Crufts

dejongj said:
I think it is a very serious event. Regardless what anyone thinks of dogs in the pecking order, we have a situation here where it seems someone or a group of people would go through the trouble to kill an animal on purpose. That should be investigated and dealt with appropriately. It is an intriguing plot of money, bitches, prestige and possibly protest group.

I'm sad to learn that our resident former police officer would not have treated this with sensitivities and seriousness it requires.
Click to expand...

Indeed - its essentially an attack on the event which makes it more serious (criminally speaking) than a random dog poisioning - when there was the pedigree chum contamination thing back in the 90s the police took that very seriously (although they didn't catch the perp until he'd moved on to heinz baby food if i recall correctly)

I'm not convinced that our resident ex dixon of dock green is that representative of police response or opinion now or indeed then.
 
...
 
kennethwfd said:
yes, Allah told his prophet that the dog is an unclean animal and should be avoided
Click to expand...

thats not entirely true - the only animal specifically defined as unclean in the quran is the pig - and indeed many arabs etc would have dogs for hunting or herding - some sunni teachings do however say that if a practicing muslim is licked by a dog they have to perform a ritual to purify themselves before eating or praying
 
I'm sad to learn that our resident former police officer would not have treated this with sensitivities and seriousness it requires.
Click to expand...

At the moment, there's not a great deal to treat any way. As I type this no one apart from the owner has mentioned poisoning. So what exactly are we getting worked up over?

Even if it does turn out to be a poisoning, and that was deliberate and happened in the UK ( a lot of if's before we get to anything criminal!), then its a minor criminal act, nothing more. To try to treat it as anything like the same category as a human is simply nonsense. Sorry, but I have dealt with a great deal worse, so no, I am not going to get over excited about it, nor would most people involved in law enforcement. There's a good reason for that, if you got worked up about everything you'd spend a great deal of your time as an in patient at one of the few mental health institutions still going.

So, feel free to go through the tedious round of outrage by proxy and mild hysteria, I'll leave it where it actually should be in the great scheme of things.
 
There's lots goes on at Crufts, some of it deliberately underhand. I went once with a colleague who was a breeder, showing some of his dogs. Apparently it's the same blood line tends to win, so the mother/siblings etc.
The show I was at there was talk of chewing gum being deliberately put in dogs hair, unwanted scissor action and apparently it's not uncommon for a bitch in heat to be put near rivals dogs to put them off and make them misbehave.

Wasn't there a case of dogs being given hallucinogens a couple of years back?
 
Bernie174 said:
At the moment, there's not a great deal to treat any way. As I type this no one apart from the owner has mentioned poisoning. So what exactly are we getting worked up over?
Click to expand...

...apart from the person/vet that did the postmortem and found the 3 cubes of poisoned beef in the dogs stomach :rolleyes:
 
I've been through the thread and I have to admit I can't see a single post where either of these statements would be even remotely relevant.

Bernie174 said:
To try to treat it as anything like the same category as a human is simply nonsense.
Click to expand...

Bernie174 said:
So, feel free to go through the tedious round of outrage by proxy and mild hysteria
Click to expand...
 
Bernie, the interviews are with the owner, not the vets. So, what she has done, is relay what the vet has said.

Again...

Bernie174 said:
Sorry, but I have dealt with a great deal worse, so no, I am not going to get over excited about it, nor would most people involved in law enforcement.
Click to expand...

What have your experiences got to do with whats happened in this case? Nothing. I too have seen a lot worse things than this in my life, things that I still think about from time to time, but no-one (including myself) is comparing this incident with someone having their head blown off. I do know that in the scheme of things (wars, famine, IS, people having their heads blown off etc) this is a very small thing to happen. However, im pretty sure that its ok for people to be saddened/shocked by such things.

I realise that you are not 'ok' with people having their own opinions though.
 
Bernie, the interviews are with the owner, not the vets. So, what she has done, is relay what the vet has said.
Click to expand...

