# Pic of man beating dog at Crufts



## jaycee05 (Sep 24, 2012)

Someone has posted a pic of a man beatng his dog in Crufts car park,asking if anyone knows him or saw it,the poor dog looks like its choking
I dont think he is English, has a Canadian Maple leaf on the back of his shirt
The dog looks to be a Border Collie


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

OMG - I hope they track down the evil b*stard


----------



## Sparkle22 (Oct 26, 2013)

His name is on the 'crufts' thread on mumsnet doghouse.
David hay something, an obedience competetitor


----------



## Guest (Mar 9, 2015)

Hope he gets banned forever for Crufts and his name and photo will be made public! I loathe all who beat animals. :mad2:


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

Where are the R$PCA when they are needed? Nowhere in sight!! I recall a photo of Prince Edward beating his dog but he didn't get a ban on keeping animals.


----------



## Canine K9 (Feb 22, 2013)

Saw him (I think) in the obedience ring, dog seemed happy enough so shocked and saddened by this *if* it is true


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

obedience training and he beats it? 

don't suppose there is a law against hitting your dog though, is there?


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

a) The picture is not of a man beating his dog. That's just the caption. The dog appears to have reared up on its hindlegs in some sort of halti or something. Something we see every day with a reactive dog. God forbid someone took a picture of Kes doing that and captioned it with 'evil woman beating dog'

b) Numerous people know who he is and no doubt he will have seen this too so why don't we wait for the other side of the story to come out before we condemn him to burn in hell?

Edit: Slight correction. He's holding a lead in one hand (slip lead?) and has the dog by the collar. Still proof of nothing.


----------



## Guest (Mar 9, 2015)

Phew, I sure hope no one took a picture of me cleaning up the kitchen yesterday... Ended up with an empty paper towel roll. Bates tried to grab it from me (cardboard rolls, one of his favorite toys), so I smacked him with it several times and played keep away, as he tried to grab it from me. Great game that he loves, probably doesn't look great if someone snapped a quick second picture at the right (wrong) time....


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

There's a lot of issues with the treatment of the winner too


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

rona said:


> There's a lot of issues with the treatment of the winner too


the overall winner? or obedience winner?


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

Agree that a picture in a moment of time may be misinterpreted, but you can't blame people for thinking the worst, really.

So much animal abuse about - we are sickened by any suggestion of it.


----------



## Clare7435 (Dec 17, 2009)

Picis sometimes speak a lot more than is actually happening..If he was beating is dog then he is an ar5e%h0le who needs punishing....if not then perhaps he needs to get his ass on the site where the pici is and tell them what was really happening.


----------



## Pupcakes (Jun 20, 2011)

I often get looks of disgust as one of my two squeals after I accidentally step on their paws, the worst is when Dottie hears a gun shot go off and decides to bolt, tail between her legs with me trying to put her on lead...it looks like shes terrified of me!


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

He was the Canadian obedience competitor I think. The photos look bad but do we know he's beating the dog? For all we know the dog might think that's the best game ever

If he was beating the dog he deserves to be punished of course.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

I've seen the picture lastnight and was a little baffled.

The man is facing the camera and the dog is standing up on his hind legs, next to the man, who has his arm around it.

Certainly, he isn't beating or hitting the dog in the picture so, what someone saw, I don't know.


----------



## Helbo (Sep 15, 2010)

There are negative stories about crufts every year. Although personally I don't like Crufts, I also don't believe everything I read.


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

ouesi said:


> Phew, I sure hope no one took a picture of me cleaning up the kitchen yesterday... Ended up with an empty paper towel roll. Bates tried to grab it from me (cardboard rolls, one of his favorite toys), so I smacked him with it several times and played keep away, as he tried to grab it from me. Great game that he loves, probably doesn't look great if someone snapped a quick second picture at the right (wrong) time....


Aye!...and heaven help me if an outsider ever caught a glimpse of me having a dust up with Oscar. 
He's rough and I have to be equally as rough or he sees no fun in having a skirmish.

Of course I'm rough cos I'm obliged to dominate him and be the victor of our little tournaments. :wink:

_Not. Never and no how._


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

lilythepink said:


> the overall winner? or obedience winner?


The overall winner.

Would you pick up your dog by it's throat and tail?


----------



## Gemmaa (Jul 19, 2009)

lilythepink said:


> the overall winner? or obedience winner?


Overall winner...there's a petition to take the title away from her because of how she lifted the dog, after being told not to.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

I thought it was dreadful to put his photo up like that. He is facing the camera so easily identifiable. The dog is on its hind legs and it looks like he is stopping it from reacting to the idiot with the camera.
What is the matter with people!


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

rona said:


> The overall winner.
> 
> Would you pick up your dog by it's throat and tail?


It's standard for terriers in the US, who as I'm sure you know are designed to be able to be picked up by their tail in case they get stuck, and the handler was American. Crufts has condemned it


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

Nicky10 said:


> He was the Canadian obedience competitor I think. The photos look bad but do we know he's beating the dog? For all we know the dog might think that's the best game ever
> 
> If he was beating the dog he deserves to be punished of course.


Yes an supposedly the dog was very well behaved and in love with the handler (in the picture) in the obedience ring.

I wish people wouldn't start facebook mod brigades. Much more sensible to e-mail the picture and what was witnessed to Crufts to let them deal with it internally rather than potentially ruining a reputation over a misunderstanding.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

Gemmaa said:


> Overall winner...there's a petition to take the title away from her because of how she lifted the dog, after being told not to.


Surely the judge is an idiot (sorry to him/her!!) for giving the title in the first place after witnessing handling which is not approved by Crufts/KC  They need to get their house in order.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

rona said:


> The overall winner.
> 
> Would you pick up your dog by it's throat and tail?


No, but that's not unusual in the show ring is it?

As for others saying they often rough house with their dogs, or play hitting games with household items, etc. I am assuming they are doing it with a smile on their face?

I play "push and shove" with Jack, or "smack that bum" , but nobody could ever mistake my actions for aggression - as it's obvious from my big silly grin and daft behaviour that it's a harmless game (and Jack's demeanour too).

Who knows in this instance? Whoever took the photo, surely watched the rest of the interaction as well? Would someone deliberately set out to discredit this individual? Never thought someone would poison a dog for a trophy either.

Let's hope the truth will come out and soon.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Blitz said:


> I thought it was dreadful to put his photo up like that. He is facing the camera so easily identifiable. The dog is on its hind legs and it looks like he is stopping it from reacting to the idiot with the camera.
> What is the matter with people!


Well the random photos with text saying x was a dog abuser and y was buying them for fights just weren't getting them enough likes and shares I suppose. The AR nuts have been all over crufts anyway even saw one claiming all dog training was abusive.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

Lurcherlad said:


> No, but that's not unusual in the show ring is it?


It is supposedly prohibited at Crufts (I have no idea about other dog shows)


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Lurcherlad said:


> No, but that's not unusual in the show ring is it? .


It used to be, but I must admit that while some still hold around the throat, I haven't seen many lift by the tail for a while.

Mind. I haven't watched crufts for several years now


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

Phoolf said:


> It is supposedly prohibited at Crufts (I have no idea about other dog shows)


I don't usually watch it now TBH, but I have seen bits and pieces of it over the years and even in recent years remember seeing it on more than one occasion.

If it is prohibited at Crufts, then the judge should not have awarded to that owner/exhibitor otherwise it can be seen as an endorsement of such handling.


----------



## picaresque (Jun 25, 2009)

I've looked up the photos and I do not see a man beating his dog. I may be proved wrong but either way what good is a witch hunt? I'm surprised it didn't occur to anyone to film it as real proof if they were that concerned.

As for the Scottie, I don't see how working terriers being lifted by their tails is relevant when it comes to a breed that has changed so much from what it once was and is no way capable of real work or going to ground.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

picaresque said:


> I've looked up the photos and I do not see a man beating his dog. I may be proved wrong but either way what good is a witch hunt? I'm surprised it didn't occur to anyone to film it as real proof if they were that concerned.
> 
> As for the Scottie, I don't see how working terriers being lifted by their tails is relevant when it comes to a breed that has changed so much from what it once was and is no way capable of real work or going to ground.


I'm not justifying it just explaining why it's done. I don't like it either.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

I feel so sorry for the man with the dog. My husband looked up the original person that put the photo on and it appears that it would not be unusual for him to do this. I have seen one share where people were posting the most foul things about the owner - it really is not on and if I was him I would be calling the police.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

As for the Scottie, I cant see anything wrong with how it was lifted - dont see complaints about how the manic dogs in flyball were being hauled around - but if it is against the rules then it is against the rules.

What I did not like was the way that poor dog was never allowed to relax. While the flat coat was being hugged and kissed and played with the Scottie was being made to stand in show position. Even during the interview on the settee it was made to show itself.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

Blitz said:


> As for the Scottie, I cant see anything wrong with how it was lifted - dont see complaints about how the manic dogs in flyball were being hauled around - but if it is against the rules then it is against the rules.
> 
> *What I did not like was the way that poor dog was never allowed to relax. While the flat coat was being hugged and kissed and played with the Scottie was being made to stand in show position. Even during the interview on the settee it was made to show itself*.


Agree.

The dogs never seem to be left alone.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Blitz said:


> As for the Scottie, I cant see anything wrong with how it was lifted - dont see complaints about how the manic dogs in flyball were being hauled around - but if it is against the rules then it is against the rules.
> 
> What I did not like was the way that poor dog was never allowed to relax. While the flat coat was being hugged and kissed and played with the Scottie was being made to stand in show position. Even during the interview on the settee it was made to show itself.


The flyball dogs are being hauled around on harnesses so it looks better :yesnod:

I hate seeing that where the dogs are never allowed to relax in the ring. I'd much rather see a dog that performed for the judge and then relaxed when it wasn't being judged. I loved the way the pyr mountain dog responded to coming second.


----------



## jaycee05 (Sep 24, 2012)

David Holzman a breeder and obedience trainer in Canada, the person who took the photo says he was punching the dog, and to be honest the poor dog looks like its choking, but apparently thee are videos of him on youtube


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

jaycee05 said:


> David Holzman a breeder and obedience trainer in Canada, the person who took the photo says he was punching the dog, and to be honest the poor dog looks like its choking, but apparently thee are videos of him on youtube


Do you have a link to them. I do not think the dog looks like it is choking,I think it looks like many dogs when they are being restrained from lunging at someone.


