Couple reasons.
Most good rescues have a contract stating dog must go back to where it came from.
A good rescue that takes it responsibilities seriously and cares for its animals would be upset if this was done.
Do we know the rescue mentioned doesnt have similar philosophies to The dogs Trust

Also, with the Dogs Trust, healthy (and unhealthy) means mentally and physically, so they also do put down dogs for aggression, after due consideration and assessments.

I havent said you are on a mission to get him destroyed, , nor that you should not contact them.

My point is the blurb on the website isnt necessarily an indicator of what the rescue does or doesnt know about the dog, isnt necessarily an indicator of how they have found out information about the dog, nor necessarily an indicator of how they handle the rehoming of the dog, as their *may* be a lot more procedure and practice you may not be aware of at this rescue (already detailed in my last posts).
The blurb you featured is simply correct and standard for the type of dog you mention, not an *automatic* indicator of something amiss.

Also, do you know if your neighbours have had contact with the rescue before they took him back or throughout the years they owned him and had problems?
Do you know your neighbours are telling everything that happened when they returned the dog?
They may be feeling raw and not wish to go into detail?
And do you know whether or not the rescue had a file on the dog before hand detailing similar problems?

Like i said, there are many alternative conclusions that can be drawn from the account you have relayed.

well obviously i only know what they have told me. which is that they have had limited contact and they didn't seek advice when the problems first began.

i don't know if the center had a file on the dog. all i know is that i feel concern over his welfare and that of any dog he may come into contact with. i asked for opinions here but i was already of the mind to contact the kennels. like i said before. they may say they know it all. fantastic. i will then tell them how much i think of tommy and that in the right hands he could be a brilliant pet. if not, well, i may be saving a dogs life.

I also had a dog aggresive Staffie, she was brilliant people and kids, but hated other dogs.....I knew this when I took her on, the rescue told me all her faults...2 weeks after we got her, she did bite another dog, although it was not a bad bite...I tried , and tried over the years to socialise her, but had no sucess, so accepted she would never get on with other dogs and walked her away from others, I had her 15 years with no problems, she ws the most loving dog ever....Her only problem she was not socialised as a pup....

Hello Ace

All completely true, but the difference in this case is the dog is being returned to its own rescue, not a first time hand in.
Most rescues tell the owners they will take back their own dogs (do the RSPCA?), so there wouldnt be the impetus to fib to the rescue.
Also, regarding owners fibbing, a good rescue will take dog away for an assessment to double check the info given, before its signed over.
9 times out of 10 this works.
Thats what I've always done in my rescues.
Does the RSPCA have this procedure?

I thinks its heartwarming that the OP has tommys best intrest at heart.Respect due.I would be letting the rescue know whats happend,then its down to them to tell anybody that enqiures about him that he has severe DA.It should then state on the page that only experienced owners of the breed need apply.Last thing anybody surley wants to happen is the fella been rehomed without any prior info,its a disaster waiting to happen otherwise,and will end in tears.Its so sad when a breed specific rescue doesnt assess a dog,then said dog attacks new owners dog and bites owner then has to be pts.
Lets hope everything works out.

i agree that all this should happen.
but how do you know it isnt already?
plus, its not a breed specific rescue and the issue was dog to dog aggression, not biting the owner.

thank you. i can see you fully understand.

but how do you know it has? it's due to people just 'assuming' things that thousands of dogs are rehomed to unsuitable homes. why you persist in questioning this is beyond me. i, and everyone else that has posted in this thread is concerned for tommys welfare. you seem more concerned with anyone questioning the owners integrity and the rescues policy. very strange.

By this comment, I can tell that, despite several posts explaining, that my point has been misunderstood.

Firstly, I am one that did this for a living, so I am an expert in this subject.

I think you should ring the rescue.

When you talk to them, if they do their job properly, they should approach the conversation with an open mind and guarded approach.
Open mind, because you are a third party stranger, and they have to consider that you may have valuable information for the beneficial rehoming of Tommy, or that you may be motivated by a prejudicial agenda (neighbour disputes, breed/tommy bias).
I have dealt with both scenarios many times.
Guarded approach due to the above, plus keeping in mind the strictures of confidentiality and the Data Protection Act.
Naturally, how you come across makes a difference.

Then they should assess your info - but not in isolation.
But mixed in with what the owner said, what they knew about Tommy before he was rehomed to them, and what they have learnt about Tommy for themselves since he returned.
Quite often, if you have a good rescue with qualified behaviour people, which this one advertises that is does, the owner info is often only equal or even less to the rescue's behaviour assessment anyway, as owners either don't reveal problems about the dog,
or they say the dog has a problem which is doesn't have, because the owner hasn't a clue about dogs or is covering their own incompetence or irresponsibility.

The reason i have been posting is, ironically, the one you just stated:
you seem more concerned with anyone questioning the owners integrity and the rescues policy. very strange

If you said my neighbour handed the dog back into the rescue and do you think i should ring them to make sure they know about the 3 specific dog attack incidents in the manner which they occurred, especially as they told me they didnt give the rescue any specific information, I would have just said "yes".

However, you started from the assumption and assertion that your neighbour could not have been full, frank, or truthful, and therefore the rescue would not know about Tommy's dog aggression problems, based upon a piece of evidence (the dogs website entry), which once your read it, actually gives rise to the *notion* (note i am not saying 'fact' here) that they do know about this issue, not that they do not.
This is what i simply pointed out, adding into the equation several details about rescue practice and procedure that you may not know about and may not have stopped to consider.
Including that you dont write up website profiles using the form of language you have described, as you would wreck things for Tommy and other dogs in the rescue.

2 other posters also stated that the website profile is followed by further info, so the profile you linked is quite standard and usual for a dog with this problem.

Therefore, I am giving the benefit of the doubt to the rescue - "defending their policies" - and by association, your neighbour - "defending their integrity" - until they are proved 'guilty' (for want of a better phrase), whereas you have questioned your neighbour's integrity, and by association, the rescues policy when it comes to the responsible rehoming of said dog, until proven 'innocent' (for want of a better phrase).

I just dont think you should have posted in this assumptive manner, as threads like this can easily degenerate into all sorts of rescue critique and wider deeper assumption disguised as 'fact'.
We've seen the green shoots already with sbt4eva's post.

In answer to the bit quoted above - yes, on the whole, the RSPCA will take dogs back that've been adopted out previously. However, if a dog has broken the skin on a person or frequently attacks other animals, 99% of the time it will get PTS as it can't be re-homed with confidence that it wouldn't re-attack.

We do assessments on dogs though too.

In response to something said earlier - the biggist niggle I have here is that Tommy is their only rescue dog in at the minute - in which case I'd put money on them not doing an assessment with him. (Lets face it, their insurance wouldn't cover them for testing him with a clients boarded dog!!) So, I suspect he'll not have been tested at all with other dogs (as it is rare they would use one of their own dogs either - for obvious reasons!)

And ditto what has been said about the Dogs Trust - they have very clever marketing when they say "never put a healthy dog down" - people misinterpret that to mean physical ailments when in fact "unhealthy" can be anything including mental issues. And indeed, like has someone else said earlier, if you ring up to say you want your dog taken in because he's aggressive towards other dogs and has bitten a person before as a result of this aggression (even if directed towards another dog), then chances are you'd not get past the first phone call and if you did, there is a good chance they'd tell you they would have to PTS the dog anyway.