Pet ban for Somerset couple

Comments

• KnifeEdge Posts: 3,919

  Forum Member

  ✭✭✭

  19/04/12 - 22:16 #2

  Glad that they have been banned from keeping animals.
  
  A friend of mine has adopted one of the dogs, and the dog is doing very well.
  
  This couple appeared to have good intentions, but got themselves totally overwhelmed. The animals weren't ill treated as such, but there were far too many of them for these people to take care of, and they were far too cramped.

  0
• Blackjack Davy Posts: 1,166

  Forum Member

  ✭✭✭

  20/04/12 - 01:10 #3

  Classic hoarding symptoms. Some people like to rescue animals from abuse, which is fine, but they can't bear to part with them. So one animal becomes two, two becomes three, three becomes four..... etc. They can't see that there comes a point where they not really helping the animals at all.

  0
• shirlt9 Posts: 5,085

  Forum Member

  ✭

  20/04/12 - 06:09 #4

  I am wondering how they were allowed to keep their 5 children after allowing them to live in these conditions..

  0
• Saturn Posts: 18,971

  Forum Member

  ✭✭

  20/04/12 - 06:36 #5

  Their children should be taken into care. It's astonishing that none of those children were attacked by any of these dogs.

  0
• pugamo Posts: 18,039

  Forum Member

  ✭✭

  20/04/12 - 11:10 #6

  To be fair, the animals all look to be in good condition except for a couple that do look thin. I don't think that they intended to be cruel at all.

  0
• Abriel Posts: 8,525

  Forum Member

  ✭

  20/04/12 - 16:20 #7

  pugamo wrote: »

  To be fair, the animals all look to be in good condition except for a couple that do look thin. I don't think that they intended to be cruel at all.

  I thought they looked ok on the picture I saw, incredible, really
  
  Apparently the baby was in a cot covered in bird droppings. amazing neighbours didn't complain earlier

  0
• susie-4964 Posts: 23,143

  Forum Member

  ✭✭✭

  20/04/12 - 22:16 #8

  pugamo wrote: »

  To be fair, the animals all look to be in good condition except for a couple that do look thin. I don't think that they intended to be cruel at all.

  
  They probably didn't intend to be cruel, but on the basis that sane people wouldn't look after 56 dogs in one house, I wouldn't regard this couple as fit to look after five children.

  0
• pugamo Posts: 18,039

  Forum Member

  ✭✭

  21/04/12 - 14:18 #9

  Abriel wrote: »

  I thought they looked ok on the picture I saw, incredible, really
  
  Apparently the baby was in a cot covered in bird droppings. amazing neighbours didn't complain earlier

  
  I suppose it depends on how much of that was exaggerated by the press. If the cot was covered with bird droppings, it is rather disgusting. If there was a stray bird poo at the bottom of the bed, which was to be changed that day, that is something else entirely. I'm considering this on the basis that we just don't know the truth and i'm taking that one with a pinch of salt. How they found the time to look after all those dogs and five children is beyond me! I can barely look after two dogs and I have no children!

  0
• cats_five Posts: 1,182

  Forum Member

  ✭✭✭

  21/04/12 - 19:27 #10

  Can't see any reason to take the children away if they are reasonably well looked after. There is no hint of child abuse, and for all we know they now have Social Services breathing down their necks. Children taken into care do far worse than children with even quite bad parents.

  0