----------



## suewhite (Oct 31, 2009)

I have seen photo of this man with his Collies and to be honest if I was looking for an obedience trainer he would not be on my list,having had many Collies I have never needed to resort to what I have seen from him.Just to add I am not talking just about the Crufts photo's.


----------



## MontyMaude (Feb 23, 2012)

I think it's more this link that shows several pictures so not just a single snap shot that may be causing the controversy https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/t31.0-8/10985195_1031421346875185_5472217512325502160_o.jpg

The link is one that was posted on mums net.

This is single snap shot that was posted Twitter


----------



## picaresque (Jun 25, 2009)

Those are the same photos I saw. I see what may be rough handling, but not a man beating his dog.


----------



## Snowdog (Mar 3, 2015)

Well, there are two things you can say for definite from those pictures, but JUST from those pictures, but not anything else

1) They are NOT pictures of a man beating a dog, they are pictures of a man manhandling a dog

2) You CANNOT tell why he is manhandling the dog


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

MontyMaude said:


> I think it's more this link that shows several pictures so not just a single snap shot that may be causing the controversy https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/t31.0-8/10985195_1031421346875185_5472217512325502160_o.jpg
> 
> The link is one that was posted on mums net.
> 
> This is single snap shot that was posted Twitter


Even those don't show a man beating his dog. Just grabbing its collar. Get a picture of my pair at the wrong time and it looks like a dog fight, and someone even commented on facebook once that it looks like Kes is hurting Targ.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Phoolf said:


> Even those don't show a man beating his dog. Just grabbing its collar. Get a picture of my pair at the wrong time and it looks like a dog fight, and someone even commented on facebook once that it looks like Kes is hurting Targ.


I agree, I cant see he is doing anything wrong. I found an old video of him working another dog at Crufts. I have to say the dog did look a little down but so do many of the obedience dogs at Crufts. The handlers are uptight so the dogs are worried. 
If I was him I would definitely be getting the police involved - and they do not seem slow to act when there are posts like that on facebook. One reply that I saw was so horrible that the poster should definitely be given a warning.


----------



## shadowmare (Jul 7, 2013)

I think the first photo looks the worst with the dog's face clearly in discomfort. But if you look at what is happening from the first to the second photo it is obvious that the guy was taking off the slip lead while holding the dog by his collar (or maybe his scruff?). Either way, yes it is harsh handling but definitely doesn't prove that the dog was beaten:confused5:


----------



## Wilmer (Aug 31, 2012)

The pictures don't look great, he looks to be controlling a reacting dog very manually, which seems odd if he's an top obedience competitor. But then again, both he and the dog look pretty wound up, something may have happened off camera to trigger the reaction or frighten the dog? Betty has worn that expression on many occasion while pretending to want to eat someone/thing that's scared her (main reason why I prefer a harness to a collar).

Manhandling or not (I see no beating myself), I can't stand these mob-justice things. I can still remember the story of a doctor who had his house vandalised and had to leave town because a bunch of ignorant witch-hunters couldn't tell the difference between paediatrician and paedophile. Innocent until proven guilty, anyone?


----------



## W+T (Sep 21, 2009)

I spotted the pic also last night, cant remember where bow and i wondered what the fuss was about as the pic wasnt offensive IMO.

I got shouted at a few months back by some prat in a van for trying to pull my dog across the road on her lead, what he didnt know was that Zig is a 30kg lump and when she wants to lye down...well she does and not easy to move. 

When we crossed the road she spotted a dog come around the corner and like she does showing she wants to play she lies down on the spot and thats that until the dog goes by or i get her out the way, not easy to move her.
Now do i stay there in the middle of the road, i told him where to go anyway.

So now i have a harness with a handle on the back so i can lift her.


----------



## JessIncaFCR (Oct 1, 2012)

I do think the photos look bad, but as others have said, they don't tell us exactly what was going on.

I know when Maisie reacts to things, she will sometimes get on her back legs, and I may have her by her collar and it could look very similar, particularly when body blocking and removing the dog from the situation. In picture form it may look like bad handling when really some of it comes from the dog lifting itself onto its back legs in the first place. There are many things that the dog may have been reacting to.

These witch hunts get nasty.


----------



## jaycee05 (Sep 24, 2012)

Why would someone say he was punching the dog if he wasnt,and why even bother taking a photo, the dog looks to be choking to me which suggests hes holding it too tightly, it was said by someone that is how he trains his dogs , very harshly, but i am going to ook at someof his videos and see what i think then


----------



## shadowmare (Jul 7, 2013)

I have to say, I am puzzled as to why someone would stand and be taking photos when they witness a guy punching and abusing a dog? Surely the first thing you do is stop the abuse, inform authorities, maybe take the car reg plates to find out the name? Not take photos after the punches have been made and then put them on fb to name and shame???:001_huh: As in the end the photos prove nothing about actual punching.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

jaycee05 said:


> Why would someone say he was punching the dog if he wasnt,and why even bother taking a photo, the dog looks to be choking to me which suggests hes holding it too tightly, it was said by someone that is how he trains his dogs , very harshly, but i am going to ook at someof his videos and see what i think then


Because it's classic AR/PETA nonsense. Film a bit of what is happening, edit to make it look worse and post a sad story. When they don't stage it themselves that is.


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

Just saw the pic and I don't see a man 'beating' a dog. Maybe holding the dog a bit rough, but still, a bit of a massive exaggeration to say he's beating it.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

Quote jaycee05 
Why would someone say he was punching the dog if he wasnt,and why even bother taking a photo, the dog looks to be choking to me which suggests hes holding it too tightly, it was said by someone that is how he trains his dogs , very harshly, but i am going to ook at someof his videos and see what i think thenUnquote



Nicky10 said:


> Because it's classic AR/PETA nonsense. Film a bit of what is happening, edit to make it look worse and post a sad story. When they don't stage it themselves that is.


QUOTE shadowmare
I have to say, I am puzzled as to why someone would stand and be taking photos when they witness a guy punching and abusing a dog? Surely the first thing you do is stop the abuse, inform authorities, maybe take the car reg plates to find out the name? UNQUOTE

Or it could be that the picture taker had seen such behaviour before and thought the only way anyone will believe him this time is if he takes a photo?

Pretty sure there wouldn't be much the authorities could actually do without evidence. (Not saying these pics are that, BTW)

It is all conjecture.


----------



## piggybaker (Feb 10, 2009)

rona said:


> The overall winner.
> 
> Would you pick up your dog by it's throat and tail?


I just watched that as I had it in record from yesterday and I wasn't sure if she did pick it up by it's tail to begin with so I had to rewind !!! I was a bit like"" well hello that's not right"


----------



## eoj89 (Feb 12, 2015)

Calvine said:


> Where are the R$PCA when they are needed? Nowhere in sight!! I recall a photo of Prince Edward beating his dog but he didn't get a ban on keeping animals.


The Royal family all hold sovereign immunity/crown immunity. They can't be prosecuted for any criminal offence whatsoever.


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

Nicky10 said:


> Because it's classic AR/PETA nonsense. Film a bit of what is happening, edit to make it look worse and post a sad story. When they don't stage it themselves that is.


What is this fashion of blaming everything that goes wrong at crufts on PETA/animal rights activists? They've apparently both poisoned a dog and framed and accused a man of dog abuse even though there is absolutely no evidence they've done either. The people campaigning against this man for the photos are clearly standard dog people as was the person who posted the original pictures.

Just because you don't like PETA doesn't mean it's helpful or honest to pin things on them without good reason. I don't like UKIP but recognise that even though they like blaming foreigners for things, they probably didn't photograph this guy either...


----------



## Lauren5159 (May 28, 2013)

lennythecloud said:


> What is this fashion of blaming everything that goes wrong at crufts on PETA/animal rights activists? They've apparently both poisoned a dog and framed and accused a man of dog abuse even though there is absolutely no evidence they've done either. The people campaigning against this man for the photos are clearly standard dog people as was the person who posted the original pictures.
> 
> Just because you don't like PETA doesn't mean it's helpful or honest to pin things on them without good reason. I don't like UKIP but recognise that even though they like blaming foreigners for things, they probably didn't photograph this guy either...


I think, whatever the case, there's another David Holzman (completely innocent) that is being hounded on Facebook!

We all should remember that without the true facts, what exactly do we know?

A picture doesn't give a true indication of exactly what happened.

It's one of the reasons I stay well clear of 'name and shame' posts. Now, another dog trainer -with no connection but unfortunately who shares the same name- is having to do damage control and defend himself.

Poor, poor man!


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Lurcherlad said:


> No, but that's not unusual in the show ring is it?





Lurcherlad said:


> I don't usually watch it now TBH,


Strange isn't it how someone who does not usually watch Crufts "knows" what is usual in the show ring!

The Kennel Club has prohibited lifting dogs by their tails at all shows for a few years now and it is certainly _not_ usual to see it in any show ring in this country.

I do wish people would limit their commments to what is actually happening now, and if they don't know what is happening now I wish they would refrain from assuming that what they saw years ago is current.

Having said that, I do think the KC ought to punish the handler. I don't think taking the title away form the dog is fair - if he was judged Best in Show he is still the best in the show no matter what his handler did. But there are other ways of punishing a handler - a ban on handling in this country, for example.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Lauren5159 said:


> I think, whatever the case, there's another David Holzman (completely innocent) that is being hounded on Facebook!
> 
> We all should remember that without the true facts, what exactly do we know?
> 
> ...


Trial by Facebook/Ibnternet is very distasteful and I am sure if the positions were reversed some of those who are now baying for blood would be the first to complain.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

But we only try people by social media and tabloids these days. No such thing as a fair trial if the person accused is doing something the mob finds abhorrent. Usually by those who screech loudest about how our system is sliding into dictatorship/autocracy too. Odd given a fair trial by a jury of your peers is one of the basic tenements of democracy


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

Lauren5159 said:


> I think, whatever the case, there's another David Holzman (completely innocent) that is being hounded on Facebook!
> 
> We all should remember that without the true facts, what exactly do we know?
> 
> ...


Don't get me wrong, I actually completely agree that these photos are absolutely not proof of a dog being beaten. I was just making the point that pinning the blame for the witch hunt on a group that has no involvement isn't very helpful.


