Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay!

abbey · Post by **abbey** » Sat Jan 13, 2007 2:19 pm

GUILTY.. OF LETTING YOUR DOG GET FAT

First people in Britain to be prosecuted by the RSPCA for having an over weight pet.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_headlin ... _page.html

About time something was done to people who neglect their animals.

valerie · Post by **valerie** » Sat Jan 13, 2007 2:23 pm

Hallelujah!!

It's about time. That certainly IS criminal.

:yh_clap

abbey · Post by **abbey** » Sat Jan 13, 2007 2:30 pm

And the voice of the Daily Mirror says

"RUSTY the Labrador was the Vanessa Feltz of the dog world.

The pooch was another overweight creature who was painful to watch."

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Sat Jan 13, 2007 2:44 pm

I wonder will they start prosecuting people because they let their kids eat junk food all the time and their kids are starting to look a bit like this poor dog, or wuld that be a bit too controversial?

I think a poetic punishment would have been to have let the dog eat them, its harsh, but somehow elegant.

valerie · Post by **valerie** » Sat Jan 13, 2007 3:05 pm

I'll agree that some junk foods are cheaper... but I think most people

know what constitutes a healthy diet, they just don't DO it.

How hard is it to watch the food intake of your pet? I'd sure love

to only get the food someone gave me, and tell them not to let me

have high calorie or high fat foods... I'd be a shadow of my former self!

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Sat Jan 13, 2007 3:11 pm

Hamster;515627 wrote: This wouldn't work in my opinion...as I see many people who are overweight and their children often are too. It is simply a case of (with dogs as well as humans) that the parents/owners have no idea what constitutes a healthy diet and why they put on weight.

And quite often junk food is cheaper than "healthy foods". Healthy foods are often labelled incorrectly to look better than they are!

(sorry for the rant and the thread hi-jack!)

Well I agree, but obviously that argument didn't work for these guys who musy have been feeding this dog about 12 cans of food a day, so I don't see why it might not be possible for this precedent to be used to make parents culpable for feeding their children unhealthy food. Not that I would really be into that kinda idea, its very nanny state indeed, but it might happen you know. I don't think its really a hijack cause we are on the same topic really, I'm just extrapolating some of the possible implications, its quite an interesting case really.

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Sat Jan 13, 2007 3:38 pm

Dr. G has a valid point about children being over weight-or eating unhealthy food items. At school, we have no control over what they eat at lunch, unless we want to give up our lunch too, to monitor them. We have one student who overeats on chips, and gets sick in class every afternoon. The school nurse has told us she won't take him, let him get sick in class! (luckily it is not my class, but the poor lady two doors down from me) I think the parents should be made to come to school and eat lunch with him! Why should we be punished! And it is really gross too!

Hugh Janus · Post by **Hugh Janus** » Sat Jan 13, 2007 5:49 pm

This whole post smacks of leftie PC do-gooders.

Sod the bloody dogs! People come first...

What about the pensioners that can't afford to put the heating on. they have to decide whether to heat or eat?

What about the couples with kids, that are unemployed and unable to get work because they are being ousted by people that will work for less than the national minimum wage, (think about it)?

Homeless people, forced to take shelter in the kind of places that your overfed pooch would refuse to crap in.

And we have the temerity to call ourselves civilised....

This damn country thinks more about animals than it does its own people...

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Sat Jan 13, 2007 5:53 pm

Hugh Janus;515778 wrote: This whole post smacks of leftie PC do-gooders.

Sod the bloody dogs!

What about the pensioners that can't afford to put the heating on. they have to decide whether to heat or eat?

What about the couples with kids, that are unemployed and unable to get work because they are being ousted by people that will work for less than the national minimum wage, (think about it)?

Homeless people, forced to take shelter in the kind of places that your overfed pooch would refuse to crap in.

And we have the temerity to call ourselves civilised....

This damn country thinks more about animals than it does its own people...

Which is kinda why I brought up the point about children huge bum, I do tend to think that as a general rule people are more important than animals. Though that doesn't mean that people mistreating animals or being unnescarily cruel to them shoud be ignored either, its a question of balance wouldn't you say?

CARLA · Post by **CARLA** » Sat Jan 13, 2007 5:57 pm

OK it state that the dog has lost about 3 1/2 stones???? :-3 Translate please..

abbey · Post by **abbey** » Sat Jan 13, 2007 5:59 pm

Hugh Janus;515778 wrote: This whole post smacks of leftie PC do-gooders.

Sod the bloody dogs!

What about the pensioners that can't afford to put the heating on. they have to decide whether to heat or eat?

What about the couples with kids, that are unemployed and unable to get work because they are being ousted by people that will work for less than the national minimum wage, (think about it)?

Homeless people, forced to take shelter in the kind of places that your overfed pooch would refuse to crap in.

And we have the temerity to call ourselves civilised....

This damn country thinks more about animals than it does its own people..I have to agree with all of the above except the first paragraph.

The RSPCA look after animal welfare, and they acted in the interest of the dog who could not act for itself.

abbey · Post by **abbey** » Sat Jan 13, 2007 6:01 pm

CARLA;515791 wrote: OK it state that the dog has lost about 3 1/2 stones???? :-3 Translate please..49lbs