Stop me if you’ve heard this one before… Abuse on dogs still on the rise in the UK.
We are supposed to be a nation of dog lovers. Obviously not.
Via the Beeb:
Rise in dog cruelty convictions

Convictions for cruelty against dogs rose by more than a third last year, the RSPCA has said.
A Staffordshire bull terrier whose owners cut its ears off to make it look more macho is included in the charity’s annual cruelty report.
It highlights a 12% increase in all RSPCA cruelty investigations leading to 1,149 convictions.
But new powers introduced in 2007 mean the increase may not represent higher levels of actual cruelty.
Tim Wass, chief officer of the RSPCA Inspectorate, said dogs had always borne the brunt of animal cruelty.
“That’s what makes this year’s horrendous 34% increase even more shocking: it’s a massive increase on an already high figure,” he said.
One case highlighted in the report was the 2007 conviction of Abishai Hayes, 22, of Holloway, north London, who admitted torturing his 10-month-old dog.
The collie cross-breed was found with two broken legs, slash wounds to the face and deep stab wounds to the neck, legs, back and chest.
In another separate case, a dog was found in such a bad state of malnutrition that RSPCA workers struggled to identify the breed.
As well as dogs, convictions against cat and horse owners have also risen.
“These animals are the helpless victims of our throwaway society,” says Wass.
“They’re bought on a whim and discarded when the novelty wears off.”
» Full article
- A couple of local items about the abuse and neglect of some dogs - one of them from a vet.
Via the Echo:
Horror story of dog that was starved
Jul 30 2008 by Michelle Fiddler, Liverpool Echo
A PREGNANT dog was so emaciated she had to have her puppies aborted because she was too ill to carry them.
Cross-breed Donna was found together with 11 other dogs and a rabbit, many of which were on the brink of starvation, in a house in Huyton.
Her case was one of the most horrific to be highlighted as new figures released today reveal a 34% increase in convictions for cruelty to dogs across the UK.
Last year in Merseyside, 19 people were convicted of almost 40 offences.
Donna’s owner, Cheryl Antrobus, 62, of Oakfield Drive, Huyton, was given a two-year conditional discharge in June last year.
She was banned from keeping animals for five years and ordered to pay £250 costs after pleading guilty to 10 counts of failing to provide an adequate diet and veterinary attention.
Two of the dogs recovered from her home by RSPCA inspectors had to be put down, as did the rabbit.
Donna was rehomed with new owner Angela Hampson and her family in Chester and has been renamed Molly.
» Full story
Also via the Echo:
Vet struck off after owner finds pet dead
Jul 30 2008 by Kevin Core, Liverpool Echo
A MERSEYSIDE vet who said he “took his eye off the ball” because a dog owner “got on his nerves” has been struck off.
Les Higgott was removed from the veterinary register at a hearing of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) yesterday.
The Wallasey vet’s conduct was described as “almost as far distant from the standards properly to be expected of a competent veterinarian as it is possible to conceive”.
The RCVS committee heard that while treating Patricia Cook’s dog Fliss in June last year, her pet was kept in a urine-soaked, faeces-encrusted box.
When she complained, Higgott told her: “I’ve never certified a cause of death as dog s*** and wee.”
The committee heard how on one occasion when Mrs Cook visited the Poulton Road practice, Higgott refused to let her in, saying: “For f***’s sake, you were only here yesterday.”
When she went to the back of the premises to check on Fliss, she found she was dead.
Mrs Cook told Higgott, but he argued she was mistaken, until he checked the body.
The hearing found Higgott guilty of “disgraceful conduct in a professional respect”.
In a written verdict, the committee said: “The circumstances prevailing in this case resulted in the dog Fliss suffering in conditions of absolute squalor.
“The committee was of the view that the respondent’s conduct was likely to undermine public confidence in the veterinary profession and did bring the profession into disrepute.
“It is for those reasons, and not without a heavy heart, the committee concluded the only proper sanction to impose in this case is the ultimate sanction of removal of the respondent’s name from the register.
» Full article