----------



## Lauren5159 (May 28, 2013)

lennythecloud said:


> Don't get me wrong, I actually completely agree that these photos are absolutely not proof of a dog being beaten. I was just making the point that pinning the blame for the witch hunt on a group that has no involvement isn't very helpful.


Sorry, I have no idea why I quoted your post.

Bed time, me thinks!


----------



## Westie Mum (Feb 5, 2015)

Spellweaver said:


> Having said that, I do think the KC ought to punish the handler. I don't think taking the title away form the dog is fair - if he was judged Best in Show he is still the best in the show no matter what his handler did. But there are other ways of punishing a handler - a ban on handling in this country, for example.


This I completely agree with, its not the dogs fault.

She was told not to do it and continued so yes banning her from handling dogs in the UK would be the fair thing to do.


----------



## Picklelily (Jan 2, 2013)

Photo's out of context are notoriously unreliable, these pictures really prove nothing.

Had someone photographed me yesterday they could have said woman hangs dog over bridge parapet for fun. What actually happened was my silly dog for the first time ever decided to jump on a wall as we went past it and then slipped off the top. Thank god she had a harness on.

As I hauled her back and then read her the riot ac,t any photos and even a video could have looked very bad.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

eoj89 said:


> The Royal family all hold sovereign immunity/crown immunity. They can't be prosecuted for any criminal offence whatsoever.


Well, that seems totally fair, doesn't it?


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Westie Mum said:


> This I completely agree with, *its not the dogs fault. *
> 
> She was told not to do it and continued so yes banning her from handling dogs in the UK would be the fair thing to do.


That's true, but the dog won't give a toss about losing his title anyway. The handler, I imagine, would.

I've never been to a dog show - I know mine are the best and I don't need anyone else's opinions - but it seems to bring out the worst in some people and it's the dogs that suffer - whether through rough handling, or through the sort of breeding that means they end up with all sorts of health problems just to attain some theoretical standard.

Pity that people can't just enjoy their animals and cherish them without feeling that they have to go to extremes to win.

I know that not all people who show are like that, and I'm sure that for many, if not most, it is a wonderful hobby which enables them to meet like-minded people and visit different areas of the country, and see and admire other dogs as well as their own - but for those to whom it becomes an obsession, or who make a living from it, it can go to far.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

lostbear said:


> That's true, but the dog won't give a toss about losing his title anyway. The handler, I imagine, would.


The dog might not care about losing the title. However - is it fair to the owners/breeders of the dog if the title is taken away from their dog? Remember, it is *THE DOG* who was judged Best in Show, not the handler. Getting to Crufts and being awarded Best in Show will be the pinnacle of a program of breeding and showing that has lasted years and cost them a small fortune. Is it fair to the owner/breeder that a title their dog won fairly and squarely is taken from him because they paid for and placed their trust in a professional handler who turned out to be not so professional after all? For all we know they might be as disgusted at the handling as everyone else is and have decided never to let her near their dog again.

And of course the handler would be bothered about the dog losing the title - but only in as much as it affects herself. She is a professional handler who is paid to handle dogs by owners and/or breeders. This is standard practice in the USA (and don't forget that although the dog was born in Russia he is now in the USA and the handler is from the USA). True, if the dog loses its title then it will be a black mark against her and she will find it much harder to find people to employ her to handle their dogs. However, there are other ways to punish the handler and end up with it being virtually impossible for her to find paid employment in handling dogs, ways which won't punish the dog and its owners/breeders by taking away a title which was won fairly and squarely *despite* being handled badly.

If anything, the dog deserves even more praise for the fact that he won even though he was handled roughly.


----------



## jaycee05 (Sep 24, 2012)

The man who has allegedly been seen punching his dog was reported to Crufts at the time,and RSPCA are investigating
The way hes holding the dog i dont like,why any need to hold him by the scruff anyway, looked on youtube,cant find any videos of him training this dog, just shows the time at Crufts, in the ring


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

I really hope that woman didn't say this because she is just backing up the opinion of her  

News Dog World Dog World Home

"They are making a stance because they have nothing better to do.
Its disgusting to take a screen shot and put it all over the place. Really  you should have something else better to do with your time.


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

Looked abit dodgy from a handling POV. Like he was holding the dog up by its scruff or collar and causing it distress.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

Supposedlyy (I havent looked into it yet) the canadian obedience guy was not even in the country at the time so it's not even him.

Internet mobs are so intelligent and never learn 

Anyone remember the Boston bombings where reddit decided that an asian looking man was the main suspect and then proceeded to find him, ruin his and his families life and then realised he was a bystander? Leave these things to people who have a clue.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Phoolf said:


> Supposedlyy (I havent looked into it yet) the canadian obedience guy was not even in the country at the time so it's not even him.
> 
> Internet mobs are so intelligent and never learn
> 
> Anyone remember the Boston bombings where reddit decided that an asian looking man was the main suspect and then proceeded to find him, ruin his and his families life and then realised he was a bystander? Leave these things to people who have a clue.


It wasn't even reddit so many of the American news channels decided the one Arab there at the time running the marathon had to be the bomber. I wouldn't judge anything on reddit it's where the real scum of humanity hang out


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Spellweaver said:


> The dog might not care about losing the title. However - is it fair to the owners/breeders of the dog if the title is taken away from their dog? Remember, it is *THE DOG* who was judged Best in Show, not the handler. Getting to Crufts and being awarded Best in Show will be the pinnacle of a program of breeding and showing that has lasted years and cost them a small fortune. Is it fair to the owner/breeder that a title their dog won fairly and squarely is taken from him because they paid for and placed their trust in a professional handler who turned out to be not so professional after all? For all we know they might be as disgusted at the handling as everyone else is and have decided never to let her near their dog again.
> 
> And of course the handler would be bothered about the dog losing the title - but only in as much as it affects herself.* She is a professional handler who is paid to handle dogs by owners and/or breeders.* This is standard practice in the USA (and don't forget that although the dog was born in Russia he is now in the USA and the handler is from the USA). True, if the dog loses its title then it will be a black mark against her and she will find it much harder to find people to employ her to handle their dogs. However, there are other ways to punish the handler and end up with it being virtually impossible for her to find paid employment in handling dogs, ways which won't punish the dog and its owners/breeders by taking away a title which was won fairly and squarely *despite* being handled badly.
> 
> If anything, the dog deserves even more praise for the fact that he won even though he was handled roughly.


If she is so very professional, she should make sure that her actions comply with the regulations of the shows she is attending.

If people feel it is unfair to penalise the owners (who haven't the interest to show the dog themselves) perhaps the handler could be fined?


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Er my dog has bitten his tongue on numerous occasions whilst being reactive..... I dont beat him


Oh odd- post i was replying to has vanished????!!!! oh and its back- edited below.....


----------



## jaycee05 (Sep 24, 2012)

Have you seen the photo of the poor dog looking as if its biting its tongue, kennel club say they are looking into the allegations
Petition already started to ban him


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

rona said:


> The overall winner.
> 
> Would you pick up your dog by it's throat and tail?


I didn't see the winner being picked up by throat and tail.....not that I show but that seems to be an odd way to go about things anyway.

and...would I pick my dog up by her throat and tail? Hardly, she weighs around 45kg.lol


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

jaycee05 said:


> Have you seen the photo of the poor dog looking as if its biting its tongue, kennel club say they are looking into the allegations
> Petition already started to ban him


everywhere you look on FB lately there is someone asking for people to sign a petition...do these petitions actually mean anything or get anywhere?


----------



## Hanwombat (Sep 5, 2013)

I haven't signed the petition for the handler to be stripped of the BIS show as technically the dog won it and the dog deserves it - as much as I dislike the handler.

In hindsight - she should of been disqualified for disobeying rules but this should of happened BEFORE the BIS placings happened.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

lostbear said:


> If she is so very professional, she should make sure that her actions comply with the regulations of the shows she is attending.


Totally agree - in fact I have said as much on another post on one of these threads about Crufts. She has broken a KC ruling and the KC should fine her and/or ban her from showing at KC events in the UK. But none of that means stripping the dog of its title. The competition was a conformation competition, not a handling competition. The *dog* was being judged, not the *handler*. If the handler did something wrong, you cannot penalise the dog.



lostbear said:


> If people feel it is unfair to penalise the owners (*who haven't the interest to show the dog themselves)* perhaps the handler could be fined?


And you know this for sure, do you? 

The dog (and I presume the owner) is from America, where it is the norm to pay for a professional to handle. It doesn't mean that the owner has no interest in showing - on the contrary, it means the owner is interested enough to actually pay for someone to do it properly.

I have people to handle my dogs because I can no longer run around the ring due to arthritis. Do you think for one moment that means that I am uninterested in my dogs? I am there, by the ring, cheering them all the way. Why do you assume that the owner of this dog was not doing the same?


----------



## Snowdog (Mar 3, 2015)

All in all, crufts is looking pretty **** at the moment


----------



## Hanwombat (Sep 5, 2013)

Spellweaver said:


> Totally agree - in fact I have said as much on another post on one of these threads about Crufts. She has broken a KC ruling and the KC should fine her and/or ban her from showing at KC events in the UK. But none of that means stripping the dog of its title. The competition was a conformation competition, not a handling competition. The *dog* was being judged, not the *handler*. If the handler did something wrong, you cannot penalise the dog.
> 
> And you know this for sure, do you?
> 
> ...


I believe the owner is from Russia. I read that the Scottish Terrier has won before in the UK, back in 2013 and was handled by the owner.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Hanwombat said:


> I haven't signed the petition for the handler to be stripped of the BIS show as technically the dog won it and the dog deserves it - as much as I dislike the handler.
> 
> In hindsight - she should of been disqualified for disobeying rules but this should of happened BEFORE the BIS placings happened.


But SHE should have been disqualified, not the dog. I'm sure another handler could have been found. Whilst most show dogs will show best for their usual handler, the best show dogs will show well under any competent handler - a good example is the International Junior Handling competition. In that, the youngsters are expected to handle a dog they have only had an hour or two to get to know.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Snowdog said:


> All in all, crufts is looking pretty **** at the moment


Yeah, three incidents - two of which have yet to be proved - out of the 21000 plus dogs that were shown. That ****, huh?! 