Yes, I am sure its exactly what the vet said, word for word! A bloody good vet though, managed to do a toxicology report in minutes! Shame no one else has seen it isn't it? Not strike you as a tad odd? Like a few other bits of this story as well.

But never mind, lets hide behind the outrage by proxy because someone didn't bust into tears and beat their chest in outrage. Even if it was poisoned it is hardly in the same league as many other crimes that were committed today.

No where have I said you shouldn't or can't have an opinion. Although to be fair, you seem to have an issue about me holding one, because it doesn't involve bursting into tears .

What I don't understand though is why it is that simply because I don't agree with you, how you translate that to somehow barring you from opinion?
 
Last edited:
Bernie174 said:
But never mind, lets hide behind the outrage by proxy because someone didn't bust into tears and beat their chest in outrage. Even if it was poisoned it is hardly in the same league as many other crimes that were committed today.
Click to expand...

...and again. What is it that you are not grasping here, Bernie?

The BBC report I read did state that they were awaiting the results of toxicology reports before the poison/s could be identified. The vet appears to have used something called its 'experience' (something which you have none of with regards to this subject) when advising the owners of its findings.
 
big soft moose said:
Indeed - its essentially an attack on the event which makes it more serious (criminally speaking) than a random dog poisoning
Click to expand...

I'd hazard a guess that you have that totally wrong, I doubt it was an attack on the event, there would have been more dogs poisoned if it was.
Having been on the inside at Champ Dog Shows in the past there is a lot of jealousy for top winning dogs, you can often find out who is going to
win whilst listening to conversations in the loos, people withdraw if certain judges are judging their breed as they know they don't stand a chance,
better to have an unbeaten dog then one that loses to a lesser dog that belongs to the favoured breeders.
Much as I love dogs I would never ever go to Crufts
 
The BBC report I read did state that they were awaiting the results of toxicology reports before the poison/s could be identified. The vet appears to have used something called its 'experience' (something which you have none of with regards to this subject) when advising the owners of its findings.
Click to expand...

For gods sake Nick, turn your brain on for a moment. Stop making up evidence that supports your view. "The Vet is using his experience" being a great example. That's not what is being said, its you putting words into the subject that are not there!

That's called invention, not evidence

Please come back when a vet has given a statement, and you aren't reliant on hearsay, when there's a report from an analyst, and when there's conclusive evidence to tie any poisoning to Crufts, and that it was deliberate!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Bernie174 said:
For gods sake Nick, turn your brain on for a moment. Stop making up evidence that supports your view. "The Vet is using his experience" being a great example. That's not what is being said, its you putting words into the subject that are not there!

That's called invention, not evidence!
Click to expand...

How am I making anything up? Ive read a report and have commented on it. You are the only person looking at this through the eyes of an ex copper; the rest of us have our opinions.
 
Only on TP OOF Monday lunchtime could their be a bun fight on if "Allah has poisoned a dog" and whether Bernie is investigating :meh: :indifferent:
 
But Nick, you said "The Vet IS using his experience", the use of IS makes it a statement you are giving as factual, its not an opinion! But you don't know that a vet has made any determination, you are simply relying on hearsay.
 
Nick didn't say is.....He said "appears to be".
Very different.
 
What I actually said was...

Nikon_Nick said:
The vet appears to have used something called its 'experience'
Click to expand...

Again, I just relayed what was in the report. Im using it to help some kind of agenda I have. Ive read a report, and im entitled to an opinion.
 
Nikon_Nick said:
But Nick, you said "The Vet IS using his experience", the use of IS makes it a statement you are giving as factual, its not an opinion! But you don't know that a vet has made any determination, you are simply relying on hearsay.
Click to expand...

My bold.

You really don't have to make stuff up Bernie, like making up the idea that people have equated it to the death of a human or that people are expressing outrage.

It's all very silly.

Oh - Nick's quote hasn't appeared. Still, the point has been made already.
 
Last edited:
It's more likely the contents of the stomach - i.e. meat chunks - didn't belong to the dogs normal diet, for instance if the dog was fed only biscuit type food, hence the suspicion and the contents taken for a toxicology report
 
simon ess said:
My bold.

