|
|
Location: middlesbrough uk
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 431
|
07-01-2010, 11:41 PM
Originally Posted by Navajo 
I've already answered this, I don't see a commercial side as such within flapping, not where we run anyway.
|
|
Location: Stockton on Tees
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,005
|
08-01-2010, 01:27 AM
Originally Posted by spot
But yep I do agree there are things that some people wouldn’t agree with – me and Taz going around tree hugging when we’re high and drunk for one! Your welcome to join us if you fancy it though.
You know, if we get enough people interested, we could make an event of it, you know, a drunk/high tree hugging flashmob.
Wonder how many public order offences we'd get charged with.
|
|
|
|
Location: london
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 330
|
08-01-2010, 08:38 AM
Originally Posted by Jodie
Galty no matter how much you try to criticise the efforts of those who did everything possible to help these greyhounds - including reporting the disgusting conditions to the GBGB and securing places for 12 dogs on Blanchard's 'destruction' list - the fact remains, Blanchard was animal abuser who kept her dogs in filthy conditions, destroyed dogs at the drop of a hat because she didn't want anyone else to have them, illegally disposed of dog waste, employed people 'cash in hand', built a kennel block in breach of planning law and confined her dogs to kennels 24/7 - excluding race days and kennel cleaning.
But hey! I suspect thats the type of trainer the GBGB want/need which is why they gave her a grant to tart up her kennels and the good people of Wimbledon are financing the re-homing of her dogs she wanted to be destroyed!
FTR - no one was sacked - Hannah walked off the job and so did Neil.
http://www.greytexploitations.com/re...eyhounds-voice
Hanna in no way helped these greyhounds she did not do her job took the money and took a video after breaking into the kennels in the middle of the night and she had left/sacked the job
Sue Haigh told us everything was alright now that Hanna had gone, she and her husband had it all in hand.
Six months later she does the same thing as Hanna and produces a Video after she had left/sacked
You are wrong when you state that I am critise any one who helped the 75 year old Eve Blanchard after she and her dogs had been conned by the Anties.
It was only the industry who helped her in the end and no matter the spin you try to put on it I support there efforts.
Yes she stated that her retired racers that had to go that she would rather see PTS than fall into the hands of the Anties after her dealings with Hanna and Sue but she was persuaded to rehome 12 of her retired dogs with the help of Noarh and the industry.
You state that Hanna walked off the job but in another post you stated that you did not know what Hanna I was talking about.
|
|
|
|
Location: london
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 330
|
08-01-2010, 09:00 AM
Originally Posted by Jodie
Ive no idea if its the same Hannah.
The RSPCA can act but don't. If they receive a complaint regarding a licensed kennel, they forward the complaint on to the GBGB to deal with - as they did in the Blanchard case.
There has never been a licensed trainer prosecuted in a criminal court under the AWA - they have always been dealt with internally under the Rules of Racing and leniently!
AWA in force about a year.
Not really up to debate the AWA as no little about it.
Did read some thing that stated that all Animals where to have basic rights such as.......
Food, water, and basic shelter.
NGRC have insisted on that since the 1920s, so I take from that that all other Animals are to enjoy the protection in basic needs that the Greyhound has enjoyed for 80 years
From what I gather and I might be wrong that the 12000 sigs where that Greyhounds should get more protection than other animals that in as much they should not be PTS after there working life is over.
In a perfect world that would be nice, but to be fair in a perfect world that would mean that no Animal should be PTS and no Government would or could do that.
|
|
|
|
Location: The hills!
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 686
|
08-01-2010, 09:51 AM
Originally Posted by spot
Fair enough but do you think the welfare of the dogs involved would be improved if the commercial side was taken out. I would really be interested in a flapping persons pov. (not saying you are flapping
)Will see you answer tom I really have to go to bed now!
But the commercial side won't be taken away, because it makes the goverment pots of gold.
ETS *Hugs trees.... lol*
|
|
|
|
Location: The hills!
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 686
|
08-01-2010, 09:54 AM
Originally Posted by Jodie
I have never said I am confident it will be abolished - why do you constantly wrongly assume?
Why mention a state of America that has abolished it and go on to say that we follow in their footsteps then?
The 12,000 people are citizens of the UK.
|
|
|
|
Location: The hills!
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 686
|
08-01-2010, 10:01 AM
Originally Posted by Jodie
But you still havent answered why you jeopardise the welfare of your dogs to running round an oval track in competition with 5 other dogs?
Like I say, whenever we run pointers, great if they get placed or win but realistically it's a huge bonus if they come home safe!
|
|
|
|
Location: uk
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 18,552
|
08-01-2010, 01:02 PM
Originally Posted by Jodie
You have been fed false information and yes, I along with another 12,000 other respondents to the consultation were ignored by the government.
|
|