I think some people need to get a grip.


----------



## Gemmaa (Jul 19, 2009)

Crufts fb:
_"The Kennel Club has been made aware of an alleged incident outside the NEC during Crufts, which has led to accusations of cruelty in the way a man was treating his dog. We understand that a photograph purporting to show the man in question mistreating the dog, is circulating online and the Kennel Club is looking into this as a matter of priority, as any type of animal cruelty will not be tolerated. We will be liaising with the NEC to gather any evidence of what happened and until that time we are not in a position to comment further._"


----------



## lozzibear (Feb 5, 2010)

Spellweaver said:


> And you know this for sure, do you?
> 
> The dog (and I presume the owner) is from America, where it is the norm to pay for a professional to handle. It doesn't mean that the owner has no interest in showing - on the contrary, it means the owner is interested enough to actually pay for someone to do it properly.
> 
> I have people to handle my dogs because I can no longer run around the ring due to arthritis. Do you think for one moment that means that I am uninterested in my dogs? I am there, by the ring, cheering them all the way. Why do you assume that the owner of this dog was not doing the same?


I am sure she said in an interview at Crufts that the owners live in Russia and she, Knopa, was sent there on the agreements that she was shown. The impression I got was that the breeder chose the shows and deal with that side of things. Of course that doesn't mean the owners don't care about it.


----------



## Guest (Mar 10, 2015)

lostbear said:


> If she is so very professional, she should make sure that her actions comply with the regulations of the shows she is attending.
> 
> If people feel it is unfair to penalise the owners (*who haven't the interest to show the dog themselves*) perhaps the handler could be fined?


Just because the owner doesn't show the dog themselves, doesn't mean they're not interested. Far from it.

Some dogs don't show well for their owners, the owner gets nervous, the dog senses it, and goes around the ring looking like he's just lost his best friend.

Some owners may have physical issues that make showing difficult or painful. My friend had a knee replaced and can't kneel down to show. She has to hide while her dogs are being shown because they'll look for her the whole time instead of focusing on the handler.

Maybe the owner has an elderly parent living with them and can't travel to the bigger shows so has a friend (who is a handler) do it instead.

There are all sorts of reasons why an owner would hire a handler that may have nothing to do with the owner not caring enough to do it themselves.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

I think the little terrier is a paragon of virtue for not turning round and biting the stupid woman. Says a lot for the temperament of the breedline I would think


----------



## Guest (Mar 10, 2015)

rona said:


> I think the little terrier is a paragon of virtue for not turning round and biting the stupid woman. Says a lot for the temperament of the breedline I would think


Or maybe the dog just doesn't mind being handled like that.

Surely the dog should have a say in whether he finds it aversive treatment or not? Like I said initially on this thread, I smack my dog around with an empty paper towel roll. He loves it. Other dogs might be horrified.

Now, I'm not saying the dog *likes* being picked up that way, but I've sure yanked my share of terrier butt out of a hole by the tail.

I don't think it's a nice way to pick a dog up myself, but I can also admit that the dog sure didn't seem to mind being handled that way. *shrug*


----------



## Hanwombat (Sep 5, 2013)

I loved the scottie dog! My friend has a scottie and she is just lovely! I think they're superb dogs.


----------



## lozzibear (Feb 5, 2010)

Just because a dog accepts it, doesn't mean they don't mind it... unfortunately, sometimes dogs may appear to not mind but really it is just what they have become used to.


----------



## Dimwit (Nov 10, 2011)

ouesi said:


> I don't think it's a nice way to pick a dog up myself, but I can also admit that the dog sure didn't seem to mind being handled that way. *shrug*


But just because the dog tolerated this doesn't mean it was happy/comfortable etc.

Either way, regardless of whether the dog objected, or that this way of handling is common it was apparently made clear to ALL handlers that this way of handling was not acceptable and this particular handler ignored repeated requests not to handle the dog in this way.
By failing to act on this, the kennel club have shown themselves to be completely toothless (just for a change).


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

ouesi said:


> Or maybe the dog just doesn't mind being handled like that.
> 
> Surely the dog should have a say in whether he finds it aversive treatment or not? Like I said initially on this thread, I smack my dog around with an empty paper towel roll. He loves it. Other dogs might be horrified.
> 
> ...


From what I saw the dog didn't particularly enjoy the 'encouraging' pokes and prods the handler gave. Jumped back everytime. I'd also guess that the dog has learnt to remain absolutely still when being picked up in that manner so as to avoid any discomfort.....


----------



## Picklelily (Jan 2, 2013)

ouesi said:


> Just because the owner doesn't show the dog themselves, doesn't mean they're not interested. Far from it.
> 
> Some dogs don't show well for their owners, the owner gets nervous, the dog senses it, and goes around the ring looking like he's just lost his best friend.
> 
> ...


This for me is very true but also one of the saddest things about dog breeding and showing. For me it should be something that everyone could compete at. A whole other thread really for some other time perhaps.

However you make some excellent points.

On this occasion its happened the kennel club should apologise and change the rules. Its no good punishing anyone for something that wasn't against the rules but was just an advisory. If the warnings had been given to the handler then that should have been dealt with at the time.

The judging needs to be reviewed, if a handler has been warned at one point for poor technique then the judge should have been aware of this stopped her and made her correctly handle the dog.

Perhaps handlers could be sent off much like a football game and a reserve kennel club handler bought in.

The dog is less likely to show well for the reserve handler and so owners won't employ someone with poor technique who risks being sent off in the future.

Education is the key here.


----------



## Guest (Mar 10, 2015)

I guess where I'm coming from is: are we just jumping on any opportunity to be outraged, or are we truly looking at what is in the best interest of the dog?

From where I'm standing, there is indeed a lot of room for improvements in the world of dog showing. 
ONE terrier being lifted by the tail for 2.3 seconds is not ideal, but I have a niggling feeling that the only reason anyone even took notice of this is because the dog won BIS.

If we're going to get serious about how dogs are handled in the ring, there are a lot of other issues going on that need to be addressed too.
How come no one is mentioning the slip leads held taught on the breeds that aren't free stacked? That's a noose around the dog's neck. And some of those suckers are wire thin too. Personally I'd love to see only martingale collars on all breeds and a limit on how thin the collar can be. To me that's much more of a health issue for the dogs than the occasional terrier getting lifted by the tail (which for the record, I'd prefer not happen either).

But because slip leads are something most owners are familiar with and might even use themselves, that's okay. A dog lifted by the tail isn't as familiar, so it's an easier target.

Again, it it our own human sensibilities we're trying to safeguard, or is it the well being of all dogs in general participating in dog shows?


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

ouesi said:


> Just because the owner doesn't show the dog themselves, doesn't mean they're not interested. Far from it.
> 
> Some dogs don't show well for their owners, the owner gets nervous, the dog senses it, and goes around the ring looking like he's just lost his best friend.
> 
> ...


It can seem like some dogs are never with their owners though. There was a bloodhound entered at Westminster that had lived with the handler since it was 4 months old whatever the paperwork says that isn't your dog. Miss p will live with her handler while the other people claim to still be the owners. It seems the norm in some breeds to ship them off and not see them for months


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

If someone had you around the throat and lifted you into the air, you wouldn't be able to struggle much either. 

Everyone else seems to be concerned about the tail, and though I also find this distasteful, it's the throat holding and lifting that concerned me.............


----------



## x PIXIE x (Feb 9, 2012)

lennythecloud said:


> What is this fashion of blaming everything that goes wrong at crufts on PETA/animal rights activists? They've apparently both poisoned a dog and framed and accused a man of dog abuse even though there is absolutely no evidence they've done either. The people campaigning against this man for the photos are clearly standard dog people as was the person who posted the original pictures.
> 
> Just because you don't like PETA doesn't mean it's helpful or honest to pin things on them without good reason. I don't like UKIP but recognise that even though they like blaming foreigners for things, they probably didn't photograph this guy either...


Yeah didn't you hear Rebecca Cross is a member of PETA and handled her dog like an idiot to discredit Crufts, undermine the KC and get the show closed down... I thought that was common knowledge? :lol:


----------



## Clare7435 (Dec 17, 2009)

rona said:


> If someone had you around the throat and lifted you into the air, you wouldn't be able to struggle much either.
> 
> Everyone else seems to be concerned about the tail, and though I also find this distasteful, it's the throat holding and lifting that concerned me.............


If someone had me by the throat in the air...after I'd finished kneeing them in the crotch I think I ...Human...would bite them and make sure they thought twice next time. Unfortunately a dog can't do the kneeing bit but by Christ it could be forgiven for biting the crap out of them....absolutely no way to handle a dog...sometimes I despise humans


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Nicky10 said:


> It can seem like some dogs are never with their owners though. There was a bloodhound entered at Westminster that had lived with the handler since it was 4 months old whatever the paperwork says that isn't your dog. Miss p will live with her handler while the other people claim to still be the owners. It seems the norm in some breeds to ship them off and not see them for months


It's certainly the norm in the USA where dogs are sent to their handlers and travel the circuit with them. I think this is partly due to the size of the USA and the practicality of being able to travel to shows from one side of the country to the other.

It's not so common in this country, It does happen, and also dogs are sent fron other countries to kennels in this country to be campaigned on the British show scene. I wouldn't say it was the norm here though. The norm here is that dogs stay with their owners and, whilst they may have handlers who handle their dogs for them for various reasons, these handlers are rarely paid and the owners usually go to the show as well.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Spellweaver said:


> It's certainly the norm in the USA where dogs are sent to their handlers and travel the circuit with them. I think this is partly due to the size of the USA and the practicality of being able to travel to shows from one side of the country to the other.
> 
> It's not so common in this country, It does happen, and also dogs are sent fron other countries to kennels in this country to be campaigned on the British show scene. I wouldn't say it was the norm here though. The norm here is that dogs stay with their owners and, whilst they may have handlers who handle their dogs for them for various reasons, these handlers are rarely paid and the owners usually go to the show as well.


I did mean the US I know most here are owner handled or by friends


----------



## jaycee05 (Sep 24, 2012)

Lexiedhb said:


> Er my dog has bitten his tongue on numerous occasions whilst being reactive..... I dont beat him
> 
> Oh odd- post i was replying to has vanished????!!!! oh and its back- edited below.....


