[Kizzy]

You speak as though you were there TS. :/
It's all supposition, you don't know the circumstances or what occurred pre or post attack, nor are you privvy to the mind of the man then or now so your summation is irrelevant.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

You speak as though you were there TS. :/
It's all supposition, you don't know the circumstances or what occurred pre or post attack, nor are you privvy to the mind of the man then or now so your summation is irrelevant.

No more or less relevant than anyone else making suppositions (that it was planned, calculated, that he is clearly evil), surely, and therefore by your reasoning, the entire thread is irrelevant unless entirely neutral.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

No more or less relevant than anyone else making suppositions (that it was planned, calculated, that he is clearly evil), surely, and therefore by your reasoning, the entire thread is irrelevant unless entirely neutral.

It is what it is, a base act committed by someone who became unhinged.
That's all we do and can know.
You made connections where there were none based on the opinions of some, that is entirely unjustified.
You can't preempt from one scenario how anyone would react to another.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

It is what it is, a base act committed by someone who became unhinged.
That's all we do and can know.

Right, and that's basically all I've said other than in the last post where I made a few counter-points as to a possible sequence of events, mainly in response to other people's adamant claims that it "must" have been planned, that covering it up is "cold and calculated", or the somewhat ridiculous notion that the dog would have been torn limb from limb and disembowelled in order to locate a sub-dermal microchip.

For the mostpart all I have said is exactly what you just said, only with the (correct) addition that becoming temporarily unhinged and carrying out an otherwise unthinkable act is something that can happen to literally anyone.

People don't like that.

And of course that it is quite obviously less serious because it's JUST A DOG, and whilst it is sad, it's not comparible to the killing of a human. Morally, psychologically or in the eyes of the law.

People really don't like that.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Right, and that's basically all I've said other than in the last post where I made a few counter-points as to a possible sequence of events, mainly in response to other people's adamant claims that it "must" have been planned, that covering it up is "cold and calculated", or the somewhat ridiculous notion that the dog would have been torn limb from limb and disembowelled in order to locate a sub-dermal microchip.

For the mostpart all I have said is exactly what you just said, only with the (correct) addition that becoming temporarily unhinged and carrying out an otherwise unthinkable act is something that can happen to literally anyone.

People don't like that.

And of course that it is quite obviously less serious because it's JUST A DOG, and whilst it is sad, it's not comparible to the killing of a human. Morally, psychologically or in the eyes of the law.

People really don't like that.

It may be less serious to you and the law yet the moral and psychological juries are out, while the act of killing a pet to a person is not comparable legally they are no more shocking and unacceptable in a spiritual sense.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

It may be less serious to you and the law yet the moral and psychological juries are out

The moral jury on everything is always out, such is the subjective nature of morality. I can assure you though, the psychological jury is not out. Killing animals can be indicative of psychological problems but on the scale of abnormal psychology, it's absolutely nowhere near murder. Murder being used in the proper sense of the word of course; killing another human being.

while the act of killing a pet to a person is not comparable legally they are no more shocking and unacceptable in a spiritual sense.

To you. See above, re: the subjective nature of morality.

Originally Posted by Třm

You're a psycho. A deluded psycho.

Am I, doctor? Oh dear.

I take this to mean that you ARE a vegetarian?

[arista]

"very struggling family.."

Yes Big Error getting a Dog , Ammi.

[Kizzy]

I've seen that scruffy bloated lawyer on telly somewhere.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

I've seen that scruffy bloated lawyer on telly somewhere.

Jeremy Kyle?

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Right, and that's basically all I've said other than in the last post where I made a few counter-points as to a possible sequence of events, mainly in response to other people's adamant claims that it "must" have been planned, that covering it up is "cold and calculated", or the somewhat ridiculous notion that the dog would have been torn limb from limb and disembowelled in order to locate a sub-dermal microchip.

For the mostpart all I have said is exactly what you just said, only with the (correct) addition that becoming temporarily unhinged and carrying out an otherwise unthinkable act is something that can happen to literally anyone.

