Page 2 of 2
Re: In this section because...NWS
Posted: Sat Sep 21, 2013 1:14 pm
by meles meles
Stocks, ooman ?
No.
They were reserved, on the whole, for crimes against property and minor misdemeanours.
They had the birch and whipping for this sort of crime.
Re: In this section because...NWS
Posted: Sat Sep 21, 2013 2:05 pm
by raybrown53
meles meles wrote:Stocks, ooman ?
No.
They were reserved, on the whole, for crimes against property and minor misdemeanours.
They had the birch and whipping for this sort of crime.
Ok but start with the stocks and increase the punishment, humiliate the offenders etc
Re: In this section because...NWS
Posted: Sat Sep 21, 2013 9:09 pm
by Dougan
raybrown53 wrote:christel wrote:...I think someone ought to hunt this low life scum down and give him the same treatment as he gave his "best friend".
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... stick.html
It is not for the faint hearted nor is it work safe.
...suspended sentence...joke
This society is wrong wrong wrong when we have "people" who do this and a law system that lets them get away with it.
Clamp down hard on cases like this, make people pass a test before they are allowed to "own" a pet or have a kid. I do not accept that human rights play a part in kids/pets "ownership". It is something that ought to be earned.
If anyone out there reading this experience something similar, or is stupid enough to record it instead of intervene, please please intervene!
I find it really hard to read articles like this. it makes my blood boil.
Same here
Re: In this section because...NWS
Posted: Sat Sep 21, 2013 9:17 pm
by Dougan
I read this week that the MOD has put down 288 serving dogs in the last 4 years - Apparently 19 were put down due to their temperament (which I can sort of see), but the majority had simply come to end of their useful career
Christ we have donkey sanctuaries, surely it can't be that expensive to have a retirement home for ex-military dogs?
Two of the ones recently put down had been extras used to guard Prince William, but when he left the barracks they were euthanised - maybe the royal family could contribute to a sanctuary...or is feeding the corgis with sirloin steak affecting their finances?
Re: In this section because...NWS
Posted: Sat Sep 21, 2013 9:22 pm
by meles meles
From our experience, squirrel, most military attack dogs are only really only obedient when handled by a very small number of trainers they have been taught to obey. You wouldn't want them to "sit" when the bad guy shouted "sit", would you and so their training reflects that. Sadly, it does make them a little unsuitable for re-homing after service. Would you trust one around your kiddiwinks?
Re: In this section because...NWS
Posted: Sat Sep 21, 2013 9:32 pm
by Dougan
I do understand that badger - It looked like they did manage to re-home more than 300, and as you suggest they were the smaller dogs (like spaniels used for sniffing etc.) not the guard dogs; and no I wouldn't want an ex-military guard dog...
...but how expensive would it be to provide 200/300 dogs with reasonable living conditions for their retirement?...It just strikes me that it's yet another example where the simplest and most cost-effective solution is to kill an animal, rather than do the right thing...
Re: In this section because...NWS
Posted: Sat Sep 21, 2013 9:36 pm
by meles meles
Oh, like The Cull you mean ?
Re: In this section because...NWS
Posted: Sat Sep 21, 2013 9:49 pm
by Dougan
The cull is a prime and even more disgusting example!
Re: In this section because...NWS
Posted: Sun Nov 03, 2013 8:51 am
by Chuck
So, any ideas on what's the best way to organise retribution without being caught then?????????? tesnews
I have zero tolerance for cretins who ill treat animals, they should be bullwhipped and castrated with a blunt teaspoon.