should be rewarded for their skills and knowledge, the same as human doctors and surgeons.
> 
> ...


Students do qualify for housing and council tax benefit i think because they are on a low income


----------



## grumpy goby (Jan 18, 2012)

tashax said:


> Students do qualify for housing and council tax benefit i think because they are on a low income


I dont think they qualify for housing benefits if they are FT students. They dont pay council tax though if they study >16hrs a week i think (this, i think, is an exemption, not a "benefit" though)


----------



## MontyMaude (Feb 23, 2012)

grumpy goby said:


> I think an unexpected vet fee is not the same as going in after a week - they got the dog knowing they couldnt afford vet bills so i dont think thats right. Most of us, struggle with unexpected vet bills; and excesses etc dont make it easier with insurances, but i think there is a difference between being able to afford a pet and struggling a way down the line, and struggling within days!
> 
> Vet fees are high because Meds are high, clinic running costs are high. Vets are not well paid people in the scheme of things, which suprised me, but they have a lot of costs to cover and that money isnt going to come off magic money trees - so there is no "hidden" motives behind making pets a priviledge - just the normal motives of being able to run and sustain a successful business. (wages for at least 2 vets, number of nurses, clinic itself, meds, kennel area and upkeep for overnighters, Continual development for vets to keep up to date..... it all costs)





Tink82 said:


> I suspected that to be the case.. but again, it begs the question, why are they so high? is it justified or money making?


Vets are somewhat over a barrel as with the drugs they can only buy from certain suppliers, people want all the new fangled technical equipment to help diagnose their pets but don't understand the costs involved in purchasing and the upkeep of the equipment and that they have to train staff to use the equipment the cost or premises and the upkeep of the premises and business rates etc, staff levels, that for every one Vet in the practise their is huge team behind them, from nurses to receptionists, clerical/admin staff who double up to answer telephones, a dispensary assistant, accountant, practise manager, lab staff, cleaners the list is endless but people don't see what goes on behind the scenes, they just see the Vet, the Nurse and the Receptionist and think that that's all it takes to run the place.

Oh and also people don't understand the concept of the CP vouchers for neutering, they just think they get it on the cheap as CP have done a deal with vet but they don't the CP have to pay the vets for each and every op carried out using the voucher but people just don't get that.


----------



## Polimba (Nov 23, 2009)

grumpy goby said:


> I dont think they qualify for housing benefits if they are FT students. They dont pay council tax though if they study >16hrs a week i think (this, i think, is an exemption, not a "benefit" though)


yes i just looked it up, there are exceptions to Housing Benefit e.g. having a child or a disability, but it's not all students. Again Council Tax is an exception not a benefit.


----------



## tashax (Jun 25, 2011)

Well i just applied for a job at my local pdsa so if i get it then we will all know the facts and not just what someone thinks


----------



## CharleyRogan (Feb 20, 2009)

Nope can't get it if a student, but then students can't get benefits apart from child benefit.


----------



## tashax (Jun 25, 2011)

But then surely they couldnt have gotten any vet care for the pup as they were not in receipt of housing benefit


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

tashax said:


> But then surely they couldnt have gotten any vet care for the pup as they were not in receipt of housing benefit


yeah thats right, to get care from the PDSA you have to get housing benefit



> Do you qualify for PDSA Vet Care?
> To qualify, pet owners need to:
> 
> Live within the defined catchment area of a PDSA PetAid hospital or practice service.
> ...


https://www.pdsa.org.uk/pdsa-vet-care/eligibility


----------



## RabbitMonster (Mar 20, 2012)

I do think we're digressing from the point here somewhat. The couple in question should never have been allowed to buy the dog in the first place.


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

Rabbitmonkee said:


> I do think we're digressing from the point here somewhat. The couple in question should never have been allowed to buy the dog in the first place.


thing is whos going to stop them though and how, means test everyone who buys a pet?


----------



## Guest (Sep 5, 2012)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> thing is whos going to stop them though and how, means test everyone who buys a pet?


maybe it's time the pdsa and the like started asking questions and had much stricter policies in place.


----------



## grumpy goby (Jan 18, 2012)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> thing is whos going to stop them though and how, means test everyone who buys a pet?


As i said in my previous post, you cant stop anyone from buying a dog... but that doesnt make it morally or ethically correct to do so. Its a fact of life that silly people will do irresponsible things, due to either ignorance or pure selfishness.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Do we actually know the couple in question were not paying at the PDSA? I just recall years ago with my previous dog having to go to the emergency vets and turned it out it was PDSA, obviously paid them so they must take paying customers too. No idea if charges are lower than "normal" vets

LOL if it turned out they were actually paying customers the whole long debate has been for nothing


----------



## RabbitMonster (Mar 20, 2012)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> thing is whos going to stop them though and how, means test everyone who buys a pet?


It goes back to the original discussion from a good few pages back that we had where we all said (barring you of course) that just because people can get pets, it doesn't mean they should, and charities like the PDSA should have far stricter guidelines. While this, unfortunately, means animals will suffer, it will eventually balance out and hopefully stop people such as this couple who think it's their 'right' to have a pet from getting a pet.


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

diablo said:


> maybe it's time the pdsa and the like started asking questions and had much stricter policies in place.


what kind of questions would be asked though? and dont forget its easy to lie


----------



## RabbitMonster (Mar 20, 2012)

DoodlesRule said:


> Do we actually know the couple in question were not paying at the PDSA? I just recall years ago with my previous dog having to go to the emergency vets and turned it out it was PDSA, obviously paid them so they must take paying customers too. No idea if charges are lower than "normal" vets
> 
> LOL if it turned out they were actually paying customers the whole long debate has been for nothing


From this, I'm going with no - they couldn't afford vet's bills so took it to the PDSA because it was free:



Tink82 said:


> I was at the PDSA a lot this weekend, emergency on Saturday.. while I was there, a couple came in with an 8 week old puppy (pedigree apparently) and I was ear wigging.. they were students and couldn't afford to take it to the vets.


----------



## Guest (Sep 5, 2012)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> what kind of questions would be asked though? and dont forget its easy to lie


it's also very easy to be caught out when your put on the spot!


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

DoodlesRule said:


> Do we actually know the couple in question were not paying at the PDSA? I just recall years ago with my previous dog having to go to the emergency vets and turned it out it was PDSA, obviously paid them so they must take paying customers too. No idea if charges are lower than "normal" vets
> 
> LOL if it turned out they were actually paying customers the whole long debate has been for nothing


basically if you go to the PDSA you pay (donate) as much are you are able to

so yes the couple would have paid something and yes yes before people start it wouldnt have been enough to cover the treatment but they would have still paid something


----------



## RabbitMonster (Mar 20, 2012)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> what kind of questions would be asked though? and dont forget its easy to lie


I don't know and as it has been said before, this is another discussion topic altogether, so if this is something you wish to discuss, I suggest starting another thread rather than taking this one off course.