People don't like that. And of course that it is quite obviously less serious because it's JUST A DOG, and whilst it is sad, it's not comparible to the killing of a human. Morally, psychologically or in the eyes of the law.

People really don't like that.

..it's strange that you use such emotive descriptions as..somewhat ridiculous notion that the dog would have been torn limb from limb and disembowelled in order to locate a sub-dermal microchip..(when no one has actually said that in the thread or anything like it..)...yet you seem to be inferring that people don't like something because of a 'fluffy' type thing which is based on emotion, I can't recall exactly how you described it..and I'm not sure what you feel people don't like/what you have decided they don't like....no one has suggested that this man should be imprisoned for life, meet the same fate as they dog he killed in any real way other than a 'reaction' throw away remark type way and many people make those remarks, even have those feelings on instinct but that's as far as they go isn't it, outrage/anger/annoyance etc....but this guy actually acted on his feelings, he must have felt those things as well but he actually acted on them....a scenario as well/another scenario...is that the dog was extremely annoying to him, drove him crazy with her barking...(if indeed she barked day and night..)...he had a heart attack and blamed the dog for the stress and caused it, felt she had contributed to that and his health..(there is no medical evidence of any contributing factor but just part of a 'defence' plea..)...but in his mind she was the cause...he was suspended form his job after the incident and the charges against him because his colleagues refused to work with him so there was no choice..again the dog's fault because this was basically all spiralling his life down, so she was the cause of all of this or a big contributory factor...no evidence of this of course, no other neighbours making complaints...so he really hated that dog, he hated that dog to an extent that he felt she had fairly much ruined so much stuff in his life and he saw an opportunity and he killed her because it was all her fault...and then after that 'moment of madness..'...he then realised that this act was probably not going to do much to set his life back on a positive again so he tried to cover it up/unsuccessfully....another possible scenario...that he had a mind-set of such 'hatred and blame' that he could do something like this...no moments of madness just a very mean spirited and cruel person who could not accept that things happen in your life to make it spiral down sometimes and he had to find blame/excuses and reasons and very misplaced ones...

Originally Posted by arista

"very struggling family.."

Yes Big Error getting a Dog , Ammi.

..yeah big error to think of something that may bring some happiness to their disabled daughter, Arista...

[T*]

Originally Posted by Ammi

..it's strange that you use such emotive descriptions as..somewhat ridiculous notion that the dog would have been torn limb from limb and disembowelled in order to locate a sub-dermal microchip..(when no one has actually said that in the thread or anything like it..)...yet you seem to be inferring that people don't like something because of a 'fluffy' type thing, I can't recall exactly how you described it..and I'm not sure what you feel people don't like/what you have decided they don't like....no one has suggested that this man should be imprisoned for life, meet the same fate as they dog he killed in any real way other than a 'reaction' throw away remark type way and many people make those remarks, even have those feelings on instinct but that's as far as they go, isn't it outrage/anger/annoyance etc....but this guy actually acted on his feelings, he must have felt those things as well but he actually acted on them....a scenario as well/another scenario...is that the dog was extremely annoying to him, drove him crazy with her barking...(if indeed she barked day and night..)...he had a heart attack and blamed the dog for the stress and caused it, felt she had contributed to that and his health..(there is no medical evidence of any contributing factor but just part of a 'defence' plea..)...but in his mind she was the cause...he was suspended form his job after the incident and the charges against him because his colleagues refused to work with him so there was no choice..again the dog's fault because this was basically all spiralling his life down, so she was the cause of all of this or a big contributory factor...no evidence of this of course, no other neighbours making complaints...so he really hated that dog, he hated that dog to an extent that he felt she had fairly much ruined so much stuff in his life and he saw an opportunity and he killed her because it was all her fault...and then after that 'moment of madness..'...he then realised that this act was probably not going to do much to set his life on a positive again so he tried to cover it up/unsuccessfully....another possible scenario...that he had a mind-set of such 'hatred and blame' that he could do something like this...no moments of madness just a very mean spirited and cruel person who could not accept that things happen in your life to make it spiral down sometimes and he had to find blame/excuses and reasons and very misplaced ones...