You really don't have to make stuff up Bernie, like making up the idea that people have equated it to the death of a human or that people are expressing outrage.

It's all very silly.
Click to expand...

Are you not outraged? :D
 
Byker28i said:
It's more likely the contents of the stomach - i.e. meat chunks - didn't belong to the dogs normal diet, for instance if the dog was fed only biscuit type food, hence the suspicion and the contents taken for a toxicology report
Click to expand...

Now you are making stuff up!!! :D
 
Nikon_Nick said:
Now you are making stuff up!!! :D
Click to expand...

I'm pretty good at knowing what our labrador eats daily and if I found meaty chunks I'd be surprised. Biscuits, rabbit poo on walks, the odd bit of grass... For a show dog I'd expect them to have the diet completely monitored.
 
Byker28i said:
I'm pretty good at knowing what our labrador eats daily and if I found meaty chunks I'd be surprised. Biscuits, rabbit poo on walks, the odd bit of grass... For a show dog I'd expect them to have the diet completely monitored.
Click to expand...

Apologies, I cant tell if you knew my comment was made with tongue firmly in cheek :), but yes, you are correct. I know exactly what our dog eats also, so would also be suspicious. We have family friends that used to show dogs for many years, and the level of detail that goes into such a pastime is scary. Diet would definitely be one aspect they would have a handle on.
 
Bernie174 said:
For gods sake Nick, turn your brain on for a moment. Stop making up evidence that supports your view. "The Vet is using his experience" being a great example. That's not what is being said, its you putting words into the subject that are not there!

That's called invention, not evidence

Please come back when a vet has given a statement, and you aren't reliant on hearsay, when there's a report from an analyst, and when there's conclusive evidence to tie any poisoning to Crufts, and that it was deliberate!
Click to expand...

For gods sake bernie wind your neck in, nick is repeating what has been reported in the report - I think everyone knows he hasnt seen the actual evidence, but then this is a forum not a court of law.

The owner will have been tod the autopsy results and what they said was

"Speaking to BBC Radio 4, her husband Jeremy said: "When the vet opened up his stomach, she found cubes of meat - some sort of beef-like steak - and they had been sewn up with poison inside.
"She thinks there were possibly two or three types of poison.
"I think she identified one as a slug killer. I would guess that the other would turn out to be a rat poison or some industrial type of poison "

As to the vet using his experience WTF are we even arguing about that - thats what vets do - they don't make up random s*** and tell it to the owners for a laugh.
 
big soft moose said:
thats not entirely true - the only animal specifically defined as unclean in the quran is the pig - and indeed many arabs etc would have dogs for hunting or herding - some sunni teachings do however say that if a practicing muslim is licked by a dog they have to perform a ritual to purify themselves before eating or praying
Click to expand...

http://www.islamicconcern.com/dogs.asp

quote
Traditionally, dogs have been seen as impure, and the Islamic legal tradition has developed several injunctions that warn Muslims against most contact with dogs
 
Last edited:
Bernie174 said:
Its a dog. I don't know it, or its owner. There is nothing to be emphatic with.

Tick box emotion is something I'd described as those who have to 'feel' something for things they are totally unconnected to, like doing the RIP thing when someone they don't know dies, but feel they have to tell the world by doing it on the internet. I'd rather people were honest, it doesn't affect me therefore I have no need to feel sorrow for it.
Click to expand...