I think we should stick to the topic of this thread in our posts - the topic is "should people who cannot afford things like vet's bills get a pet and then abuse the emergency systems in place".

I believe the resounding answer is no. I don't see any other reason for the discussion to continue after such an overwhelming response.


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

diablo said:


> it's also very easy to be caught out when your put on the spot!


it can be

unless you are a very good liar

tbh i think people who use the PDSA should have to prove their income IE bank account statements etc


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

I dont know if this has already been said but..

what about the people who work who get people on benefits to take their animals to the pdsa? ...how would that be policed? Not everyone gets their animals chipped, even if the animal was chipped it takes a few weeks for the chip info to be changed when it has a new owner.....


----------



## MontyMaude (Feb 23, 2012)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> so yes the couple would have paid something and yes yes before people start it wouldnt have been enough to cover the treatment but they would have still paid something


No they could have walked out with out donating anything many do, as they are that brazen that they don't take any cash with them or just make a paltry donation of a few pounds.


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

harley bear said:


> I dont know if this has already been said but..
> 
> what about the people who work who get people on benefits to take their animals to the pdsa? ...how would that be policed? Not everyone gets their animals chipped, even if the animal was chipped it takes a few weeks for the chip info to be changed when it has a new owner.....


now that is disgusting


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> now that is disgusting


It happens...and it happens on a daily basis. My neighbour offered to take vegas to the pdsa to get his nuts done for free.


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

harley bear said:


> It happens...and it happens on a daily basis. My neighbour offered to take vegas to the pdsa to get his nuts done for free.


jesus


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> basically if you go to the PDSA you pay (donate) as much are you are able to
> 
> so yes the couple would have paid something and yes yes before people start it wouldnt have been enough to cover the treatment but they would have still paid something


The vets I used at the time used another practice for out of hours cover (which turned out to be the PDSA), I was told what the charge would be and was presented with a normal bill


----------



## tashax (Jun 25, 2011)

At my old vets there out of hours vet was the pdsa, £104 as soon as you walk through the door and everything else on top of that. I willing paid it, at least they are making money somehow and they were brilliant with my dog


----------



## Tink82 (Mar 22, 2009)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> basically if you go to the PDSA you pay (donate) as much are you are able to
> 
> *so yes the couple would have paid something* and yes yes before people start it wouldnt have been enough to cover the treatment but they would have still paid something


No they may not have. You only have to pay for routine vacc's and nail clipping as far as I was told.. I have yet to pay anything


----------



## Tink82 (Mar 22, 2009)

harley bear said:


> It happens...and it happens on a daily basis. My neighbour offered to take vegas to the pdsa to get his nuts done for free.


That is fraud. If caught, you will get done for fraud.. and people do get caught


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

Tink82 said:


> That is fraud. If caught, you will get done for fraud.. and people do get caught


We didnt do it.

It is very hard to prove if caught.


----------



## Tink82 (Mar 22, 2009)

CharleyRogan said:


> Nope can't get it if a student, but then students can't get benefits apart from child benefit.


If they have a child they are entitled to all the usual benefits except IS/JSA which can be claimed during summer



Polimba said:


> I think generally people have a skewed perception of how much drugs and medical cost, because of the NHS.
> 
> Without going too deep into things drug companies spend millions on on R&D and most drugs don't even reach the patient. There has to be a return on investment. Not hat I agree with everything drug companies do, you understand, but it's not just the physical tablet you are paying for. Vets train for 7 years(?), again I feel they should be rewarded for their skills and knowledge, the same as human doctors and surgeons.
> 
> ...


I have got my rights dammit!!!  just kidding! I get CT as a student and HB as a lone parent.. I'm very lucky in ways


----------



## Tink82 (Mar 22, 2009)

harley bear said:


> We didnt do it.
> 
> It is very hard to prove if caught.


63 people from my local branch were convicted of fraud last year so it's not that hard


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

Tink82 said:


> No they may not have. You only have to pay for routine vacc's and nail clipping as far as I was told.. I have yet to pay anything


when we took patch we had to pay for the (is it metacam) or something they gave to us for her


----------



## Tink82 (Mar 22, 2009)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> when we took patch we had to pay for the (is it metacam) or something they gave to us for her


 do they work from a different set of rules per branch then? I wasn't charged for anything (obvs going later in the month to donate a lare sum and with chocs for the vet and nurses as he was a total nightmare for them)


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

Tink82 said:


> do they work from a different set of rules per branch then? I wasn't charged for anything (obvs going later in the month to donate a lare sum and with chocs for the vet and nurses as he was a total nightmare for them)


ive no idea tbh

but i was told that we would have to donate at least £10 (we gave £20, would have given more but thats all i had on me at the time)


----------



## petforum (Oct 30, 2007)

Personally, i wouldnt take on a pet unless I could afford to care for it, but many people do get pets without having the money. The same with children, I wouldnt have children unless I could afford to care for them properly.


----------



## Tink82 (Mar 22, 2009)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> ive no idea tbh
> 
> but i was told that we would have to donate at least £10 (we gave £20, would have given more but thats all i had on me at the time)


An old guy came in with his labrador that had hurt it's foot apparently.. emergency appointment, treatment inc. a cone and he gave 50p


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

Tink82 said:


> An old guy came in with his labrador that had hurt it's foot apparently.. emergency appointment, treatment inc. a cone and he gave 50p


WOW 

i would always give as much as i could


----------



## Tink82 (Mar 22, 2009)

Perhaps I should just stop ear-wigging


----------



## tazsdad (Jun 13, 2011)

sorry not read all the posts im on esa and always tried to take my dog to local vet and pay.however he stated he could no longer treat him without i paid for skin scrapes and blood tests £500 so took him to pdsa they put him back on tablets and he is fine.however the pdsa do not fund the tests my vet wanted nor do they think they are needed.so was my vet saying i should have insurance to make money.also to my understning the pdsa charge for innoculations neutering and worming.i always give a good contribution but why do they always charge £30 consultation fee,my local vet only charges first consultation but as i say wants more tests.:confused1::confused1:


----------



## CRL (Jan 3, 2012)

DoodlesRule said:


> Do we actually know the couple in question were not paying at the PDSA? I just recall years ago with my previous dog having to go to the emergency vets and turned it out it was PDSA, obviously paid them so they must take paying customers too. No idea if charges are lower than "normal" vets
> 
> LOL if it turned out they were actually paying customers the whole long debate has been for nothing


my local vets is a pdsa vet, but its also a small private vets. i dont use the pdsa part of the vets so pay full price. i dont know if they charge less than other vets but then again vets in different areas charge different ammounts for the same thing. i know when i had an inch taken of my Eihbears tail it cost me £80 at my vet, the same operation cost a friend 25 miles away £200 at her vets and that was with staff discount.