..yeah big error to think of something that may bring some happiness to their disabled daughter, Arista...

[Ross.]

Originally Posted by Ammi

..it's strange that you use such emotive descriptions as..somewhat ridiculous notion that the dog would have been torn limb from limb and disembowelled in order to locate a sub-dermal microchip..(when no one has actually said that in the thread or anything like it..)...yet you seem to be inferring that people don't like something because of a 'fluffy' type thing which is based on emotion, I can't recall exactly how you described it..and I'm not sure what you feel people don't like/what you have decided they don't like....no one has suggested that this man should be imprisoned for life, meet the same fate as they dog he killed in any real way other than a 'reaction' throw away remark type way and many people make those remarks, even have those feelings on instinct but that's as far as they go isn't it, outrage/anger/annoyance etc....but this guy actually acted on his feelings, he must have felt those things as well but he actually acted on them....a scenario as well/another scenario...is that the dog was extremely annoying to him, drove him crazy with her barking...(if indeed she barked day and night..)...he had a heart attack and blamed the dog for the stress and caused it, felt she had contributed to that and his health..(there is no medical evidence of any contributing factor but just part of a 'defence' plea..)...but in his mind she was the cause...he was suspended form his job after the incident and the charges against him because his colleagues refused to work with him so there was no choice..again the dog's fault because this was basically all spiralling his life down, so she was the cause of all of this or a big contributory factor...no evidence of this of course, no other neighbours making complaints...so he really hated that dog, he hated that dog to an extent that he felt she had fairly much ruined so much stuff in his life and he saw an opportunity and he killed her because it was all her fault...and then after that 'moment of madness..'...he then realised that this act was probably not going to do much to set his life back on a positive again so he tried to cover it up/unsuccessfully....another possible scenario...that he had a mind-set of such 'hatred and blame' that he could do something like this...no moments of madness just a very mean spirited and cruel person who could not accept that things happen in your life to make it spiral down sometimes and he had to find blame/excuses and reasons and very misplaced ones...






..yeah big error to think of something that may bring some happiness to their disabled daughter, Arista...

Ammi

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Ammi

..it's strange that you use such emotive descriptions as..somewhat ridiculous notion that the dog would have been torn limb from limb and disembowelled in order to locate a sub-dermal microchip..(when no one has actually said that in the thread or anything like it..)...

Originally Posted by Kirklancaster

an already prepared place of EXECUTION replete with bucket of water and sharp knives, then drown her and disembowel her

Quite a few other people went with "cutting the dog open", I think it was AnnieK who went with "digging around under the skin". I appreciate that the article itself mentioned the "cutting open" of the dog presumably for media effect (less sexy to just say that he removed the chip which would have involved a tiny cut) but all of it is the same sort of sensationalism nonetheless and, as seen in the quote above, you are simply incorrect that "no one" mentioned "anything like" disembowelling in the thread.

Someone else, completely without evidence, also mentioned "torture".

I'm not the one being emotive. I'm not the one overly invested in the fate of someone elses dog?

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Quite a few other people went with "cutting the dog open", I think it was AnnieK who went with "digging around under the skin". I appreciate that the article itself mentioned the "cutting open" of the dog presumably for media effect (less sexy to just say that he removed the chip which would have involved a tiny cut) but all of it is the same sort of sensationalism nonetheless and, as seen in the quote above, you are simply incorrect that "no one" mentioned "anything like" disembowelling in the thread.

Someone else, completely without evidence, also mentioned "torture".

I'm not the one being emotive. I'm not the one overly invested in the fate of someone elses dog?

I said digging around in the flesh, if it really was so easy to remove why then not just remove it and as my ex did drive the dog away in his car..... why kill it?
I'm not sure why you've chosen to defend this man in his decision when rattled to snuff out the object of his ire, or condemn anyone who challenges his actions as being less sympathetic to the ills affecting the human race.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

I said digging around in the flesh, if it really was so easy to remove why then not just remove it and as my ex did drive the dog away in his car..... why kill it?