Sorry, the post vanished because i was trying to post the pic of the dog with its tongue partly out lookin as if it was biting its tongue but couldnt upload it, but even as he was putting the dog in the car it looked as if he was dragging it in


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

Quote Lurcherlad
I don't usually watch it now TBH
Unquote



Spellweaver said:


> Strange isn't it how someone who does not usually watch Crufts "knows" what is usual in the show ring!


Please: if you are going to quote me, at least copy the whole quote:

"I don't usually watch it now TBH, but I have seen bits and pieces of it over the years and even in recent years remember seeing it on more than one occasion."

I think we have had this argument before, on who is qualified or entitled to have an opinion on any particular subject. Even from the comfort of my armchair I feel I am entitled - you can disagree.

We shall agree to disagree


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Lurcherlad said:


> Quote Lurcherlad
> I don't usually watch it now TBH
> Unquote
> 
> ...


I quoted the salient part of your post. The fact that you watched it in the past has no bearing on what happens now.

As for your dig about opinions, I fully believe that everyone is allowed to have an opinion and to express their opinion. However, I also believe that everyone has the right to challenge someone else's opinion if they think it is not based on fact..

I nuch prefer opinions which are based on fact, knowledge and experience, rather than opinions based upon "I've read it on a forum" or "I've watched it now and again on TV". If you think the former and latter kind of opinions have equal merit then we shall indeed have to agree to disagree.

I could never agree that someone who has only read about something or seen it on TV knows more than the people who actualy engage in the activity.

I watch showjumping now and again - but I would never presume I knew as much about it as those who participate in it.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

Spellweaver said:


> I quoted the salient part of your post. The fact that you watched it in the past has no bearing on what happens now.
> 
> As for your dig about opinions, I fully believe that everyone is allowed to have an opinion and to express their opinion. However, I also believe that everyone has the right to challenge someone else's opinion if they think it is not based on fact..
> 
> ...


For the record, I don't think I have ever claimed to know as much about *any* subject as those who participate in it 

I do have opinions, yes - right or wrong (probably mostly wrong, but they are, after all, only opinions) - based on various sources of information, even gossip 

I think a large proportion of people who express opinions are rarely experts in the subject - hey ho :wink:

Now, show jumping - don't get me started on that! (I don't participate in that either, but I've heard all sorts about that and have plenty of opinions on it! :nonod:


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Lurcherlad said:


> Now, show jumping - don't get me started on that! (I don't participate in that either, but I've heard all sorts about that and have plenty of opinions on it! :nonod:


I've heard all sorts about any sport..involving animals or not...Don't make them true 

Bad things happen in ALL sports..that does not mean that the whole sport should be reprimanded by all and sundry


----------



## suewhite (Oct 31, 2009)

If someone came on here and put a video of them handling there dogs the way we have seen with the BIS and the man with the Collies I do just wonder what response they would get,I once put a post on that I had smacked (not hit)my Collie for rolling in fox pooh the abuse I got was unbelievable PMs saying I should not be allowed to own dogs,I have just been to watch Border Collies being trained for agility and from an outsiders view yes! it would look quite harsh on the dogs but when they had there down time they reverted to being a load of barmy Collies playing and enjoying life.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Lurcherlad said:


> For the record, I don't think I have ever claimed to know as much about *any* subject as those who participate in it


Then again those participating in something are often blinded by their familiarity and closeness to it  People also want to hide things, sweep it under the carpet using the line "how do you know what it is like". I suppose the police could also use that excuse and get rid of the independent police commisssion. 

The arguments go on but the simple fact is show breeding and the humun desire for "breeds" has caused generations of dogs ill health and suffering which has been accepted and covered up. Even now, why is it the KC insist that pedigree breeds are just as healthy as mongrels yet the KC medical insurance has a reduced cost for mongrels when compared with almost identical pedigrees?


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

StormyThai said:


> I've heard all sorts about any sport..involving animals or not...Don't make them true
> 
> Bad things happen in ALL sports..that does not mean that the whole sport should be reprimanded by all and sundry


Well, that's a matter of opinion


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Lurcherlad said:


> Well, that's a matter of opinion


Well if some wish to hold the majority accountable for the actions of the minority that says more about the person judging than anything


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

For all those who saw the picture and jumped to a conclusion.

You may be interested in the following statement from the Kennel Club.

No doubt all those who put 2 + 2 together and made 5 are very pleased that someone has had their reputation damaged as a result of this vile rumourmongering.

I have a vain hope that it may mean that some people think first, but ............

The Kennel Club takes any allegations of potential mistreatment very seriously. However, we have not received any eye witness statements supporting the claims made on social media in this case.

We have received a statement from the person concerned, in response to our request for information relating to the suggestion that a dog was harshly handled in the car park at the NEC. The person in the photograph has told us that he was trying to remove something from the dog's mouth ...and his statement that he was not abusing his dog has been corroborated by a number of eye witnesses including NEC officials and members of the public.

As there have been no contrary eye witness reports or any evidence to suggest the dog was being mistreated, there is no evidence at this time to support the suggestion that there was any harsh handling involved. All the evidence suggests that the photo has been misconstrued much to the distress of the owner.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

I think what is sad is that on the actual post on fb many people are reverting to saying the KC are obviously covering something up :thumbdown:

So no matter what happened trial by fb has forever labeled a man as an animal abuser :nonod:


----------



## CavalierOwner (Feb 5, 2012)

Not seen the picture but I hope nobody ever takes a picture of me putting Alfies lead on because he would look like an abused dog. :yikes:

Every time I'm ready to clip his lead on he lays on the floor and crawls over to me on his belly. ut: He's always done it, it's so embarrassing in public because he looks like he's mistreated or something. :laugh: this is how he greets dogs too, even Yorkies and Chi's who are a lot smaller than him.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

When I pick up Rosie's harness, she hides under the kitchen table, cringing, slobbering and squinting, as though I were trying to kick her in the head.


----------



## shadowmare (Jul 7, 2013)

Suddenly my recent photo of Axel springs to mind... 
Abused dog? No. Starving dog that was kicked for trying to eat the treats? No. Maybe I body slammed him just before the photo was taken? NO. He looked perfectly happy staring at the treats in front of him until I got my phone and called his name to make him look at me. Suddenly the ears are pushed back and the eyes fill up with terror. Why? Feck knows.


----------



## diefenbaker (Jan 15, 2011)

shadowmare said:


> Suddenly my recent photo of Axel springs to mind...


You've nailed his paws to the floor. Was it really necessary to use 8 ?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

The result of the investigation about the man supposedly beating the dog is on the Kennel Club's fb page:

_The Kennel Club takes any allegations of potential mistreatment very seriously. However, *we have not received any eye witness statements supporting the claims made on social media in this case*.

*We have received a statement from the person concerned,* in response to our request for information relating to the suggestion that a dog was harshly handled in the car park at the NEC. The person in the photograph has told us that he was trying to remove something from the dogs mouth and *his statement that he was not abusing his dog has been corroborated by a number of eye witnesses including NEC officials and members of the public.*

As there have been no contrary eye witness reports or any evidence to suggest the dog was being mistreated, *there is no evidence at this time to support the suggestion that there was any harsh handling involved. All the evidence suggests that the photo has been misconstrued much to the distress of the owner*_
https://www.facebook.com/Kclovesdogs


----------



## Guest (Mar 13, 2015)

I wonder if there is a way to trace who the person was who originally posted those pictures. 

Gosh I feel so horrible for that poor man accused of abusing his dog. I can't even imagine how that must feel to know that you and your dog are all over the internet like that


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

smokeybear said:


> For all those who saw the picture and jumped to a conclusion.
> 
> You may be interested in the following statement from the Kennel Club.
> 
> ...


Looking at some of the comments on the KC FB page is quite stomach churning..................


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Sorry SB - didn't realise you had already posted the quote from the KC.



StormyThai said:


> I think what is sad is that on the actual post on fb many people are reverting to saying the KC are obviously covering something up :thumbdown:


I wonder how they think the KC has managed to bribe the NEC staff, who are independent witnessess completely unconnected to either the Kennel Club or the man?



StormyThai said:


> So no matter what happened trial by fb has forever labeled a man as an animal abuser :nonod:


Poor man. I feel really sorry for him - people are so intent on finding something, anything, with which to castigate the Kennel Club that they don't care iwhether it is factual or not - as we have seen just lately on this forum.

Someone on a different thread, about a different subject, troed to justify her beliefs because what she believed was widely accepted in the social media. This shows exactly why something that is widely accepted in the social media is not always true or factual.


----------



## Tigerneko (Jan 2, 2009)

I can't believe how many people think the Kennel Club are lying about this - people are only reading what they want to out of that statement and are only picking out the bit where he said he was getting something out of the dogs mouth.... people are straight away saying this is a lie, despite the fact that it says on the next sentence that a number of eye witnesses confirmed this. 

I am so glad that I never shared those photos - I never, ever, ever share anything of that nature on Facebook, whether it be the 'face of a dog abuser' (i've never seen one yet that's been proven to be true, most have been proven to be false and done maliciously or mistaken identity!) or 'this van is stealing dogs' (i've seen the same photo of the same red van circulating for nearly 3 years now, they must have nicked thousands of dogs by now!), I just don't ever believe these things, and I also don't believe how many people will blindly share them having NO proof of the truth behind whatever it is. It's scary how people just immediately believe everything they see on Facebook.

I am just glad that this has come to an end - although it'll be interesting to see how many of those who shared the photos are now going to share the KC's update! 

It is also looking more likely that the Irish Setter may not have been poisoned at Crufts, no other dogs have been poisoned (at least, not 'officially' although there are a million rumours going around about others) and the BIS Scotties' handlers' handling 'issue' was a mountain out of a molehill.... so hopefully Crufts will soon be proven to be an absolute nonevent in the eyes of the Animal Rights nuts. Just a shame that the poor Setter lost his life, whether it was at Crufts or not. 

Bring on Crufts 2016 :thumbsup:


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Spellweaver said:


> Sorry SB - didn't realise you had already posted the quote from the KC.
> 
> I wonder how they think the KC has managed to bribe the NEC staff, who are independent witnessess completely unconnected to either the Kennel Club or the man?