----------



## welshjet (Mar 31, 2011)

newfiesmum said:


> As I understand it from their website, it has nothing to do with your income but whether you are getting housing or council tax benefit. If you don't get either of those, you don't get pdsa, no matter how hard up you are.


I think thats half the problem with Pdsa, i personally think they need to redefine their ccondotions', i know quite a few people who are in full time work on good wages who receive housng benefit, whereas other people should have it but dont - a classic example similar to this was i claimed jsa and because i had worked it was contribution based say eg for 50:00 or whatever it was, joe bloggs never worked received same amount but as income based, however because i was on contribution part, i was not entitled to things that joe bloggs had and for free. The whole benefits system needs to be re-thought, but thats another thread



Tink82 said:


> An old guy came in with his labrador that had hurt it's foot apparently.. emergency appointment, treatment inc. a cone and he gave 50p


Im sorry but that is absolutely appaling, you cant even get a bar of chocolate for that amount, id be too ashamed to hand that over, elderly or not


----------



## thedogsmother (Aug 28, 2008)

Tink82 said:


> An old guy came in with his labrador that had hurt it's foot apparently.. emergency appointment, treatment inc. a cone and he gave 50p


Yeah thats roughly what Ive paid recently for Bellas hurt foot


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

welshjet said:


> i know quite a few people who are in full time work on good wages who receive housng benefit


thats the point i was making, people could be on the fiddle and be getting housing/council tax benefit

which is why i think instead of it being a case of getting those benefits to qualify you should be means tested on your income


----------



## Guest (Sep 6, 2012)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> thats the point i was making, people could be on the fiddle and be getting housing/council tax benefit
> 
> which is why i think instead of it being a case of getting those benefits to qualify you should be means tested on your income


Just because someone works full time that doesn't mean they are on the fiddle if they receive housing benefit, it is a means tested benefit so goes by how much you earn not how many hours you work


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

B3rnie said:


> Just because someone works full time that doesn't mean they are on the fiddle if they receive housing benefit, it is a means tested benefit so goes by how much you earn not how many hours you work


well in that case they wont be on 'good wages' then

unless their rent is £1000 a week lol

my OH worked and got a little HB (£5 a week) he was on £150 a week, wouldnt call that good wages


----------



## Guest (Sep 6, 2012)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> well in that case they wont be on 'good wages' then
> 
> unless their rent is £1000 a week lol
> 
> my OH worked and got a little HB (£5 a week) he was on £150 a week, wouldnt call that good wages


Where I live £1000 a week isn't too far a stretch for rent


----------



## Guest (Sep 6, 2012)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> well in that case they wont be on 'good wages' then
> 
> unless their rent is £1000 a week lol
> 
> my OH worked and got a little HB (£5 a week) he was on £150 a week, wouldnt call that good wages


from what i've just read your allowed to earn £16,000 a year and over , however a lot depends on your circumstances.


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

B3rnie said:


> Where I live £1000 a week isn't too far a stretch for rent


wow  im pleased i dont live in your area (no offence lol)



diablo said:


> from what i've just read your allowed to earn £16,000 a year and over , however a lot depends on your circumstances.


what?!?!? 

thats ridiculous!


----------



## MontyMaude (Feb 23, 2012)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> wow  im pleased i dont live in your area (no offence lol)
> 
> what?!?!?
> 
> thats ridiculous!


but if you live in area that is hugely expensive for rents then it isn't that much, rents where I live are crazy as wages are really low and employment opportunities few and far between.


----------



## RetroLemons (Nov 11, 2010)

For those of you who are making comments about people only donating a small amount of money at the time, you have no idea if they have set up a DD to donate on a monthly basis.

My parent when they used the PDSA had a DD set up so they were donating a set amount each month for each dog, whether they went to the vets or not they would also try and donate when they went in, however being on a low income they couldn't always guarantee the money at the time.

Please don't always assume the worst in people.


----------



## Polimba (Nov 23, 2009)

B3rnie said:


> Where I live £1000 a week isn't too far a stretch for rent


I know this is waaaayyy off topic, and I've had a boring drive home to mull this over, but where in the country is the average rent £4000 per month with no job opportunities and low pay? You'd have to have a household income of way in excess of £100K per year to afford that if you were working.

The most expensive places to rent are London, Slough, Watford, Guildford and Bath. Looking in Rightmove the 'average' family home is nowhere near £4000k per month, except London, but then that's not an area of low pay and few job opportunities, neither are the other places, except maybe Bath, but the properties in the £1000 per week bracket are your Georgian properties in the centre of town 

OK I'll go and get a life


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

RetroLemons said:


> For those of you who are making comments about people only donating a small amount of money at the time, you have no idea if they have set up a DD to donate on a monthly basis.
> 
> My parent when they used the PDSA had a DD set up so they were donating a set amount each month for each dog, whether they went to the vets or not they would also try and donate when they went in, however being on a low income they couldn't always guarantee the money at the time.
> 
> Please don't always assume the worst in people.


100% agree, well said! :thumbup: :thumbsup:

said people could go back in at a later date and give more money

ive said that if i was in that situation i would sell my things and take the money in at a later date, others may well do the same


----------



## tashax (Jun 25, 2011)

Sorry but when you work in charity and see it everyday then i will. I have no faith in humanity


----------



## RetroLemons (Nov 11, 2010)

tashax said:


> Sorry but when you work in charity and see it everyday then i will. I have no faith in humanity


That is still no excuse for tarring everyone with the same brush.