Not to make presumptions about the sequence of events again Kizzy but I would guess the chip was removed after the dog was drowned in a rage. I will conceed: If he cut out the chip and THEN drowned the dog, that is cold and calculating. He cut it out afterwards to hide the evidence.

I'm not sure why you've chosen to defend this man in his decision when rattled to snuff out the object of his ire

I'm trying to counter complete myths and misconceptions about human psychology more than this, to be honest.

or condemn anyone who challenges his actions as being less sympathetic to the ills affecting the human race.

No. Not "anyone". There are plenty of people condemning it who I am sure (in fact, know) are also equally empathic when it comes to human ills, and that's fine. I am condemning (and even then, not really condemning, just mildly despairing) at the fact that there are people - not just people on this thread or forum but countless people - who will barely look up from their cornflakes for a humanitarian crisis but fly into a snot-fuelled tirade when they hear that a dead dog is involved. This isn't new information; this stuff sells. You will sell more papers by posting a picture of a sad looking puppy abandonned at a railway station than you will with pictures of starving children. It's ****ing mental.

At the opposite end of the scale: there are people upset by the death of this dog who proudly proclaim "lolz, Darwin awardz" for dead teenagers.

Just... what. What is that?

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Quite a few other people went with "cutting the dog open", I think it was AnnieK who went with "digging around under the skin". I appreciate that the article itself mentioned the "cutting open" of the dog presumably for media effect (less sexy to just say that he removed the chip which would have involved a tiny cut) but all of it is the same sort of sensationalism nonetheless and, as seen in the quote above, you are simply incorrect that "no one" mentioned "anything like" disembowelling in the thread.

Someone else, completely without evidence, also mentioned "torture".

I'm not the one being emotive. I'm not the one overly invested in the fate of someone elses dog?

..I would say that holding the head of a struggling dog or any living thing under water while they are gasping to breathe is a fairly torturous thing...and the cutting of the dog's neck open..the back of her neck..?..I don't think was 'media effect' but what his own words were in his statement ...

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Ammi

..I would say that holding the head of a struggling dog or any living thing under water while they are gasping to breathe is a fairly torturous thing...and the cutting of the dog's neck open..the back of her neck..?..I don't think was 'media effect' but what his own words were in his statement ...

The word torture implies an intent to cause suffering or pain rather than an intent to kill. I'm also far form convinced that people don't know that they're being deliberately emotive when they choose to say "cut the dog open" rather than "cut out the microchip".

I'll overlook that you didn't mention Kirk specifically stating "disembowelled" because, to be fair, his imagery of some sort of carefully prepared execution just deserves to be overlooked.

[AnnieK]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Quite a few other people went with "cutting the dog open", I think it was AnnieK who went with "digging around under the skin". I appreciate that the article itself mentioned the "cutting open" of the dog presumably for media effect (less sexy to just say that he removed the chip which would have involved a tiny cut) but all of it is the same sort of sensationalism nonetheless and, as seen in the quote above, you are simply incorrect that "no one" mentioned "anything like" disembowelling in the thread.

Someone else, completely without evidence, also mentioned "torture".

I'm not the one being emotive. I'm not the one overly invested in the fate of someone elses dog?

To clarify....I did say digging around under the skin because that is what he would have had to do. Dispite what you said in a post that you can feel microchips....I have had many animals (including a border ) who have been microchipped and my cats are presently. I have never been ble to feel them...and I've checked with the cats so to find their chips you would have to dig around under the skin.

[Ammi]

...I'll do a link to the DM article which had things in it that I hadn't known and obviously it's the words of the family but there were a few things that stood out for me, there is also a pic showing the two properties in relation to each other because the properties aren't actually next door as such but backing on to each other with a big paddock between them....


‘The worst part is, we don’t even know if he’s sorry for drowning Meg, because he’s never once apologised to us. What he did was shameful and I think he deserved a custodial sentence. I was praying for it.