Compared to what some people believe is being covered up by various agencies then surely this is nothing. Some people just get an idea in their head and nothing will sway them. Look at the people who are still convinced the world really did end in 2012 and it's just happening really slowly bless them.

And so many people are convinced the KC is a hub of animal abuse anyway so jumped on those photos.

I'm glad it wasn't any kind of abuse


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Tigerneko said:


> I can't believe how many people think the Kennel Club are lying about this - people are only reading what they want to out of that statement and are only picking out the bit where he said he was getting something out of the dogs mouth.... people are straight away saying this is a lie, despite the fact that it says on the next sentence that a number of eye witnesses confirmed this.
> 
> *I am so glad that I never shared those photos - I never, ever, ever share anything of that nature on Facebook*, whether it be the 'face of a dog abuser' (i've never seen one yet that's been proven to be true, most have been proven to be false and done maliciously or mistaken identity!) or 'this van is stealing dogs' (i've seen the same photo of the same red van circulating for nearly 3 years now, they must have nicked thousands of dogs by now!), I just don't ever believe these things, and I also don't believe how many people will blindly share them having NO proof of the truth behind whatever it is. It's scary how people just immediately believe everything they see on Facebook.
> 
> ...


This.

I have unfollowed and in some cases "unfriended" people who I had previously thought had a brain because they have blindly shared photos of people, number plates and hoaxes without thought of the consequence or questioning the origin.

And for what purpose?

This is the side of social media which I abhor and detest.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Tigerneko said:


> I can't believe how many people think the Kennel Club are lying about this - people are only reading what they want to out of that statement and are only picking out the bit where he said he was getting something out of the dogs mouth.... people are straight away saying this is a lie, despite the fact that it says on the next sentence that a number of eye witnesses confirmed this.
> 
> I am so glad that I never shared those photos - I never, ever, ever share anything of that nature on Facebook, whether it be the 'face of a dog abuser' (i've never seen one yet that's been proven to be true, most have been proven to be false and done maliciously or mistaken identity!) or 'this van is stealing dogs' (i've seen the same photo of the same red van circulating for nearly 3 years now, they must have nicked thousands of dogs by now!), I just don't ever believe these things, and I also don't believe how many people will blindly share them having NO proof of the truth behind whatever it is. It's scary how people just immediately believe everything they see on Facebook.
> 
> ...


Well said!

Its always the same at this time of year. In another couple of weeks all the anti-KC, anti-Crufts brigade will crawl back into the woodwork and forget all about how incensed they are about dogs and dogs showing until next Crufts. Because, of course, dog showing does not happen all over the country almost every week, only at Crufts! It never ceases to amaze me - and it shows just how shallow their feelings and opinions are in the first place.



Nicky10 said:


> Compared to what some people believe is being covered up by various agencies then surely this is nothing. Some people just get an idea in their head and nothing will sway them. L*ook at the people who are still convinced the world really did end in 2012 and it's just happening really slowly *bless them.


Heh heh - what a good excuse for not doing my CPD - no point in continual professional development if the world has actually ended  Wonder if the GPhC will accept it!



Nicky10 said:


> And so many people are convinced the KC is a hub of animal abuse anyway so jumped on those photos.


Ain't that the truth! They never let the facts get in the way of their convictions - as has been so ably demonstrated on a few threads on here just lately.



Nicky10 said:


> I'm glad it wasn't any kind of abuse


So am I - if it had've been then I would have been in there with all the rest.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> Its always the same at this time of year. In another couple of weeks all the anti-KC, anti-Crufts brigade will crawl back into the woodwork and forget all about how incensed they are about dogs and dogs showing until next Crufts.


Are you saying you want more posts and evidence against pedigree breeding and the cruelty surrounding it throughout the year? I'm sure I could start by going to the UK pug website and start picking up faults and pointing out how progress hasn't been made in terms of education. How about Scientific articles about basic genetics and how they are ignored when convenient. When standards are being used to limit gene pools simply for looks rather than function. I suppose I could also go through the health issues not covered by Health Checks and how the idea of Health Checks is being used as marketing. I could quote KC Secretary Caroline Kisko who admitted 'We needed to get a grip,' when referencing Pedigree Dogs Exposed in direct conflict with the attitude of the vocal few on these forums. She also said "The KC's view of the world of dogs has very much changed in 140 years. It used to be all about pedigree dogs; now, we're here for the sake of all dogs." I suppose I could start to go into detail on that statement.

I generally don't create threads as the relevent people know the problems. Many are doing what they can to make things better. Others are still in denial and nothing will change their minds. Most people aren't against Crufts or anti KC. What they are against is animal cruelty condoned by those who say they celebrate dogs. Most people at Crufts are dog lovers. A single picture is not evidence that a man was beating a dog. However even if evidence was there of a dog being beaten, I get the feeling there would be a cover-up rather than the problem being resolved. That is one of the biggest problems of Crufts and the KC.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Goblin said:


> Are you saying you want more posts and evidence against pedigree breeding and the cruelty surrounding it throughout the year? I'm sure I could start by going to the UK pug website and start picking up faults and pointing out how progress hasn't been made in terms of education. How about Scientific articles about basic genetics and how they are ignored when convenient. When standards are being used to limit gene pools simply for looks rather than function. I suppose I could also go through the health issues not covered by Health Checks and how the idea of Health Checks is being used as marketing. I could quote KC Secretary Caroline Kisko who admitted We needed to get a grip, when referencing Pedigree Dogs Exposed in direct conflict with the attitude of the vocal few on these forums. She also said "The KCs view of the world of dogs has very much changed in 140 years. It used to be all about pedigree dogs; now, were here for the sake of all dogs." I suppose I could start to go into detail on that statement.
> 
> I generally don't create threads as the relevent people know the problems. Many are doing what they can to make things better. Others are still in denial and nothing will change their minds. Most people aren't against Crufts or anti KC. What they are against is animal cruelty condoned by those who say they celebrate dogs. Most people at Crufts are dog lovers. A single picture is not evidence that a man was beating a dog. However even if evidence was there of a dog being beaten, I get the feeling there would be a cover-up rather than the problem being resolved. That is one of the biggest problems of Crufts and the KC.


----------



## Vicki (Jul 28, 2009)

Tigerneko said:


> I am so glad that I never shared those photos - I never, ever, ever share anything of that nature on Facebook, whether it be the 'face of a dog abuser' (i've never seen one yet that's been proven to be true, most have been proven to be false and done maliciously or mistaken identity!) or 'this van is stealing dogs' (i've seen the same photo of the same red van circulating for nearly 3 years now, they must have nicked thousands of dogs by now!), I just don't ever believe these things, and I also don't believe how many people will blindly share them having NO proof of the truth behind whatever it is. It's scary how people just immediately believe everything they see on Facebook.


This reminds me of a picture of a van that quite a few of my facebook friends was sharing about 1,5 year ago. The warning text said that the people travellng in this van was stealing dogs, which they took to Poland to use in dog fights. Some clever person changed the warning text and exchanged the word "dog" with "children"  All of a sudden this was creating a bit of a panic and a lot of people apparently called to police and asked what they were doing to catch these people who kidnapped children and used them in fights in Poland :crazy:. It was even necessary to write about it in the local newspaper and explain that it was a hoax and that there was no one stealing neither children nor dogs.

That really proved to me that people will believe just about anything without even thinking about it.


----------



## Guest (Mar 14, 2015)

Goblin said:


> I generally don't create threads as the relevent people know the problems. Many are doing what they can to make things better. Others are still in denial and nothing will change their minds. Most people aren't against Crufts or anti KC. What they are against is animal cruelty condoned by those who say they celebrate dogs. Most people at Crufts are dog lovers. A single picture is not evidence that a man was beating a dog. *However even if evidence was there of a dog being beaten, I get the feeling there would be a cover-up rather than the problem being resolved.* That is one of the biggest problems of Crufts and the KC.


What concrete evidence do you have that something like this would actually happen? That there *has* been a dog beaten at a well-known, well-run, well-respected dog show and no one did anything about it?

I ask, because I have personally been at a very big show here in the US, well-known, nationally attended show, and saw with my own eyes a judge excuse a competitor from the ring for a tiny, slight collar correction in the obedience ring. The handler was embarrassed and pretty upset, but he was excused, and not allowed in the next class either. 
If a competitor was excused for the slightest of collar corrections, I have a really hard time picturing an outright beating being swept under the rug.

I have seen dogs excused from the ring for having an uneven gait (lame), I myself have been stopped by a show steward/inspector to make sure my dogs harness was not a squeeze type. She didnt just look either, she asked to inspect the harness as it was on the dog (which I gladly allowed). (Prongs, head halters, and e-collars are not allowed on show grounds either.)

In my experience, the bigger shows are the ones where theyre going to be more strict about the rules than less so.


----------



## Guest (Mar 14, 2015)

Vicki said:


> This reminds me of a picture of a van that quite a few of my facebook friends was sharing about 1,5 year ago. The warning text said that the people travellng in this van was stealing dogs, which they took to Poland to use in dog fights. Some clever person changed the warning text and exchanged the word "dog" with "children"  All of a sudden this was creating a bit of a panic and a lot of people apparently called to police and asked what they were doing to catch these people who kidnapped children and used them in fights in Poland :crazy:. It was even necessary to write about it in the local newspaper and explain that it was a hoax and that there was no one stealing neither children nor dogs.
> 
> *That really proved to me that people will believe just about anything without even thinking about it.*


This is the part that just frustrates me to no end. Once something like this is out, some people will decide in their head what has happened, and woe be to anyone who tries to rectify that mental picture to something more accurate.

When you present some sort of thoughtful question to this type of person, they just attack, again, without thought. Just as we saw on the poisoning thread. 
A couple folks pointed out that given the toxicology reports were not out yet, we couldnt possibly know that the dog was definitively poisoned or what the type of poison was. These people were met with how dare you question those poor grieving owners emotional attacks - again, without even considering the logical evidence being presented.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Goblin said:


> Are you saying you want more posts and evidence against pedigree breeding and the cruelty surrounding it throughout the year?


Well, I was talking in a general sense about the anti-Crufts, Anti-KC brigade spouting forth their uninformed opinions in all sorts of media from TV through radio and to social media, and then disappearing back into the woodwork a couple of weeks later. However, as you have brought it up - yes, there are some of those on here who are not bothered about the things you mention above except at this time of year. The rest of the year they seem to forget about it. What a measure of their true feelings that is.



