11st choc lab...
2007-01-12 07:12:45 · 12 answers · asked by Bailey B 2 in Pets ➔ Other - Pets
That is quite a normal verdict for Magistrates to make, you see them all the time. The dog should have been taken from the brothers and given a good home elsewhere. The brothers had no money so a fine was not a good idea, and the prisons are full.
2007-01-12 07:20:25 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes I do think they got off too lightly, They are uneducated and uncaring owners. That dog depends on them for a healthy happy life style and they have given him neither. It is not kind to feed a dog the wrong food and if the dog has artheritis as they say then the vet would have advised of a good nutritional balanced diet and all dogs need exercise. In their case then they the less the dog can exercise than lighter diet req.
2007-01-12 07:29:34 · answer #2 · answered by Miss RoZy 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I have just read this in the news. I think these people are as cruel as those who under-feed their animals. It must be obvious, to any caring owner, that something is not right with their animal and in this case a trip to the vets would have confirmed the problem, and help could have been given. I can't believe that the owners were so ignorant not to notice something was not right. Any animal owner, whether it is a tiny rodent or a larger animal, every owner has a responsibility to their pet's welfare. In this instance, they should never be allowed to have contact with any other animal.
2007-01-12 08:08:21 · answer #3 · answered by debzc 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes they got off lightly but it proves the point how greed can weigh heavily on you :1
2007-01-12 07:20:08 · answer #4 · answered by Ad Cas 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Outrageous really would be an understatement. It's a dreadful way to treat an animal and there is no way they should be allowed to keep any more pets.
2007-01-12 07:24:56 · answer #5 · answered by Finlay S 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
they should never be allowed to have any pet ever again.
it was obvious to the vet that they neglected the dogs needs(apart from food). he should have called the rspca sooner and confiscated the dog.
2007-01-12 07:26:33 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yeah I think it`s outrageous and I can`t believe they are giving the dog back.
2007-01-12 07:16:18 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
THEY GOT THE DOG BACK!!!!!
yeah they should be banned from keeping animals for life!
2007-01-12 07:16:22 · answer #8 · answered by Riley Blue 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
that is so wrong ,that poor dog must feel like **** those two tw**s should have got 30 days inside
2007-01-12 07:18:12 · answer #9 · answered by stuart r 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes, and why were they allowed to keep the dog when they have been chareged with cruelty to it?
2007-01-12 07:17:00 · answer #10 · answered by Alicat 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