‘My only consolation is that he has now been suspended from flying pending an investigation, although I think it’s appalling that he was still allowed to fly in the five months between his guilty plea and sentencing. If someone can snap over a barking dog, what about a crying baby on a flight?’




While most public support has gone to the Boddingtons, Woodhouse is not without a certain degree of sympathy. Many others have described the ordeal of living next door to barking dogs and owners who remain deaf to the endless yapping.

B ut Alan retorts: ‘I’m not saying Meg didn’t bark, but it’s not as if she was some big guard dog snarling at everyone. She was the most sweet-natured little dog and it wasn’t excessive.

‘If it bothered him so much, he should have said something to us and we would have done something about it. A couple of years before Meg died, we were chatting over the fence and he said, “She doesn’t half bark, that dog of yours”, but it was never mentioned again.’

Alison adds: ‘Other neighbours who live much closer to us have never once complained about Meg’s barking. We never left our dogs in the garden all day and if we felt they were being too noisy, we’d bring them in.’

Alison shows me a number of signed witness statements neighbours provided to the RSPCA stating their opinion that Meg was not a nuisance and did not bark excessively.

And although Woodhouse claimed he had complained to the council about her barking, no evidence of this was produced in court.

Alison shows me an aerial photograph of the two properties in Long Buckby. Far from living cheek-by-jowl, there’s a 120ft paddock separating the Boddingtons’ land from Woodhouse’s home and garden.

She says she could understand if they lived in adjoining terrace houses, but they don’t. As for noise, she claims the racket from Woodhouse’s ride-on lawnmower was just as annoying to them.




Soon a local team of volunteers had descended to help the Boddington’s search, responding to a plea made by Alexandra on a lost dogs website, and unaware that Meg was already dead.

‘That evening I noticed Steve tending their chickens in the paddock and I called him over to ask if they’d checked for Meg, but he seemed very reluctant to speak which I thought was odd,’ says Alison.



The hunt for Meg continued.

‘We were searching every day from dawn until 11.30pm. Then Alexandra would drive out to search again in the middle of the night without telling us because she couldn’t sleep, worrying about Meg,’ says Alison.

Alan adds: ‘Two days after Meg’s disappearance, I was sitting outside our local pub with a client when I saw Steve walking with his wife towards us. He looked very uncomfortable, as if he didn’t want to talk to me.

‘Then, reluctantly it seemed to me, he came over and said, “Any luck with finding Meg?” He was acting so strangely, and sounded so nervous, I thought maybe Alison was right after all.’




Their suspicions were confirmed when, later that day, Alison went to their neighbours’ house to speak to them again and, realising they were out, opened the unlocked boot of Woodhouse’s car — the one her husband had sold him — on a hunch.

‘There was no mistaking Meg’s fur in the boot of Steve’s car and I felt sick when I saw the knife and rope,’ says Alison. ‘I was in a terrible state and didn’t know what to do, so I called Alan and we decided to call the police.’

When police questioned Woodhouse, he denied all involvement, but eventually admitted he’d taken the dog because of her barking, dumping her a couple of miles away.

Thinking Meg was still alive, volunteers scoured the area he mentioned, but could find no trace. Five days later, after Alison had tearfully begged for the truth, Woodhouse finally called police and admitted what he’d done.



Alison says Meg’s body was handed over to police by her neighbour, but was so badly decomposed, the cause of death could not be determined. The court heard Woodhouse recovered the corpse from a hedgerow after Alison mentioned Meg’s microchip and — fearing it worked like a tracker device, tried to dig it out with a knife.

‘We were devastated. To lose a cherished pet is a huge blow, but to find out Meg had suffered and died in that horrific manner was unbearable,’ says Alison. ‘If I hadn’t discovered Meg’s fur in the boot of his car, we might never have found out what had happened to her.



..it feels strange that she only popped out for 15 minutes and then found Meg gone but the other family dog still there and feels more planned in possibly seeing her leave ...also that no other neighbours have confirmed the incessant barking and that there are no reports of the barking/unreasonable noise levels recorded to the Council, which he had said he had done...