Goblin said:


> I'm sure I could start by going to the UK pug website and start picking up faults and pointing out how progress hasn't been made in terms of education. How about Scientific articles about basic genetics and how they are ignored when convenient. When standards are being used to limit gene pools simply for looks rather than function. I suppose I could also go through the health issues not covered by Health Checks and how the idea of Health Checks is being used as marketing. I could quote KC Secretary Caroline Kisko who admitted 'We needed to get a grip,' when referencing Pedigree Dogs Exposed in direct conflict with the attitude of the vocal few on these forums. She also said "The KC's view of the world of dogs has very much changed in 140 years. It used to be all about pedigree dogs; now, we're here for the sake of all dogs." I suppose I could start to go into detail on that statement.


You could - but you don't. Except at this time of year - which you've just proved yet again by posting the above.

(and before you try to dodge the points I am making, by making accusations of my avoidance of the above issues, I need to look into them before replying)



Goblin said:


> Many are doing what they can to make things better. Others are still in denial and nothing will change their minds. Most people aren't against Crufts or anti KC. What they are against is animal cruelty condoned by those who say they celebrate dogs.


So why do they only worry about animal cruelty at this time of year? If they are not just anti-KC and anti-Crufts, if they really believe that animal cruelty is condoned by those who say they celebrate dogs, and think that dog showing is part of this, why don't these people ever talk about or worry about or post about animal cruelty at any of the other dog shows taking place throughout the year? After all, it's the same people, the same dogs, the same ruling body, the same rules, the same breed standards. You don't get people becoming hysterical on social media about The National, or The Welsh KC Champ Show, or the two Scottish KC Champ Shows, to name but four of the twenty-five general champ shows each year - and then there are all the group champ shows, the breed champ shows, open shows - but you would think that they had different dogs, different exhibitors, different breeeders, different ruling bodies and different breed standards, for all the notice taken of them by those who are supposedly against animal cruelty. Most of them don't even know or care that these other shows exist - which totally belies your assertion that they are not anti-Crufts and anti-KC.



Goblin said:


> Most people at Crufts are dog lovers. A single picture is not evidence that a man was beating a dog.


Two facts with which I agree.



Goblin said:


> However even if evidence was there of a dog being beaten, I get the feeling there would be a cover-up rather than the problem being resolved. That is one of the biggest problems of Crufts and the KC.


Yes, it is what is wrong - people attributing things to the KC and Crufts that are not true. Just as you have done above.

Let's just look closely at your last two sentences.

In your first sentence you accuse the Kennel Club and Crufts of something that is blatantly untrue merely because you "have a feeling".

In your second sentence you then extrapolate this nebulous "feeling" of yours into a fact about what is wrong with the Kennel Club and Crufts..

And *THAT* is what is wrong - people having "feelings" with no basis in truth, and posting about them on social media as if they were the truth.

A few chinese whispers down the line, enough anti-KC/anti-Crufts people seeing it and jumping on the bandwagon, and your "feeling" with no basis in fact becomes the truth after trial by media, wth the onus on the innocent party to _prove_ their innocence - just as in the example of the man and the photograph.

So suddenly, because of nothing more than your nebulous "feeling" and with no basis whatsoever in the truth - the KC and Crufts is guilty of always staging cover ups and everyone "knowing" that they do. And if you think that's unlikely, or far-fetched, just remember that photograph. Just remember how we've already had posters on here trying to say something must be true because it is widely accepted by social media.

Of course, I am not saying that is going to happen. That's not my point. My point is that that is how many "facts" about the KC and Crufts have may have come into being.


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

ouesi said:


> This is the part that just frustrates me to no end. Once something like this is out, some people will decide in their head what has happened, and woe be to anyone who tries to rectify that mental picture to something more accurate.
> 
> When you present some sort of thoughtful question to this type of person, they just attack, again, without thought. Just as we saw on the poisoning thread.
> A couple folks pointed out that given the toxicology reports were not out yet, we couldnt possibly know that the dog was definitively poisoned or what the type of poison was. These people were met with how dare you question those poor grieving owners emotional attacks - again, without even considering the logical evidence being presented.


But you don't ask yourself why those people 'attack' though, do you? It's not because a few of you pointed out we had no results or facts to go on but the way in which you went about raising those points. Sarcastic responses, jibes, calling out people for being hysterical, and inferring that people are 'wrong' for their own opinion or conclusion. You, and a few others have definitely come across as if you're taking the moral high ground and sighing under your breath at these poor uneducated imbeciles you have to keep 'explaining' to. And that is exactly the vibe I've felt from not only your posts, but a few others too. Hence my posts which actually haven't been disputing the points you raise about there being no facts. But the manner in which that's being put forward.


----------



## Guest (Mar 14, 2015)

Dogloverlou said:


> But you don't ask yourself why those people 'attack' though, do you? It's not because a few of you pointed out we had no results or facts to go on but the way in which you went about raising those points. Sarcastic responses, jibes, calling out people for being hysterical, and inferring that people are 'wrong' for their own opinion or conclusion.


Conclusions absolutely can be wrong. As we have seen on this thread.



Dogloverlou said:


> You, and a few others have definitely come across as if you're taking the moral high ground and sighing under your breath at these poor uneducated imbeciles you have to keep 'explaining' to. And that is exactly the vibe I've felt from not only your posts, but a few others too. Hence my posts which actually haven't been disputing the points you raise about there being no facts. But the manner in which that's being put forward.


I have zero control over what vibe you get off my posts. That has as much to do with your perceptions as my words.

My own perception is that those who criticize tone and manner of posting, instead of addressing content of a post, to me, those are the ones acting morally superior as if they have a right to tell a fellow member *how* they should post. I dont think any of us do, but I accept that not everyone shares that view. 
My sons friend has Aspergers, and often sounds quite condescending and even rude in his tone of voice. Its just him, hes not at all rude, hes just who he is. 
So you see, perceptions can differ, and perceptions are not always very accurate.

And therein lies the danger in taking it seems like and turning it in to reality. 
It seemed like the man in the pictures was mistreating his dog, however, that doesnt make it true.
It may seem to you like I believe myself to be morally superior to you from my posts, that doesnt make it true. In actuality I tend to err on the side of giving people the benefit of the doubt - as I did when I saw these pictures.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

The pic of the man holding the dog does look very convincing though.

I have seen loads of pics on FB with some sad wording underneath and then a couple of weeks later seen the exact same photo and its a different war zone and different story altogether.....so ....I never pass on or share anything either...cos too many people get too big a kick from telling such whopping lies.


----------



## Dogloverlou (Dec 8, 2013)

ouesi said:


> Conclusions absolutely can be wrong. As we have seen on this thread.
> 
> I have zero control over what vibe you get off my posts. That has as much to do with your perceptions as my words.
> 
> ...


The BIB works both ways though, no? That's exactly how I feel about the posts made by some in here too. That no one else is allowed to draw their own opinion or conclusion without being told why they're 'wrong'. So seems like we both think the other is acting morally superior. Guess that's all there is to say then.

It's all well and good debating but I think those trying to prove a point lose respect when all they can reply in their argument with is sarcastic jibes and put downs. But each to their own. I just had to reply with my two-penneth for all it's worth. ( Which I know won't be much to some  )


----------



## Guest (Mar 14, 2015)

Dogloverlou said:


> The BIB works both ways though, no? That's exactly how I feel about the posts made by some in here too. *That no one else is allowed to draw their own opinion or conclusion without being told why they're 'wrong'.* So seems like we both think the other is acting morally superior. Guess that's all there is to say then.


Ah see, but we all ARE allowed to form opinions and draw conclusions. We are ALSO allowed to rectify *wrong* conclusions. And conclusions absolutely can be wrong.

For example, you said:


Dogloverlou said:


> But you don't ask yourself why those people 'attack' though, do you?


I left this alone the first time, but it serves a good illustration here. You are totally allowed to tell me what I do and do not ask myself. However, I think I might have a bit more insight in to what I ask myself than you do, therefore I think I might be quite justified in pointing out that you are wrong about me and what I ask myself.

So yes, post away that this photo shows a man beating his dog, but expect to be told you are wrong if it turns out that there is actually no concrete evidence of the man actually beating his dog.



Dogloverlou said:


> It's all well and good debating but I think those trying to prove a point lose respect when all they can reply in their argument with is sarcastic jibes and put downs. But each to their own. I just had to reply with my two-penneth for all it's worth. ( Which I know won't be much to some  )


Meh... there are plenty of people out there who I don't respect who I also know are probably right about a lot of stuff I'm wrong about, and probably know a hell of a lot more about it than I do. Respect has nothing to do with accuracy.

When accusing a dog lover who might even make his living off of working with dogs, of dog abuse, it seems to me like accuracy of facts might be slightly important.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Dogloverlou said:


> The BIB works both ways though, no? That's exactly how I feel about the posts made by some in here too. That no one else is allowed to draw their own opinion or conclusion without being told why they're 'wrong'.


I haven't seen anyone telling anyone their opinions and conclusions are wrong - but I have seen posters (me included) challenging others' opinions and conclusions by suggesting that if they found out for themselves instead of believing everything that they read or see, or that at the very least they check their sources and make sure they are looking at up to date and accurate onformation before forming opinions and conclusions, then they might very well find that they come to different conclusions. Is that "not allowing" you to have your own opinions and conclusions? No it isn't. There is nothing wrong with it. It's a healthy way to debate.

For example, Goblin posted a whole lot of assertions that directly oppose my opinions and conclusions. Do I protest in post after post that he is not allowing me to have my own opinions and come to my own conclusions?

No, of course I don't. Because that is not what is happening.

I anwer the assertions I know the answer to and find that my opinions and conclusions are still the same and still do not agree with his. That's fine. People's opinions differ and mine differ from his. End of - unless he wants to come back and challenge my opinions from a different angle, which again is fine - that's what debating is.

For the assertons I don't know the immediate answer to, I am going to check them out and come back to answer them. If he's right in any of his assertions, then I will alter my own opinions and conclusions accordingly. If I feel he is wrong, then my own opinions will stay the same.

Does any of that invovle feeling hurt and upset that he "won't allow me" to have my own opinions and conclusions? No, because all that has happened is that he has posted some things that I do not agree with or might/might not agree with. Neither he, nor anyone else, has the power to "allow" me or "not allow" me to form my own opinions and conclusions.