----------



## Guest (Sep 6, 2012)

Polimba said:


> I know this is waaaayyy off topic, and I've had a boring drive home to mull this over, but where in the country is the average rent £4000 per month with no job opportunities and low pay? You'd have to have a household income of way in excess of £100K per year to afford that if you were working.
> 
> The most expensive places to rent are London, Slough, Watford, Guildford and Bath. Looking in Rightmove the 'average' family home is nowhere near £4000k per month, except London, but then that's not an area of low pay and few job opportunities, neither are the other places, except maybe Bath, but the properties in the £1000 per week bracket are your Georgian properties in the centre of town
> 
> OK I'll go and get a life


Try Cambridge and Newmarket area where a one bed flat can be around £600 a month, I never said it was an average, I said it wasn't far stretched in the area that I live in


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

RetroLemons said:


> That is still no excuse for tarring everyone with the same brush.


totally agree and its what ive been saying all along

basically unless you know literally every person that comes through the door IE sit and stare at the door all day you dont know if those people will come back later with more money

or you dont know if they donate in those PDSA tins that are in shops (i often, well i always do if i see one) or they could be giving things to the PDSA shop to sell or they could donate their time to the PDSA shop

fact is even if you work there you dont know for a fact what these people are like and what they are doing when they arent there


----------



## tashax (Jun 25, 2011)

Im not, im sorry but i did not sit here and say everybody did it, i said the majority of people i have come across in my line of work did it.


----------



## MontyMaude (Feb 23, 2012)

Hampshire/Wiltshire border near Salisbury/Stockbridge/Winchester the average 3 bed house for rent in a semi decent area is around £1000 plus council tax, water, electric, gas etc so a low wage doesn't go very far here


----------



## RetroLemons (Nov 11, 2010)

tashax said:


> Im not, im sorry but i did not sit here and say everybody did it, i said the majority of people i have come across in my line of work did it.


I didn't post about anyone in particular either, however when you replied I responded and it came across as though you did. So I'm sorry if I misunderstood.


----------



## Polimba (Nov 23, 2009)

B3rnie said:


> Try Cambridge and Newmarket area where a one bed flat can be around £600 a month, I never said it was an average, I said it wasn't far stretched in the area that I live in


Sorry I'm not trying to be difficult I was just intrigued. Did you mean £1000 per month, not a week?

I know you didn't say it was average but I was coming from the angle of the cost of a modest family home to rent, £4000k per month seems pretty far stretched outside London


----------



## Guest (Sep 6, 2012)

Polimba said:


> Sorry I'm not trying to be difficult I was just intrigued. Did you mean £1000 per month, not a week?
> 
> I know you didn't say it was average but I was coming from the angle of the cost of a modest family home to rent, £4000k per month seems pretty far stretched outside London


Nope I meant £1000 per week.

3 bedroom semi-detached house to rent in Lovell Road (off Milton Road), CB4

3 bedroom terraced house to rent in Huntingdon Road, Cambridge, CB3, CB3

2 bedroom terraced house to rent in 10 Catherine Street, Cambridge, CB1 3AW, CB1

Cambridge and Newmarket are very expensive places to live due to the universities and race track.


----------



## Polimba (Nov 23, 2009)

B3rnie said:


> Nope I meant £1000 per week.
> 
> 3 bedroom semi-detached house to rent in Lovell Road (off Milton Road), CB4
> 
> ...


Those rents are per month


----------



## Guest (Sep 6, 2012)

Polimba said:


> Those rents are per month


Oopps I linked to the feature properties 
Lets try that again :lol:

5 bedroom house to rent in Grange Road, Cambridge CB3 9AS, CB3

4 bedroom detached house to rent in Storeys Way, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, CB3

This one is £2000 for a house share 
2 bedroom house share to rent in Newmarket Road, Cambridge, CB5, CB5

As I said £1000 a week isn't average, but in this area it isn't uncommon.


----------



## CharleyRogan (Feb 20, 2009)

In Formby, the average cost of a one bed flat is £750, with the most expensive being 5 bedrooms at £2k a month. So I do think you could get houses at £1K a week, more likely down south though.


----------



## Polimba (Nov 23, 2009)

B3rnie said:


> Oopps I linked to the feature properties
> Lets try that again :lol:
> 
> 5 bedroom house to rent in Grange Road, Cambridge CB3 9AS, CB3
> ...


Lol I like looking houses, so no worries.

I think my meandering point, which did relate to the thread honest, was that how many people would be getting Housing Benefit to cover £1000 per week to rent, when ypu'd need to earn in excess of £100k per annun if you worked. I don't deny they are expensive but you don't need to spend that much. I don't think I'm explaining very well.

I'm now obsessed with Rightmove :scared:


----------



## kodakkuki (Aug 8, 2011)

B3rnie said:


> Oopps I linked to the feature properties
> Lets try that again :lol:
> 
> 5 bedroom house to rent in Grange Road, Cambridge CB3 9AS, CB3
> ...


I only looked at the last one, but it's PCM as well...

My sis went to uni and lived in a studio apt in Brunel- it was over £500pcm, and you could rent a 3-4bed semi with a big garden here for that... So Huge differences with prices of different areas!

(eta- and I took Ages posting and this has already been said... Pologies  )

And I think it is pretty safe to say that Most of the people using my areas pdsa would try to get away with paying as little as possible for any and all treatment- and I have known of someone taking a friends dog in as thier own and charging the friend for doing so! 
I qualify for pdsa help, but so far (touch wood) I have thankfuly been able to avoid having to use their service, or register, but know that if I ever did new their help, I would do anything to repay them... Where as a certain relitive once borrowed £10 off me as the donation for £200 treatment... Then went out that afternoon to buy a new LCD!

They do need to rethink a lot of their policies though IMO, not only to stop the likes of the above from happening, but also their 'only one pedigree' rule. What about people who adopt rescue peds? As in already neutered rescues- how could that be any worse than taking in an unaltered crossbreed or mutt?


----------



## tashax (Jun 25, 2011)

I live in a rather large 3 bedroom house, 2 double bed one single. Toilet upstairs and a bathroom downstairs. Living room, dining room and kitchen. Front and back garden and my rent is..............£360 p/m  you all need to move to derby


----------



## kodakkuki (Aug 8, 2011)

tashax said:


> I live in a rather large 3 bedroom house, 2 double bed one single. Toilet upstairs and a bathroom downstairs. Living room, dining room and kitchen. Front and back garden and my rent is..............£360 p/m  you all need to move to derby




I might just have to do that you know!


----------



## Guest (Sep 6, 2012)

Polimba said:


> Lol I like looking houses, so no worries.
> 
> I think my meandering point, which did relate to the thread honest, was that how many people would be getting Housing Benefit to cover £1000 per week to rent, when ypu'd need to earn in excess of £100k per annun if you worked. I don't deny they are expensive but you don't need to spend that much. I don't think I'm explaining very well.
> 
> I'm now obsessed with Rightmove :scared:


£100k per year isn't uncommon here, Cambridge is a very rich area. It is full of Doctors, professors, London commuters and people like Stephen Hawking :aureola: 
You would be surprised at how many people do get housing benefit for these houses, especially with the redundancies at the moment. You are right that you don't need to spend that amount on rent, however in this area particularly (as I know this area lol) the affordable areas aren't really areas that you would want children growing up in 
And when it comes to people losing their jobs the council would rather pay for rent for the house you are already in rather than try to find a council house (8 year waiting list here if you don't have kids).


