Manchester Dogs Home on fire

1679111222

Comments

  • bart4858bart4858 Posts: 11,415
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    dragonzord wrote: »
    If it was a 3rd world country hit by disaster would people be complaining about that amount of money been donated.

    No they wouldn't, not for private donations. They tend to complain more about taxpayer's money being used for disaster relief.

    The remarks are to do with the fact that people seem to be more far generous with donations for animal causes, especially dogs, than for human ones.
  • toastietoastie Posts: 2,508
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Agreed. I honestly don't know why some people are complaining. It's a charity and so of course the donations are going to go towards the future of the home.

    Also agreed, I will donate what the hell I like to whoever I want, if some have a problem with that, tough.
  • bspacebspace Posts: 14,303
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    GibsonGirl wrote: »
    What he did was HEINOUS! He committed an act of ARSON and in doing so has killed dozens of INNOCENT dogs!

    I don't much care for dogs myself but neither does it particularly bother me that others do.

    But seriously, GET A GRIP.
  • terry45terry45 Posts: 2,876
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I can't imagine the arsonists identity will be a secret for long. I wouldn't want to be in his shoes when his identity starts swirling around on Twitter etc. People are already baying for his blood.

    Just hope the right person is named.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,372
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    bspace wrote: »
    I don't much care for dogs myself but neither does it particularly bother me that others do.

    But seriously, GET A GRIP.

    Why come on this thread then? a thread about people caring about DOGS and helping DOGS :confused:
  • dragonzorddragonzord Posts: 1,585
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    bart4858 wrote: »
    No they wouldn't, not for private donations. They tend to complain more about taxpayer's money being used for disaster relief.

    The remarks are to do with the fact that people seem to be more far generous with donations for animal causes, especially dogs, than for human ones.

    What wrong with been more generous to animals good causes. Than ones for people?
  • Pumping IronPumping Iron Posts: 29,891
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    bart4858 wrote: »
    No they wouldn't, not for private donations. They tend to complain more about taxpayer's money being used for disaster relief.

    The remarks are to do with the fact that people seem to be more far generous with donations for animal causes, especially dogs, than for human ones.

    I disagree. There are no animal charities in top ten largest charities in the UK, and humanitarian cases will tend to raise a lot more. Take the recent Stephen Sutton case, or the other recent social fundraising trends (ice bucket, no make-up, sock in a cock etc) all humanitarian and all will raise far more than any animal fundraiser.
  • potpourripotpourri Posts: 283
    Forum Member
    tiacat wrote: »

    With regard to the culprit, it needs to be born in mind that arson in children is usually (not always of course) an indication of sexual abuse. Children who generally are cruel to animals are usually being abused in various ways but sexual abuse has a high incidents of arson associated with it. Animal abuse can be a marker for adult psychopathy. However this particular situation might not have been designed to harm the animals per se if the fire was started purposely.

    I understand where you're coming from. But I can understand why it has upset people. This only applies if it turns out to be arson and he was deliberately targeting the dogs.

    This is not the time or place to be making excuses or providing reasons for why a child committed MASS MURDER of innocent animals. There are still dogs having medical treatment or distressed by what happened. Really not the time or place.

    If this had been the mass murder of children or adults, would we talking about the perpetrator's childhood?

    Most of those animals would have also been abused and abandoned, and in a place where they should have been safe and cared for to be allowed to heal, they endured the worst death possible. Obviously his own need for power and control was more important than the needs of those animals.

    That boy is still alive, he will probably have therapy and hardly be punished. Those dogs never got a chance to be helped. They are all dead. They never got the chance to be rehomed and feel the love they deserved. He took that away.

    And there are plenty of abused kids who do not abuse animals. Why is that then? Abuse is a choice. Most people wouldn't want to inflict the suffering they endured onto another living being, animal or human. Most abusers do not become arsonists/ animal abusers/ child abusers/ serial killers. What he did was cowardly and evil.

    He made a choice when he started that fire, those animals had no choice.
  • fozzie74fozzie74 Posts: 284
    Forum Member
    tiacat wrote: »
    Im not sure why you find this ridiculous. I work with abused children, its my job. Regular fire setting in a child is a possible indicator for sexual abuse. Hurting other children and animals, as well as themselves, is also an indicator of abuse, including sexual abuse. We dont know who this child is or their usual habits. It could be as others have said that he was playing around with something and acted on impulse and panicked, he could have deliberately set the fire but not wanted to cause any harm, or he could have set out to deliberately harm the animals. We dont know at this stage.