And neither does anyone have the power to do that to you.

If you feel hurt that your opinions have not been recognised, then this is a forum. Post them - but when you do, be prepared for others to challenge them and also be prepared to either say, "No, my original opinions still stand but so what if they differ from yours" or, "hey, I'd never thought of that before; has that changed my opinion in any way? Yes or no?"

That's what a debate is all about - it should be challenging and stimulating and not "I'm going to state my opinion and then get all hurt and say you won't allow me to hold my own opinions if you challenge it".


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

ouesi said:


> This is the part that just frustrates me to no end. Once something like this is out, some people will decide in their head what has happened, and woe be to anyone who tries to rectify that mental picture to something more accurate.
> 
> When you present some sort of thoughtful question to this type of person, they just attack, again, without thought. Just as we saw on the poisoning thread.
> *A couple folks pointed out that given the toxicology reports were not out yet, we couldn't possibly know that the dog was definitively poisoned or what the type of poison was. These people were met with "how dare you question those poor grieving owners" emotional attacks - again, without even considering the logical evidence being presented*.


I don't think any of us said how dare you question the poor grieving owners but some of us said, myself included that it was insensitive and unnecessary to suggest those poor grieving owners had poisoned their own dog. There is a world of difference between the two. The other issue raised was the tone and implication that anyone who believed the original story was a bit dim and not party to the superior intellect of certain members.

Also how come when I mentioned that point on a thread that wasn't the original one the poisoning was discussed on you challenged me and told me to address it on the original thread yet you have done exactly the same thing here. I don't have a problem with discussing it on a different thread by the way but I find it confusing when its OK for you to do it but not for me.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

I have seen that attitude elsewhere. Someone posted a rather hysteric post on a group on fb about mass poisonings etc. I said that all we know is that allegedly the poor setter had poison in it's stomach. Oh the outrage, the horror how dare I put the owners through this :crazy:. That group was sensible last I looked they seemed to have veered towards the deranged paranoia end of conspiracy theories these days. Peta were putting poison in baby's formula at shows if they were to be believed.


----------



## Guest (Mar 14, 2015)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I don't think any of us said how dare you question the poor grieving owners but some of us said, myself included that it was insensitive and unnecessary to suggest those poor grieving owners had poisoned their own dog. There is a world of difference between the two. The other issue raised was the tone and implication that anyone who believed the original story was a bit dim and not party to the superior intellect of certain members.
> 
> Also how come when I mentioned that point on a thread that wasn't the original one the poisoning was discussed on you challenged me and told me to address it on the original thread yet you have done exactly the same thing here. I don't have a problem with discussing it on a different thread by the way but I find it confusing when its OK for you to do it but not for me.


I didn't challenge you?
I did confuse you with another poster and I acknowledged that mistake and apologized for it.

I wonder how many of those who falsely accused this man of abuse and shared his photo have acknowledged their mistake, apologized, and tried to rectify the error and share the updated information? I certainly haven't seen any of that on this thread.. ...


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

ouesi said:


> *I didn't challenge you?*
> I did confuse you with another poster and I acknowledged that mistake and apologized for it.
> 
> I wonder how many of those who falsely accused this man of abuse and shared his photo have acknowledged their mistake, apologized, and tried to rectify the error and share the updated information? I certainly haven't seen any of that on this thread.. ...





ouesi said:


> *So address those posts on that thread. *
> 
> Okay let's clarify something. If I say "the vet who performed the necropsy is saying .... ", that doesn't mean I'm presenting the vet's statement as fact, I'm just saying that the vet has made a statement.
> 
> ...


I took the bit in bold as you challenging me so apologise if that was not what you intended.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

ouesi said:


> I didn't challenge you?
> I did confuse you with another poster and I acknowledged that mistake and apologized for it.
> 
> *I wonder how many of those who falsely accused this man of abuse and shared his photo have acknowledged their mistake, apologized, and tried to rectify the error and share the updated information?* I certainly haven't seen any of that on this thread.. ...


I haven;t seen one person that jumped on this bandwagon stand up and rectify their mistake :nonod:

It's a shame I am not surprised...I am a cynic at heart but would have loved to have been proven wrong with this one!


----------



## Guest (Mar 15, 2015)

As of this morning, the Crufts FB page post saying there was no evidence of mistreatment has a measly 166 shares.

I dont know where the photos accusing the man of mistreatment originated but I have seen several sources across facebook, many with over 1000 shares, plus threads like these all over forums and other social media.

What a sad statement right there.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

ouesi said:


> What concrete evidence do you have that something like this would actually happen? That there *has* been a dog beaten at a well-known, well-run, well-respected dog show and no one did anything about it?


Simple question. Where have I said that a dog was beaten, or that a dog was poisoned at crufts? As for covering up.. how many people voted out Margaret Carter from the breed club. I believe it was something like 204 to 31. The reason.. she actually dared to say publically that the Cavalier King Charles Spaniel had a problem with Syringomyelia. Any body whose ethics includes rules against saying anything negative about a breed to the public, even when concerning health issues should be criticised. Has the culture changed? Not from what I read on these forums.



Spellweaver said:


> You could - but you don't. Except at this time of year - which you've just proved yet again by posting the above.


I don't create posts in general  I simply answer when other people start the discussion regardless of the time of year. After all, it doesn't matter how often I use facts, you'll ignore them anyway. I could ask you once again, what health benefits are there to limiting gene pools and practicing eugenics?


----------



## Guest (Mar 16, 2015)

Goblin said:


> *Simple question. Where have I said that a dog was beaten, or that a dog was poisoned at crufts?* As for covering up.. how many people voted out Margaret Carter from the breed club. I believe it was something like 204 to 31. The reason.. she actually dared to say publically that the Cavalier King Charles Spaniel had a problem with Syringomyelia. Any body whose ethics includes rules against saying anything negative about a breed to the public, even when concerning health issues should be criticised. Has the culture changed? Not from what I read on these forums.


Read my quote again. What evidence do you have that there was abuse AND it was covered up? 
Because your claim was that even if there was evidence of abuse, it would be covered up. 
I don't know if there have been abuse cover ups or not. That's why I asked you for specific examples if you have them.

And my question for anyone still reading still stands. How many of you who shared that photo all over facebook, twitter, instagram, forums, etc., have gone back and shared the statement explaining what was actually happening with the eye-witness corroboration?

Hundreds of thousands of shares to malign a man, not even 200 shares to clear him. :frown5:


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Goblin said:


> After all, it doesn't matter how often I use facts, you'll ignore them anyway.


Not if you post relevant, up to date facts I won't. I might refute them, prove them wrong, or show you evidence which has supereceded outdated facts, but I won't ignore them. As for ignoring - did you read this?



Spellweaver said:


> (and before you try to dodge the points I am making, by making accusations of my avoidance of the above issues, I need to look into them before replying)


And I will get back to you, but sorry, didn't have time to do any research on your points yesterday - I was having far too much fun at a championship dog show with my happy, healthy, inbred genetic mutants, and with my friends and all their happy, healthy, inbred genetic mutants, to be on the computer looking at articles to reply to forum posts.

Yes, actually _being_ at a champ show rather than just reading about it on others' blogs and forums - pity a few more people on here don't do that! Sadly though, it does mean you will have to wait for replies 

I did answer your points which I knew the answers to without having to look anything up - just as I am going to answer quickly answer these two:



Goblin said:


> As for covering up.. how many people voted out Margaret Carter from the breed club. I believe it was something like 204 to 31. The reason.. she actually dared to say publically that the Cavalier King Charles Spaniel had a problem with Syringomyelia.


What year was that? 2008? Why do you persist in this living in the past business? Despite the outcry from the anti-KC press, Margaret Carter was voted off the committee because she broke a rule protecting the confidentiality of people's identities, information she only had by dint of her being a committee member. Now, she may well have been right to do that, given the seriousness of her allegations, but - have things changed since then? Is the rule the same? Will it happen again? I have no idea - have you? And if you haven't, then why the heck are you still going on about something that happened in 2008 and could have changed since? Do you go around pointing out that Hitler once tried to invade us in the 1940's and try to use that to prove all germans are stilll trying to invade us? Goblin, come on, come into 2015 - have a look at how things are now - you will, I am sure, find plenty of things you feel are still wrong with the show world. Wouldn't it make much more sense to be railing against them, rather than be harping back to what was happening all those years ago?



Goblin said:


> After all, it doesn't matter how often I use facts, you'll ignore them anyway. I could ask you once again, what health benefits are there to limiting gene pools and practicing eugenics?


And I could give you the same reply once again - why do you persist in ignoring the fact that the KC allows outcrossing?


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Historically, the Kennel Club to tend to come down pretty hard on anyone who abuses a dog.

Long time ago, I was showing at an Open Show and the German Shepherds were in the ring next to us. One man's dog kept turning it's head to look at the dog behind it when it's owner was trying to stack it, so he slapped it, just once, on it's backside.

In no time, the Judge had him out of the ring and the Steward was taking all of his details, then he was asked to leave the Venue immediately.

He was reported to the Kennel Club and was asked to attend for a hearing. They fined him £5,000, (this was in 1994), and banned him from showing or registering pups for eighteen months.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Sweety said:


> Historically, the Kennel Club to tend to come down pretty hard on anyone who abuses a dog.
> 
> Long time ago, I was showing at an Open Show and the German Shepherds were in the ring next to us. One man's dog kept turning it's head to look at the dog behind it when it's owner was trying to stack it, so he slapped it, just once, on it's backside.
> 
> ...


How would the KC have the right to fine someone £5000, that is just a farce. One smack on the backside probably just to get its attention and he was fined far far more than someone who starves or neglects numerous animals. Surely that cannot be right.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Blitz said:


> How would the KC have the right to fine someone £5000, that is just a farce. One smack on the backside probably just to get its attention and he was fined far far more than someone who starves or neglects numerous animals. Surely that cannot be right.


The Kennel Club never had any legal right to enforce a fine, but had the man refused to pay it, his registration would not have been reinstated.

They couldn't really say, well one slap is okay, but if you beat your dog, we'll come down hard.

They had to say it was against K C Rules to hit a dog and the man was showing under rules.


----------