----------



## Polimba (Nov 23, 2009)

kodakkuki said:


> I only looked at the last one, but it's PCM as well...
> 
> My sis went to uni and lived in a studio apt in Brunel- it was over £500pcm, and you could rent a 3-4bed semi with a big garden here for that... So Huge differences with prices of different areas!
> 
> ...


*
*

It is a bit of an odd rule IMO, if I was ever unfortunate enough to find myself having to use the PDSA I'd be stuffed. I have two pedigrees, my dog was bought as a pup but my cat is a rescue Ragdoll. It seems a bit unfair I couldn't get her treated but if I'd adopted a moggy they could both be treated. I wonder the rationale behind their policy?


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> thats the point i was making, people could be on the fiddle and be getting housing/council tax benefit
> 
> which is why i think instead of it being a case of getting those benefits to qualify you should be means tested on your income


Housing and council tax benefits _are_ means tested. So what extra means testing could charities possibly bring in that would show those on fiddle to be, well, on the fiddle?



tashax said:


> I live in a rather large 3 bedroom house, 2 double bed one single. Toilet upstairs and a bathroom downstairs. Living room, dining room and kitchen. Front and back garden and my rent is..............£360 p/m  you all need to move to derby




You cant even rent a studio flat where I live for less than £550 a month - and thats about the cheapest studio flat you will find!

Might have to look into the canals in Derby


----------



## tashax (Jun 25, 2011)

MCWillow said:


> Housing and council tax benefits _are_ means tested. So what extra means testing could charities possibly bring in that would show those on fiddle to be, well, on the fiddle?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yay!! Everyone move here, i have a spare bedroom to put you up in for a little while


----------



## Polimba (Nov 23, 2009)

B3rnie said:


> £100k per year isn't uncommon here, Cambridge is a very rich area. It is full of Doctors, professors, London commuters and people like Stephen Hawking :aureola:
> You would be surprised at how many people do get housing benefit for these houses, especially with the redundancies at the moment. You are right that you don't need to spend that amount on rent, however in this area particularly (as I know this area lol) the affordable areas aren't really areas that you would want children growing up in
> And when it comes to people losing their jobs the council would rather pay for rent for the house you are already in rather than try to find a council house (8 year waiting list here if you don't have kids).


It doesn't surprise me there are high earners in the area, that's why I was intrigued when you said £1000 per week in an area with few jobs and low earnings, it wouldn't make sense because no one could afford it so there would be no market IYSWIM

I think it's something that's being looked at but I can never get my head around how you can live in a property on Housing Benefit you couldn't afford to live in even if you worked in an 'average' job.

Sorry I'll stop derailing.


----------



## Guest (Sep 6, 2012)

Polimba said:


> It doesn't surprise me there are high earners in the area, that's why I was intrigued when you said £1000 per week in an area with few jobs and low earnings, it wouldn't make sense because no one could afford it so there would be no market IYSWIM
> 
> *I think it's something that's being looked at but I can never get my head around how you can live in a property on Housing Benefit you couldn't afford to live in even if you worked in an 'average' job. *
> 
> Sorry I'll stop derailing.


I agree 100% with the bolded, I've never understood it either but then that falls back into the "Well if I'm entitled to free handouts then I will apply for it" attitude 
But then saying that why is it fair that someone has to move away from family and friends just because they have fallen on hard times.


----------



## oggers86 (Nov 14, 2011)

tashax said:


> I live in a rather large 3 bedroom house, 2 double bed one single. Toilet upstairs and a bathroom downstairs. Living room, dining room and kitchen. Front and back garden and my rent is..............£360 p/m  you all need to move to derby


I live in the Derby area and our rent is £510 for a 2 bed semi!

I personally wouldnt rely on the PDSA unless I was in real financial hardship, if I wasnt with my fiancee I couldnt have got the cats, I couldnt afford to rent or buy on my own let alone feed the cats or give them the treatments they need without an unexpected vets bill.

An unexpected vets bill would hit us a bit now but we have the means of being able to either pay it or put it on c/c and pay it back.


----------



## tashax (Jun 25, 2011)

oggers86 said:


> I live in the Derby area and our rent is £510 for a 2 bed semi!
> 
> I personally wouldnt rely on the PDSA unless I was in real financial hardship, if I wasnt with my fiancee I couldnt have got the cats, I couldnt afford to rent or buy on my own let alone feed the cats or give them the treatments they need without an unexpected vets bill.
> 
> An unexpected vets bill would hit us a bit now but we have the means of being able to either pay it or put it on c/c and pay it back.


Who are you renting from


----------



## oggers86 (Nov 14, 2011)

tashax said:


> Who are you renting from


Private landlord through estate agents in Hilton. Looked at Spondon, Borrowash, Littleover, Mickleover and they are all similar..


----------



## tashax (Jun 25, 2011)

Ohhh well im just outside the city center, its cheaper. Though i wouldnt be able to afford to live in borrowash


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

its like £280 a month for our rent


----------



## tashax (Jun 25, 2011)

Mickleover and littleover are also expensive


----------



## RetroLemons (Nov 11, 2010)

Polimba said:


> [/B]
> 
> It is a bit of an odd rule IMO, if I was ever unfortunate enough to find myself having to use the PDSA I'd be stuffed. I have two pedigrees, my dog was bought as a pup but my cat is a rescue Ragdoll. It seems a bit unfair I couldn't get her treated but if I'd adopted a moggy they could both be treated. I wonder the rationale behind their policy?


It's a ridiculous ruling! My parents wrote in about it because all of ours are peds but two of them were free to good homes and Sadie was bought at a time when my dad had a lot of money coming in.

There reasoning? If you can buy a pedigree (ignoring the rescue part of the letter) then you can afford vet care, because circumstances don't change or anything... They'll also happily treat designer breeds though?

As I said before, ridiculous! It makes me a bit angry tbh because my parents are now worried about Sadie and Molly who are getting old. Neither one of which had a health problem before, but my parents donated to them anyway for when they might need it but now when might actually need it the PDSA won't treat them. They'll find a way to help them, but it'll impact their own food and bills if it's too much


----------



## grumpy goby (Jan 18, 2012)

all these renting figures make me sad....i live in a 2bed flat, and not in an affluent area, and its £750 rent excluding bills


----------



## Tink82 (Mar 22, 2009)

grumpy goby said:


> all these renting figures make me sad....i live in a 2bed flat, and not in an affluent area, and its £750 rent excluding bills


I paid that to live in a 3 bed flat in Waterloo (London)


----------



## Tink82 (Mar 22, 2009)

tashax said:


> Mickleover and littleover are also expensive


yes, I hear moreover, turnover and combover are pricey too.....