    Im not sure what relevance your friend is to the discussion unless you have had a conversation with her today about this particular case. You mention that she works with adult survivors, does she talk much with you about what behaviours children who are abuse victims display?

    It always amazes me that people are not able to distinguish a conversation about what possibly triggers someone's behaviour (in this case a young person) from 'excusing' behaviour. I hear no one, including myself, making excuses for anyones behaviour.


    Ok let me make myself clearer, i did not want to have to do this on a forum but you've backed me into a corner, my good friend yes works with adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse, but i myself have spent 4 years once a week with people who are either survivors or counsellors for that situation, and i know for fact that every one of them despises the stigma and myth that children who are abused go on to do bad things. Yes it can happen in some cases, but it is used as an excuse for their behaviour, when 99% of children who are abused do not do this.
    But then again feel free to write paragraph after paragraph about it.. why not.

    I answered originally because i saw it as yet again someone making excuses for someones criminal act even though they dont even know the person in question or their motives! And someone pushing that out there on an internet forum when no one even knows the kids reasons, that to me is stereotyping the stigma myth that sexually abused kids go on to do bad things,
  • fozzie74fozzie74 Posts: 284
    Forum Member
    potpourri wrote: »
    And there are plenty of abused kids who do not abuse animals. Why is that then? Abuse is a choice. Most people wouldn't want to inflict the suffering they endured onto another living being, animal or human. What he did was cowardly and evil.

    Well said.

    And the topic should be on the innocent animals here. Which i why i got so wound up at someone already guessing and making excuses for his actions - so i apologise for adding to the off topic, but as i said i feel stigma on abused children is enough without this.
  • potpourripotpourri Posts: 283
    Forum Member
    fozzie74 wrote: »
    Well said.

    And the topic should be on the innocent animals here. Which i why i got so wound up at someone already guessing and making excuses for his actions - so i apologise for adding to the off topic, but as i said i feel stigma on abused children is enough without this.

    I agree with you.

    Really not the time and place to be discussing motives when the victims right now are the animals.
  • RellyRelly Posts: 3,469
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I'm not a dog lover at all, yet this news last night made me so sad. I grew up down the road from the home, and the dogs' barking was a familiar sound of my childhood. Whenever the noise level rose, my gran used to tell us a cat must have sneaked in again. That memory used to make me smile, but apparently last night the increased noise level was one of the things that alerted some of the current locals to the problem. Those poor, poor creatures. :'(

    Any dog our family had, any dogs our friends/neighbours got from a rescue, most of the dogs I've got to know over the years have been from Manchester Dogs Home. It's just always been a fixture.

    The impression I've had was that they didn't have the most amazing facilities possible and they were always struggling for money, but the people who worked and volunteered there were brilliant and very dedicated.

    I'm stunned at the money raised, but not surprised in the slightest to the generosity of the locals who log-jammed the area trying to help out. That's the spirit of the old Moston I knew and grew up in.
  • Sweet_PrincessSweet_Princess Posts: 11,038
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Seen all this news reporting last night it breaks my heart :( all those poor dogs being killed in that fire. Apprentely its been confirmed today 53 dogs were killed and 150 were rescued and sent to Cheshire dogs home. A 15 year old is being held by police for arson I hope they throw that person in prison for killing innocent dogs
  • AftershowAftershow Posts: 10,021
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    IMO they are absolutely in the wrong for setting up a fund so quickly as it's just playing on people's raw emotions over the tragedy.

    They've done nothing of the sort. They already had a donation page, as most charities do. Most of the money that has been raised has come through an appeal that was set up by the Manchester Evening News.
    bart4858 wrote: »
    Some more serious and more devasting human tragedies don't attract that much funding so quickly. This point was raised on James O'Brien's LBC radio talk-in this morning.

    Why don't you, and others who feel like that, do something go and raise money for these charities that you think are more deserving, then?
  • idlewildeidlewilde Posts: 8,698
    Forum Member
    Some people would hate me as my charity of choice is the woodlands and wildlife trust, so my money goes to help trees, not pets or people :D

    Trees are people too.
  • .Lauren..Lauren. Posts: 7,864
    Forum Member
    No point speculating about the perpetrator. Could be a victim of abuse, could be a budding psychopath, could just be an arsehole. Until people know there's no point getting up in arms about it.
  • tim59tim59 Posts: 47,188
    Forum Member
    True. One could spend it on worse. But one could also spend it on better, such as charities that protect endangered species of animal whose loss would mean extinction, rather than animals who are nowhere near extinction and who are (as evidenced by the mere existence of dog shelters) surplus to reasonable requirement.

