Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Is is just me or has anyone else noticed the huge amount of people who entice their dogs to kill squirrels in Dulwich park. I saw a man stand close and watch his dog rip a squirrel apart, in front of two kids who shouted at him to put his dog on a lead. Is it some sort of sport for men without testicles? Are they wishful fox hunters who get a thrill out of seeing something torn apart. Do these people realise this is unlawful and although plenty call squirrels vermin, there are still laws to protect them. Do they feel this behaviour is acceptable for other people in the park enjoying walking their dog, or relaxing with friends and more importantly people with their children, having to witness. I have reported him to the RSPCA and the police and have been informed that I must call the police if I see him again as they want to speak to him. The word 'Chav' is often used to describe working class and with that label comes accusations,ie council estate tenants,benefit scroungers, staffie owners, etc etc, most people may assume the people I have come across in Dulwich park deriving pleasure from cruel behaviour are so called Chav's, well it is always well spoken middle class men.They to me are the real Chav's, they may have an education, however something is seriously missing from their brain. I believe that the poor squirrels have more balls than these meek sad evil sadistic twats. By the way I am working class,own a mastiff type dog, and proud my dog does not rip living things apart.

You sure he was enticing the dog to catch the squirrel? Some dogs go potty for squirrels and a few are fast enough to catch them. He may have been mortified. Once they have their eye in it is v hard to stop them. Bit like trying to stop my cat killing rats/mice/birds


Don't think there is a law protecting grey squirrels


Would not condone deliberate hunting but that may not have been the case. Did you ask him? Sounds like this is a frequent occurrence ?

Regardless of the law protecting grey squirrels or not, this particular activity is subject to the Animal Welfare Act 2005.


The Act introduced tougher potential penalties, including fines of up to ?20,000, a maximum jail term of 51 weeks and a lifetime ban on owners keeping pets.


You wouldn't need to prove that the owner incited the attack, merely that he didn't take such step as were in his power to prevent the attack taking place.


Having the dog off a leash and the dog doing a mental probably wouldn't make him culpable, however a repeat offence would as it would demonstrate intent.

It doesn't need to be protected, the squirrel is covered by the protection of Wild Mammals clauses regarding suffering and cruelty.


In an isolated offence the owner would get off with a warning, however on a second offence he couldn't claim that his animal's behaviour was unpredictable.

Protected or not, a Squirrel shouldn't be ripped apart by any dog in a public park.


It's nothing short of barbaric & it's anti-social to say the least


However, I've been to that park hundreds of times and have never



Maybe i'm missing something or I need my eyes tested



And, as much as i'm sympathetic with the original poster, regarding the treatment of animals and the responsibilities of other pet owners. I am not very impressed with their further rant about class, social housing, testicles, education and the likes


I'm almost given to think that this whole thing is a lite-trolling exercise. Incendiary phrase & words wedged in-between seemly legitimate concerns and commendable actions only reinforce my feeling on this one


In future why not add: Gay, Fat, Black, Immigrant and Pedophile into the mix below. That way you're sure to hit all the buttons, touch all the bases as it were.


Chav

Working Class

Council estate tenants

Benefit scrounger

Evil

Sadistic

Well spoken middle class men*


And lastly.

What is it with people and these fear breed dogs like Mastiffs/Staffs. In the old days on the estates it was Alsatians, though the Police and the more enlightened preferred the term 'German Shepherd'


Maybe it's the siege mentality, writ small.


"Watch y'self or my dog will 'ave ya"




Nette(td)


*blows raspberry*



For balance*

Alexthecamel Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm not sure about which law you're applying, but

> surely if it were the case that an owner is liable

> for his pet's hunting of wild animals, then cat

> owners would have to keep their cats indoors?



Schr?dinger had the right idea

bucketowater, what is it with the ridiculous posturing of you two prats?


In order to prosecute someone you'd need to prove that the owner was culpable, that the outcome was predictable and that it resulted in suffering.


The Dangerous Dogs Act was an illustration that owners are considered to be in control of dogs when the same doesn't apply to cats.


There are various charges could apply from various acts including fighting, baiting and suffering - my intention was to reassure the OP that there was recourse in law.


For some reason known only to you you've yanked your pants down and in between furiously and painfully pleasuring yourself you've jabbed out some sort of nitpicking twaddle that doesn't contribute anything to the conversation.


Are you really proud of yourself? Really? You just sound like a prig.

To return to the original topic, I think it's fair to say that quite a few people DO incite their dogs to chase squirrels, rabbits and rats (I assume this is about principles, not just perceptions of cuteness). I certainly see people doing it, and they're not all men either.


However, they do it as a game without imagining for a moment that one fine day their overfed and underfit dog might actually succeed - they'd be horrified if that happened, especially if there were children around and they couldn't stop the dog once it tasted blood, but they don't think that far ahead. Of course ignorance is no defence, but the point is it would be difficult to prove that the owner's intended outcome was to witness a live animal being ripped apart in front of them.

I was surprised to read (on the nature thread) of the heron in Dulwich Park killing a baby rat and can only suppose that the heron in the Rye's Japanese Garden is a lazy bastard who has made all the squirrels complacent.


Buck up Peckham Heron - you're a bloody show-up.

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> In order to prosecute someone you'd need to prove

> that the owner was culpable, that the outcome was

> predictable and that it resulted in suffering.


In which case surely cats should be kept inside? Because every cat, without exception, will kill birds, and an owner couldn't say that it wasn't predictable or that it didn't result in suffering. I'm not being disingenuous, several counties in Australia have a ban on outside cats for that very reason.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...