I have no idea where you mean


----------



## oggers86 (Nov 14, 2011)

tashax said:


> Ohhh well im just outside the city center, its cheaper. Though i wouldnt be able to afford to live in borrowash


I found Borrowash was cheaper than here but we picked where we live because of the area. We looked at a house in Spondon which was amazing but when we looked at the crime rates and compared it to Hilton we picked Hilton.

Ideally I would like to move somewhere a bit more rural and "pretty" but its not looking likely for our first bought house, we will probably have to buy somewhere of a similar size and similar area.

When I was living near Sheffield I was looking at studio flats for £350.


----------



## Polimba (Nov 23, 2009)

oggers86 said:


> I found Borrowash was cheaper than here but we picked where we live because of the area. *We looked at a house in Spondon which was amazing but when we looked at the crime rates and compared it to Hilton we picked Hilton. *
> 
> Ideally I would like to move somewhere a bit more rural and "pretty" but its not looking likely for our first bought house, we will probably have to buy somewhere of a similar size and similar area.
> 
> When I was living near Sheffield I was looking at studio flats for £350.


My mum used to live in Spondon...thought I'd add that 

I don't think she had anything to do with the crime rates :aureola:


----------



## oggers86 (Nov 14, 2011)

Polimba said:


> My mum used to live in Spondon...thought I'd add that
> 
> I don't think she had anything to do with the crime rates :aureola:


Lol, the particular road we looked at was the worst in the area which puzzled me as I once went and sat outside the house in my car at midnight on a Friday/Saturday night, not a peep from anybody...

Ah the things you do when house hunting.


----------



## tashax (Jun 25, 2011)

Just a little something to add. I have just come across a brilliant picture that says it all really. Its called the pets bill of rights, number 5 says

*We have the right to quality health care*

Says it all really, if you cannot afford quality health care for you pet when purchasing then dont buy one, why should you rely on a charity when you could wait until you can afford to pay it yourself??


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

tashax said:


> I live in a rather large 3 bedroom house, 2 double bed one single. Toilet upstairs and a bathroom downstairs. Living room, dining room and kitchen. Front and back garden and my rent is..............£360 p/m  you all need to move to derby


Same here in Notts but no gardens, no heating, no double glazing for £350/month. Couldn't afford anything more and I get paid roughly £16k/yr


----------



## kodakkuki (Aug 8, 2011)

Coming back to post again with my tail between my legs so to speak. 

I have been planning to get either degus or rats from a local breeder some time very soon. Well, today I found an add for two beautiful 5 month rattie boys on gumtree for free. So heart ruled head and I got them (and was hardly asked Anything from the girl giving them away). I'm now sitting in the vets now clinic waiting to get one of them seen for an extremely bad chest infection. There is a dog pantin heavily opposite me- blocking the voices of his owners- but I can still hear little Reid wheezing in the carrier on the floor. I was 100% going to take them for checkups on Monday since I only got them at 6.30 today, but no way could I pay the £80 consult at the moment  because they would need it upfront... Anything else they need here I will more than happily pay, I just don't have the consult fee! 
So it's very possible the puppy people in the op goin themselves in the same situation... Now don't I feel bad for judging 
So the pdsa are angels- even if they do need to rethink some policies a bit.


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

On the other hand, one of the things I factored in when getting Willow (my first kitten) was a consult fee, as I wanted to get a vet check ASAP, and get her registered, just for my own peace of mind.

Now, to be fair I didnt do that with Alfie (our guinea pig), but I would imagine most people getting cats or dogs would take that into consideration?


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

MCWillow said:


> On the other hand, one of the things I factored in when getting Willow (my first kitten) was a consult fee, as I wanted to get a vet check ASAP, and get her registered, just for my own peace of mind.
> 
> Now, to be fair I didnt do that with Alfie (our guinea pig), but I would imagine* most people getting cats or dogs would take that into consideration?*


For the responsible pet owners yes, for the irresponsible ones no. An old friend of mine (I say old because I ditched them because of the way they treat their dog) got a puppy at the same time as me, it's never had its vaccs, I doubt it will be neutered, it's never even been weighed. So far Kes has cost me a couple of hundred or so on routine things and an eye infection from the vet.

While we're on the subject of irresponsible people this couple were both on the dole, yet somehow forked out for a £600 husky pup (from a BYB may I add). How is this even possible? How do people on benefits with no rich family or savings have more money to spend than me when I work my ass off? Some things in this country really do pee me off.


----------



## WelshOneEmma (Apr 11, 2009)

Phoolf said:


> For the responsible pet owners yes, for the irresponsible ones no. An old friend of mine (I say old because I ditched them because of the way they treat their dog) got a puppy at the same time as me, it's never had its vaccs, I doubt it will be neutered, it's never even been weighed. So far Kes has cost me a couple of hundred or so on routine things and an eye infection from the vet.
> 
> While we're on the subject of irresponsible people this couple were both on the dole, yet somehow forked out for a £600 husky pup (from a BYB may I add). How is this even possible? *How do people on benefits with no rich family or savings have more money to spend than me when I work my ass off?* Some things in this country really do pee me off.


My next door neighbours are exactly like this! He has only just started working again (his wife had their 4th baby, he took his paternity and liked having the time off - not that he did anything to help her - and kept calling in sick so they sacked him) after having nearly a year 'off'. In that time they got 3 more cats (adding to the one they had already), none of which have seen a vet etc. Someone phoned the RSPCA on them because the girl was being bred from (selling the kittens) despite having a HUGE hernia (I got blamed for that, cue lots of threats) and she told me she couldn't afford to get her neutered so was given a voucher from the RSPCA. yet the previous week she had forked out £800 for a new laptop as the kids broke the old one :mad2:

They have now bought a "pedigree" GSD (he's from a puppy farm) for £300. He is flea ridden (despite me giving them a full thing of frontline to use on him), crated most of the day, fed crap food, walks funny on his back legs (we've all said this to them but the husband knows best apparently), has dew claws on his back legs that look like they are half off and has not been to see the vets yet (I thought they do free kitten/puppy checks??? At least mine does).