    Peoples own free choice, and i am happy that differant people choose to which charities they give their money, if people are told which ones to give too then they have lost their freedom to choose
  • tiacattiacat Posts: 22,521
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    potpourri wrote: »
    I understand where you're coming from. But I can understand why it has upset people. This only applies if it turns out to be arson and he was deliberately targeting the dogs.

    This is not the time or place to be making excuses or providing reasons for why a child committed MASS MURDER of innocent animals. There are still dogs having medical treatment or distressed by what happened. Really not the time or place.

    If this had been the mass murder of children or adults, would we talking about the perpetrator's childhood?

    Most of those animals would have also been abused and abandoned, and in a place where they should have been safe and cared for to be allowed to heal, they endured the worst death possible. Obviously his own need for power and control was more important than the needs of those animals.

    That boy is still alive, he will probably have therapy and hardly be punished. Those dogs never got a chance to be helped. They are all dead. They never got the chance to be rehomed and feel the love they deserved. He took that away.

    And there are plenty of abused kids who do not abuse animals. Why is that then? Abuse is a choice. Most people wouldn't want to inflict the suffering they endured onto another living being, animal or human. Most abusers do not become arsonists/ animal abusers/ child abusers/ serial killers. What he did was cowardly and evil.

    He made a choice when he started that fire, those animals had no choice.
    fozzie74 wrote: »
    Ok let me make myself clearer, i did not want to have to do this on a forum but you've backed me into a corner, my good friend yes works with adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse, but i myself have spent 4 years once a week with people who are either survivors or counsellors for that situation, and i know for fact that every one of them despises the stigma and myth that children who are abused go on to do bad things. Yes it can happen in some cases, but it is used as an excuse for their behaviour, when 99% of children who are abused do not do this.
    But then again feel free to write paragraph after paragraph about it.. why not.

    I answered originally because i saw it as yet again someone making excuses for someones criminal act even though they dont even know the person in question or their motives! And someone pushing that out there on an internet forum when no one even knows the kids reasons, that to me is stereotyping the stigma myth that sexually abused kids go on to do bad things,

    Again, no one is making excuses for the perpetrator, but the fact is the perpetrator has committed an unusual crime, arson is not a common crime in comparison to say, theft or assault or whatever. And that raises my points about why the perpetrator might have done this. When most of us who work with abused children see a child accused of arson, we tend to wonder what else is going on there. I would imagine this is exactly the time to be raising questions about why on earth someone would do such a thing.

    As for not thinking about the animals, I find this story deeply upsetting, we support animal charities and have adopted rescue animals. I also personally find it hard when children I am working with abuse and hurt animals, its very difficult to work with.

    As for the 'abuse is a choice' and the stigma and myth that those who are abused can act out their behaviour. I will hope you never have the misfortune to be in a public place, such as a bus or shopping centre when a child you are with suddenly starts furiously masturbating or you see a child who has been abused touching other children or adults in inappropriate places.

    We dont know what this young person's history is of course but kids do things on impulse some of the time, they dont stop and think, they are not careful, they make massive mistakes. Thats why we dont give them the vote, or allow them to marry etc because we know that they are not up to the job of acting like an adult yet.
  • Pumping IronPumping Iron Posts: 29,891
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    True. One could spend it on worse. But one could also spend it on better, such as charities that protect endangered species of animal whose loss would mean extinction, rather than animals who are nowhere near extinction and who are (as evidenced by the mere existence of dog shelters) surplus to reasonable requirement.

    That's like saying we shouldn't donate to a charity to help elderly people, as children are more important, or that we shouldn't donate to charities that help with limb loss as cancer charities are more important to save lives.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 275
    Forum Member
    tim59 wrote: »
    Peoples own free choice, and i am happy that differant people choose to which charities they give their money, if people are told which ones to give too then they have lost their freedom to choose

    One of the greatest gifts to dog’s that dog lovers can give is an investment in children. Throwing money at dog shelters doesn’t solve the problem. Being misanthropic (as some dog lovers can be) doesn’t help these poor animals. However, if one showers needy children with the same level of love and generosity as they do dogs, the love trickles down and we end up with less young people who set fires, and (due to these young people growing into caring adults) eventually less dogs in shelters.
  • potpourripotpourri Posts: 283
    Forum Member
    tiacat wrote: »
    Again, no one is making excuses for the perpetrator, but the fact is the perpetrator has committed an unusual crime, arson is not a common crime in comparison to say, theft or assault or whatever. And that raises my points about why the perpetrator might have done this. When most of us who work with abused children see a child accused of arson, we tend to wonder what else is going on there. I would imagine this is exactly the time to be raising questions about why on earth someone would do such a thing.