What do you understand 'empathy' to mean Bernie?
 
kennethwfd said:
http://www.islamicconcern.com/dogs.asp

quote
Traditionally, dogs have been seen as impure, and the Islamic legal tradition has developed several injunctions that warn Muslims against most contact with dogs
Click to expand...

yes and that very link then goes on to explain why this is not an accurate representation

1. It is NOT haraam to own a dog, though it is not hygienic to keep a dog in the house.
2. It is NOT haraam to touch a dog or any other animal. If the saliva of a dog touches you or any part of your clothing, then it is required of you to wash the body part touched and the item of clothing touched by the dog’s mouth or snout.
3. It is incumbent upon all Muslims who own animals, whether for farming or work purposes or as pets, to provide adequate shelter, food, water, and, when needed, veterinary care for their animals. Arrangements must be made, if one is going to be away from home, to have one’s animals taken care of as well.
4. It is haraam to keep a dog or any other animal on a short lead for long periods without food, water, and shelter. Dogs need exercise and are social creatures who form organized “family” structures in nature. Dog owners therefore need to spend time daily with their dogs.
5. It is cruel, and therefore haraam, to keep any animal in a cage so small that it cannot behave in a natural way.
6. Fireworks cause untold suffering to most domestic animals because of their acute sense of hearing.
7. It is haraam to participate in any blood “sport,” like dog fighting and trophy hunting.
No animal has been cursed in any way. Animals are referred to in many instances in the Qu’ran. In Surah Kahf, mention is made of the companions of the Cave and their dog. (S18: 18-22)
Click to expand...
 
I'm beginning to feel a bit suspicious about this...

From what I've heard on the radio, the dog died 2 days after leaving Crufts - and yet these lumps of meat were still intact and had not been digested, or at least not sufficiently digested for the vet to conclude that they had been cut open, poison inserted and then sewn up again - but despite this the poison had done its work.

Nothing in the world of show dogs would shock me or sound incredible, poisoning and other dirty tricks have been reported before, but this story just doesn't add up to me.
 
Garry Edwards said:
the dog died 2 days after leaving Crufts - and yet these lumps of meat were still intact and had not been digested
Click to expand...
Hmmm that kinda puts a different slant on it doesn't it?
Most legal rat poisons these days have a LD50 of 5-600Mg / Kg thats quite a lot to sew up in a cube of meat. ;)
Strychnine (great for killing moles) LD 50 1–2 mg/kg orally in humans, not so much ;)
But is been a banned substance (In the UK at least) for some years.

Google tells me that an Irish setter weighs 27 – 32 kg.
I wonder "what" was used in that case.
 
Some on dog forums are saying Slug Pellets, but that would take quite a lot wouldn't it.

Speaking to BBC Radio 4, her husband Jeremy said: "When the vet opened up his stomach, she found cubes of meat - some sort of beef-like steak - and they had been sewn up with poison inside.

"She thinks there were possibly two or three types of poison.

"I think she identified one as a slug killer. I would guess that the other would turn out to be a rat poison or some industrial type of poison.
Click to expand...

Like Gary I must admit I am a bit suspicious too now, seems the dog was back in Belgium when it died, Gundogs shown on Thursday,
he came 2nd in his class, you would have thought the meat would have been digested in that time
 
The oral LD. 50 of metaldehyde (slug pellets) is 100 mg/kg in dogs.
So to be sure to kill something you would double that dose, say 30Kg dog x 200Mg. = 6g.
If you wanted to just make it sick, with a risk of killing it,. 3g would do the job.
I guess 1g per dog bite sized cube is possible.
 
That still sounds strange, my dogs would have eaten and ejected the meat in the the time it took this one to die.
ACP has been used to nobble dogs in the past, but that is normally before they get in the ring
 
It certainly sounds like there is more to this than we are "being told" ;)
I agree it doesn't add up.
 
How long would it take to digest?

According to the reports I read it was shown on Thursday and died on Friday. If the autopsy was conducted on Friday would you expect the meat to be digested still?
 
simon ess said:
How long would it take to digest?

According to the reports I read it was shown on Thursday and died on Friday. If the autopsy was conducted on Friday would you expect the meat to be digested still?
Click to expand...

From someone more knowledgeable then me 7 to 10 hours to pass through the digestive system
He was back at home in Belgium when became ill and he died Friday night, 24 hours after competing
You would honestly expect the dog to be showing some signs of illness before or on
the long journey home, even if it was a slow working poison the meat would possibly have been
digested
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top