Its excuse after excuse about him not going. Latest one - it was the husband's job to take him and he couldn't be arsed 

She does love the dog but I feel so sorry for him. the kids are horrible to him (especially one) and the husband, who went and bought it without consulting her, doesnt do anything with him. I just feel in a years time he's going to be rehomed to the highest bidder, or just dumped. They aren't doing any training with him either.

Sorry, that turned into a bit of a rant!


----------



## RetroLemons (Nov 11, 2010)

Phoolf said:


> For the responsible pet owners yes, for the irresponsible ones no. An old friend of mine (I say old because I ditched them because of the way they treat their dog) got a puppy at the same time as me, it's never had its vaccs, I doubt it will be neutered, it's never even been weighed. So far Kes has cost me a couple of hundred or so on routine things and an eye infection from the vet.
> 
> While we're on the subject of irresponsible people this couple were both on the dole, yet somehow forked out for a £600 husky pup (from a BYB may I add). How is this even possible? How do people on benefits with no rich family or savings have more money to spend than me when I work my ass off? Some things in this country really do pee me off.


I don't know the family but credit? Saving what little they could over a long period of time?

Im not defending them as it sounds like they really shouldn't have got a dog, but these are just a couple of things off the top of my head.


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

Phoolf said:


> While we're on the subject of irresponsible people this couple were both on the dole, yet somehow forked out for a £600 husky pup (from a BYB may I add). How is this even possible? How do people on benefits with no rich family or savings have more money to spend than me when I work my ass off? Some things in this country really do pee me off.


they dont, something doesnt add up with your story, do you realise what couples rate of JSA is?


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

RetroLemons said:


> I don't know the family but credit? Saving what little they could over a long period of time?
> 
> Im not defending them as it sounds like they really shouldn't have got a dog, but these are just a couple of things off the top of my head.


i wouldnt waste your time, those kind of ideas wont be believed, people would rather believe that those on benefits are getting more than those who work when the reality of it is very different


----------



## Guest (Sep 9, 2012)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> i wouldnt waste your time, those kind of ideas wont be believed, people would rather believe that those on benefits are getting more than those who work when the reality of it is very different


*Some* people on benefits *do* get more than those that work. *Some* people make a living on ripping off the benefits system, and they do a very good job.

In fact I know of two people that earn around £300 to £500 a week in benefits, many people in full time work couldn't make that if they tried


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

B3rnie said:


> *Some* people on benefits *do* get more than those that work. *Some* people make a living on ripping off the benefits system, and they do a very good job.
> 
> In fact I know of two people that earn around £300 to £500 a week in benefits, many people in full time work couldn't make that if they tried


you will usually find those people who make more than those working have either

1) a few kids
2) a disability (whether that be made up or real)
3) a kid/few kids with a disability (again either made up or real)

a couple with no children and no illnesses will NOT get a lot, and i would know, me and my OH have been on JSA before, the rate for a couple (if i remember rightly) is £111 a week


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> you will usually find those people who make more than those working have either
> 
> 1) a few kids
> 2) a disability (whether that be made up or real)
> ...


£111 between you is more than I have some weeks after paying rent and council tax etc. You say £111 but how much is it actually per week when you take that into consideration?


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

Phoolf said:


> £111 between you is more than I have some weeks after paying rent and council tax etc. You say £111 but how much is it actually per week when you take that into consideration?


well if you're taking rent and council tax into consideration then it will depend how much their rent and council tax is

i assumed we were talking about income after rent/CT IE money you had left to spend, in which case £111 isnt a lot

and that money is split between 2 so its really not a lot at all


----------



## Guest (Sep 9, 2012)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> you will usually find those people who make more than those working have either
> 
> 3) a kid/few kids with a disability (again either made up or real)


i take great offense to that. how can a child or parent make up a disability??? you really have no idea do you?? do you actually know how hard it is to get dla for your child??? it is actually probably easier for an adult to get dla than it is for a parent to get dla for their child.


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

diablo said:


> i take great offense to that. how can a child or parent make up a disability??? you really have no idea do you?? do you actually know how hard it is to get dla for your child??? it is actually probably easier for an adult to get dla than it is for a parent to get dla for their child.


it does happen, i have more of an idea than you know


----------



## Guest (Sep 9, 2012)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> you will usually find those people who make more than those working have either
> 
> 1) a few kids
> 2) a disability (whether that be made up or real)
> ...


I suggest you come back down to the real world love, you obviously have no idea how dla works 

And TBF that has nothing to do with the post I made, I was just yet again correcting your generalisation...


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

B3rnie said:


> I suggest you come back down to the real world love, you obviously have no idea how dla works


i do know how it works


----------



## Guest (Sep 9, 2012)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> i do know how it works


You must work for Atos then, cos they are the only ones that seem to be in the know


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

B3rnie said:


> You must work for Atos then, cos they are the only ones that seem to be in the know


i dont work for them no and going on what people say about them i never would


----------



## Guest (Sep 9, 2012)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> it does happen, i have more of an idea than you know


i dont think theres many parents or children out there that would make anything like that up , im sure they'd much rather they were healthy and able to do most things and im sure their parents feel the same , i know which i'd rather have


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

diablo said:


> i dont think theres many parents or children out there that would make anything like that up , im sure they'd much rather they were healthy and able to do most things and im sure their parents feel the same , i know which i'd rather have


dont under estimate some people and you can roll your eyes as much as you like, it happens


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

this is going off the point anyway, the point im trying to make is JSA is not loads of money like some people seem to think it is


----------



## Guest (Sep 9, 2012)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> this is going off the point anyway, the point im trying to make is JSA is not loads of money like some people seem to think it is


No one said it was, they said benefits. You're the only one that mentioned a particular one...


----------



## RetroLemons (Nov 11, 2010)

B3rnie said:


> *Some* people on benefits *do* get more than those that work. *Some* people make a living on ripping off the benefits system, and they do a very good job.
> 
> In fact I know of two people that earn around £300 to £500 a week in benefits, many people in full time work couldn't make that if they tried


Re hash - I'm with you that some people are ripping off the system however just because you see someone with something expensive who is on benefits doesn't automatically making them a fraud.

There are after all other ways of getting money together when you have little of it.


----------



## Guest (Sep 9, 2012)

RetroLemons said:


> What's their situation? Are they in a couple? Are one or both disabled? Kids?
> 
> It's great you know what their weekly amount is but without knowing what the situation is that means nothing to any of us here.
> 
> ...