    As for not thinking about the animals, I find this story deeply upsetting, we support animal charities and have adopted rescue animals. I also personally find it hard when children I am working with abuse and hurt animals, its very difficult to work with.

    As for the 'abuse is a choice' and the stigma and myth that those who are abused can act out their behaviour. I will hope you never have the misfortune to be in a public place, such as a bus or shopping centre when a child you are with suddenly starts furiously masturbating or you see a child who has been abused touching other children or adults in inappropriate places.

    We dont know what this young person's history is of course but kids do things on impulse some of the time, they dont stop and think, they are not careful, they make massive mistakes. Thats why we dont give them the vote, or allow them to marry etc because we know that they are not up to the job of acting like an adult yet.

    Again.

    Not the time or place.

    I will say it again. This boy had a choice. The animals didn't. They are the real victims right now. Let's concentrate on them, shall we?

    And not all children who have been abused act out in this way. I know plenty of abuse victims who did not become abusers, in fact it caused them to empathise with animals and wanted to take care of them. Because they can empathise with how helpless and defenceless animals are, as they themselves felt during the abuse.
  • fozzie74fozzie74 Posts: 284
    Forum Member
    tiacat - you have missed the point completely that adult survivors and counsellors and everyone in that field that i personally know of in the north of england absolutely despise the myth that an abused child goes on to do bad things and harm people. But hey, you know best... according to you. You wont even accept that your experiences show one side and mine show another.
    tiacat wrote: »
    We dont know what this young person's history is of course but kids do things on impulse some of the time, they dont stop and think, they are not careful, they make massive mistakes. Thats why we dont give them the vote, or allow them to marry etc because we know that they are not up to the job of acting like an adult yet.

    He is 15, and if he was scottish he can vote for independance at 16.
    A 15 year old boy is not a child in modern reality. Have you ever been to Harpurhey?


    But lets close this debate ffs, or start a damn new thread if you want to spread myths that all abused children go on to harm and abuse. You could work for the daily mail with attitudes like that!

    I wont be answering about this again - its the animals that matter.
    I have been to the dogs home many times, and my heart goes out to the dead and injured dogs, and the hard working staff.

    :(


    potpourri wrote: »
    Again.

    Not the time or place.

    I will say it again. This boy had a choice. The animals didn't. They are the real victims right now. Let's concentrate on them, shall we?

    And not all children who have been abused act out in this way. I know plenty of abuse victims who did not become abusers, in fact it caused them to empathise with animals and wanted to take care of them. Because they can empathise with how helpless and defenceless animals are, as they themselves felt during the abuse.

    ^ totally agree.

    And lets move back to the animals.
  • WeeJintyMcGintyWeeJintyMcGinty Posts: 3,005
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    One of the greatest gifts to dog’s that dog lovers can give is an investment in children. Throwing money at dog shelters doesn’t solve the problem. Being misanthropic (as some dog lovers can be) doesn’t help these poor animals. However, if one showers needy children with the same level of love and generosity as they do dogs, the love trickles down and we end up with less young people who set fires, and (due to these young people growing into caring adults) eventually less dogs in shelters.

    0/10

    Must try harder
  • tiacattiacat Posts: 22,521
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Can you point out where I claim that all abused children go on to abuse others or that they turn into adults that abuse others?

    Anyone who works with survivors of all abuse will know that statistically, its more likely that adults and children who commit particular types of crime will have been abused as children in some form or another than not.
  • Pisces CloudPisces Cloud Posts: 30,239
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    tiacat wrote: »
    Can you point out where I claim that all abused children go on to abuse others or that they turn into adults that abuse others?

    Anyone who works with survivors of all abuse will know that statistically, its more likely that adults and children who commit particular types of crime will have been abused as children in some form or another than not.

    Maybe you could start your own thread on this subject. As of yet no-one knows anything about the perpetrator in question.
This discussion has been closed.