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...tell-side.html

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by AnnieK

To clarify....I did say digging around under the skin because that is what he would have had to do. Dispite what you said in a post that you can feel microchips....I have had many animals (including a border ) who have been microchipped and my cats are presently. I have never been ble to feel them...and I've checked with the cats so to find their chips you would have to dig around under the skin.

Looks like you were right to say 'digging around under the skin' Annie in light of Ammi's excellent update. Seems like the bastard re-visited the dog's corpse to frantically dig out the chip -ONLY after learning about it AFTER he'd dumped the dead body.

A slight, precise surgical incision my arse.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by AnnieK

To clarify....I did say digging around under the skin because that is what he would have had to do. Dispite what you said in a post that you can feel microchips....I have had many animals (including a border ) who have been microchipped and my cats are presently. I have never been ble to feel them...and I've checked with the cats so to find their chips you would have to dig around under the skin.

You are right,my Dog is microchipped and I cannot feel it, I know where it was put but still cannot find it just by feeling.
It can only be located accurately with a scanner.

[Liam-]

What has being a vegetarian got to do with being disgusted by a person slaughtering a dog because it barked?

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Liam-

What has being a vegetarian got to do with being disgusted by a person slaughtering a dog because it barked?

Nothing. It has everything to do with being called "a psycho" for stating that it's "just a dog", though, because anyone who would state such and still eat meat is being a bit of a hypocrite. Either they eat meat and think "it's just a pig" / "it's just a cow" and are fine with it, OR they feel the same way about pigs and cows as they do about dogs but eat them anyway, which would be barbaric.

The actual explanation is that people are sentimental about dogs but are not sentimental about other animals in the same way, even though there is no objective difference between a dog and a pig.

Actually, maybe it's just "pets"? People would probably be horrified if someone came along and stole someones pet piggy from their garden and ate it on some nice white bread with ketchup. They don't give a **** about eating bacon from the supermarket. The conclusion there, then, is that it actually has nothing AT ALL to do with the animal itself and it's purely down to the prescribed attachment and humanisation of the individual animal.

All of the above in summary: People are emotionally inconsistent and live in a fantasy world where pets become people.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Nothing. It has everything to do with being called "a psycho" for stating that it's "just a dog", though, because anyone who would state such and still eat meat is being a bit of a hypocrite. Either they eat meat and think "it's just a pig" / "it's just a cow" and are fine with it, OR they feel the same way about pigs and cows as they do about dogs but eat them anyway, which would be barbaric.

The actual explanation is that people are sentimental about dogs but are not sentimental about other animals in the same way, even though there is no objective difference between a dog and a pig.

Actually, maybe it's just "pets"? People would probably be horrified if someone came along and stole someones pet piggy from their garden and ate it on some nice white bread with ketchup. They don't give a **** about eating bacon from the supermarket. The conclusion there, then, is that it actually has nothing AT ALL to do with the animal itself and it's purely down to the prescribed attachment and humanisation of the individual animal.

All of the above in summary: People are emotionally inconsistent and live in a fantasy world where pets become people.

There you go again trying to attach some pseudo psychology to the scenario.
Man does a have a different relationship with dogs than pigs that's been well documented over time, I've never heard 'a pig is a mans best friend'. :/

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

There you go again trying to attach some pseudo psychology to the scenario.
Man does a have a different relationship with dogs than pigs that's been well documented over time, I've never heard 'a pig is a mans best friend'. :/

The humanisation and projected emotions of people on animals isn't "pseudo" psychology at all. No, you've never heard "a pig is man's best friend" but a dog doesn't know that it's supposedly man's best friend any more than a pig does. It ALL comes from the people and has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the animal. Dogs, cats and other pers do not "love people" any more than cows or pigs do. The distinction is human, not natural, therefore reading a newspaper in the morning and getting upset about a dead dog whilst munching on a bacon sandwich is complete selective bias.