They don't deserve the benefits put it that way, and I never said that no one lies to get benefits I was just clearing up that all people on benefits don't make a lot of money because some people do


----------



## CaveDweller (Jul 19, 2012)

kodakkuki said:


> Hmm, that's a tough one.
> as a rule, I would say no, it's not ok- not if you know from before you get the dog that's it's going to need pdsa help for vet visits (I'm assuming this was for vaccines).
> I don't think pets should be a right... You should have to earn the privilege to have them. Take my cousin for example. A few months ago he bought a pup (and I was Very angry about it) after he left his last dog at the shelter for being too messy and be never took her to an other vet for anything- just the pdsa so he wold only have to give a Small donation- heaven forbid he pay for her spay instead of buying a tv that week!
> So new pup was the same- every jab and checkered was at the expense of the pdsa- then the pup got left up to the pound (this was without me being told btw) at 6 months when he had Evans to much bother.
> ...


I agree totally, you should ear the right. Not everyone deserves pets.

I had to go with the PDSA when the sh*t hit the fan with my circumstances as I needed their help but I didn't want to get rid of my dogs. It was still hard though as they only have a 1pedigree dog rule and I had 3 at the time, all BC's. I gave all the donations I could and if I couldn't give the full amount on the day I would give regular donations to do so. They did a brilliant job with my eldest BC who broke his leg. It cost them £1600ish and I made sure I gave them every penny as soon as I could. I would feel too bad if I didn't, I hate asking others for money or taking advantage of charities. Even when I was stuck as a teenager I didn't even ask my own parents for money.

Everything is back to normal now and the 1 dog that was with PDSA went private after, only to have him put to sleep last year though with a series of problems Changed vets now though as the PDSA were better than my original vets in the first place. They really did do a good job and I'm greatful for it.


----------



## RetroLemons (Nov 11, 2010)

B3rnie said:


> They don't deserve the benefits put it that way, and I never said that no one lies to get benefits I was just clearing up that all people on benefits don't make a lot of money because some people do


Yeah, I edited my post after re-reading yours


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

B3rnie said:


> No one said it was, they said benefits. You're the only one that mentioned a particular one...


actually Phoolf said the couple were on the dole


----------



## RetroLemons (Nov 11, 2010)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> actually Phoolf said the couple were on the dole


I think we're all getting a bit muddled with all the posts


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

Tink82 said:


> I was at the PDSA a lot this weekend, emergency on Saturday.. while I was there, a couple came in with an 8 week old puppy (pedigree apparently) and I was ear wigging.. they were students and couldn't afford to take it to the vets.
> 
> It got me thinking, is it fair to buy a puppy with no income coming in? if you can fork out for the initial price of the dog, food, bedding etc etc but you can't take it to the vets, is it ok?
> 
> ...


One would assume if they had an 8 week old pedigree puppy, they had paid a not inconsiderable sum to acquire it? then they are taking it to the PDSA for presumably vaccinations?

Owning any animal is a privelege not a right.

Our local Vets Now is based in the PDSA offices - I've always been very happy with them (even though they charge £120 to walk through the door).

But a few things hit home to me recently when my boy nearly died and Vets Now charged us £430 for him to be there on a drip for around 8 hours - we then had to collect him at 745 and take him to our own vets who charged us £91 for the same treatment plus a range of drugs and special diet.

Had my boy needed to stay in overnight, he would have had to return to Vets Now and another £400 + thankfully he didn't.

Needless to say, I've since been looking for a vet who does their own out of hours service because apart from anything else, moving a dangerously sick dog twice a day from pillar to post is not on.

Only two days ago I was talking to someone whose dog had stayed at their vets for 3 days with treatment, tablets, diet and scans - it cost less than my boy being sick for less than 24 hours.

Which means Vets Now are making a healthy profit - not to mention the PDSA whose rooms and equipment they hire (and whose setting is far superior to any vets I've been to) - a big prop up at the expense of more affluent customers and insurance companies.

Anyone's circumstances can change - if ours did, we would have no option but to rehome 5 of our 6 dogs, because the PDSA will only treat 1 pedigree dog per family.

So people like us who've worked our backsides off for our dogs have to sacrifice them, whilst someone can go out and buy a pedigree pup and get it treated at the PDSA 

Sorry - to me, that doesn't seem right at all.


----------



## MontyMaude (Feb 23, 2012)

Vets Now have to pay rent to use the PDSA premises and they also have a Vet and Nurse on site for the whole night, whereas many Vets if they run their own out of hours only attend for emergency and if your animal is in overnight then it may only get checked on once during the whole night if at all.

Vets Now are hugely expensive but they do offer a much needed service.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

Does the one pedigree dog per person mean someone can have as many cross breeds as they choose and get them treated?


----------



## Summersky (Aug 11, 2012)

Slightly off original topic, but I have to say that the Vets Now charge sounds exhorbitant. Our local vets has its own "hospital" with all mod cons and overnight facilities. They always have a vet nurse on site 24/7, who checks all animals regularly. You can go and visit your pet too. If you have an emergency, one of the practice vets is always on call, day or night, and they turn out very readily, with never a complaint - they are absolutely marvellous!


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

emmaviolet said:


> Does the one pedigree dog per person mean someone can have as many cross breeds as they choose and get them treated?


I presume so, it's quite strange


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

simplysardonic said:


> I presume so, it's quite strange


Seems very strange doesn't it!

If it is to do with cost of a pedigree then there are a lot of cross breeds such as the 'doodles' that cost more then pedigrees anyway!!!


----------



## Guest (Oct 6, 2012)

emmaviolet said:


> Does the one pedigree dog per person mean someone can have as many cross breeds as they choose and get them treated?


PDSA Vet Care - Changes To PDSA PetAid Hospital Service

looks like you can only register a max of 3 pets.


> From the start of July 2011, an eligible PDSA PetAid hospital client can still register up to three pets, but only one pedigree cat or dog will be permitted per client.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

It's funny they should say pedigree and not purebreed Does that only mean if they are KC reg?

If i had dogs before and then needed help I would say they were mixed if I could. Seem unfair you can have three labradoodles treated but not three labs.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

They should have the rule for all dogs, I mean there are some pretty badly bred mixed breed dogs like those poor pug crosses and yet they think it is only pedigree dogs which need treating.

How disgusting, so they would turn down a second pedigree animal of someone in trouble. I'm literally shocked.


----------



## noogsy (Aug 20, 2009)

sigh, its not alright to take ona puppy when you are skint.
its a bit like having a baby when you have no money to look after the baba.
poor puppy wont have a mummy or daddy who can pay for him to be micro chipped,spayed or neutered,have insurance.buy nice yummy happy dog food,a nice shires winter coat :O).a maze feeding tray :O).all the games, pyramid,food ball.fluffy teddy dog proof toy.it just isnt fair on the animal


----------

