|
Location: UK
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 13,122
|
10-05-2011, 09:00 AM
Originally Posted by Ramble 
I also think the man should, who had been trained with his dog, should have had better control of it.
My guess is and going by most people who have assistance dogs, they are usually on leads close to their owners , to allow them to do the job they are trained for.
So blaming a disabled man for his dog being kicked by an irate woman, seems a little odd.
|
|
Location: U K
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 5,588
|
10-05-2011, 09:07 AM
Originally Posted by Jackbox
Well seeing as none of us were there, and seeing as we are ALL making assumptions on who was were and who should not have done what.
My guess is and going by most people who have assistance dogs, they are usually on leads close to their owners , to allow them to do the job they are trained for.
So blaming a disabled man for his dog being kicked by an irate woman, seems a little odd.
|
|
|
|
Location: dullsville
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,241
|
10-05-2011, 09:20 AM
Originally Posted by Ramble
It is conjecture about where she wad sitting and who was doing what.
No, its conjecture as we werent their.
But thats by the by.
For the context of this exchange, we are taking the account on face value.
So it was what it was.
A deaf man with his assistance dog invited by the council officials to a meeting about his disability.
One can rightly assume the officials would have known what this entails, otherwise it would not be unreasonable ask if they are qualified for the job?
The dog should still not have been that close to her. What she did was wrong, what the owner of the dog did was also wrong. That was my point.
That's just rediculous. Once we establish the incident is what it is, you just need to apply common sense.
You are attending a meeting in a confined space with a deaf man with his assistance dog to discuss his disability.
ou are muslim, you cant be near dogs.
You know both of these things, do something about it
To put the blame on a disabled man whom has just turned up for his meeting as arranged by the council is clearly unrealistic and unreasonable.
You could call this prejudice against disabled people if you like
Some of the posts on this thread are anti
Muslim
some are, the 'lets be british and animal lovers' one is a bit dumb.
Some you say arent, its just comment on religious practice.
happy now?
is whom happy?
at least you arent calling it racism anymore
I totally agree with kerriebaby
'let he who is without sin cast the first stone'
'people on glass houses shouldn't throw stones' etc
Yes we have anti muslim sentiments, but sometimes when a lady abuses a dog because she decided not to take repsonbility for her own situation, it is what it is.
You cant just go about retro fitting stuff fit into your own ideological pigeon hole just because you only see life thru that black and white thinking.
Its ok if you like that sort of thing, but dont be surprised when others object if you try to shove them in their alongside you
And aAnyone can post random biblical quotes.
Shouldnt you being using the koran
?
|
|
|
|
Location: dullsville
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,241
|
10-05-2011, 09:28 AM
Originally Posted by Velvetboxers
You are not making sense by your statement. This is how racism is fired, intensified & exacerbated.
People are expressing an opinion. If the thread annoys you
so much, why bother with it
A working dog is first & foremost - working. The person in question could be any race or culture, she didnt have to kick the dog. Simple!
such bizarre interpretations play their part in creating the racism they bemoan, usually far more so than than the comments they are aimed at.
|
|
|
Location: london.uk
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 8,012
|
10-05-2011, 09:46 AM
|
|
|
|
Location: london.uk
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 8,012
|
10-05-2011, 09:49 AM
Originally Posted by Ramble
I also think the man should, who had been trained with his dog, should have had better control of it.
|
|
|
Location: West Sussex
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 6,749
|
10-05-2011, 10:05 AM
Originally Posted by Tupacs2legs
no! the woman should of had control of her legs! to not kick but walk away! this was an assistance dog !
|
|
|
Location: Preesall, Lancashire
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 5,622
|
10-05-2011, 10:14 AM
Originally Posted by Jackbox
I think it matter a great deal how you slaughter an animal, ofcause you are goign to get blood guts and gore, after movements.... but the main priority should be the animal is dead..and killed quickly or stunned before death.
To allow something to bleed to death, is not something I consider acceptable!
But stunning doesn't kill the animal, it stuns it, and renders it unconcious - the bleeding out kills the animal, so it's still the same!
|
|
|
|
Location: Wiltshire UK
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 14,404
|
10-05-2011, 10:30 AM
Originally Posted by IsoChick
Sorry, I meant that it doesn't matter whether you stun first, use a bolt gun etc, you are always going to have the gore/movement etc. Didn't make myself quite clear....
But stunning doesn't kill the animal, it stuns it, and renders it unconcious - the bleeding out kills the animal, so it's still the same!
|
|
|
|
Location: UK
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 13,122
|
10-05-2011, 10:31 AM
Originally Posted by IsoChick
Sorry, I meant that it doesn't matter whether you stun first, use a bolt gun etc, you are always going to have the gore/movement etc. Didn't make myself quite clear....
But stunning doesn't kill the animal, it stuns it, and renders it unconcious - the bleeding out kills the animal, so it's still the same!
Given an anesthetic , you are out of it, and dont feel the op.
The same with the stun, it renders you unconscious, so you dont feel the death.
|
|