|
Post by hooch on Jul 15, 2012 13:58:55 GMT
That's fair enough. I don't know much about the family or where their story falls down........so I can't really comment on that. Surely that's another reason that there should be an investigation, so BOTH sides can be aired. you may be interested to hear that the family are still under investigation , the attorney general is looking into the threats and the DWP & inland revenue are looking into the donations.
|
|
|
Post by parsonsmum on Jul 15, 2012 15:02:50 GMT
Hooch, I've been doing a bit of 'googling' and found some quite alarming things that have been written about the Barnes family. ........I can see now what you mean. Was poor Lennox used as a pawn?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2012 15:03:59 GMT
Hooch it might be the law...but as we all know the law's an ass..
|
|
|
Post by hooch on Jul 15, 2012 16:33:21 GMT
Hooch, I've been doing a bit of 'googling' and found some quite alarming things that have been written about the Barnes family. ........I can see now what you mean. Was poor Lennox used as a pawn? i think he were , which is what is so wrong about the whole case don`t get me wrong , i`d have loved the outcome to be so much different and one where Lennox could spend out his days with any one of the lovely kind people that offered their help , yet the barnes family NEVER once petitioned this in court sadly for lennox , i didn`t want him to be returned to the family because i do feel after two years they weren`t acting within his best interests , 2 years is a long time for a dog to be incarcerated with only a dog warden for human companionship , who i have read spent her spare time with lennox even after she were no longer in the job! to spend the time gaining his trust and to build up that kind of friendship with him and close contact , she must have been very attached to him and i`m sure she prayed in her heart of hearts for a different outcome , sadly she didn`t make the rules , she had to abide by them she were unfortunately just doing her job yet for doing so , received death threats from many people supporting lennox , yet from start to finish she were there for him if you step away from the lies and mud slinging on both sides and look at the presented court documents , they broke the law and admitted doing so , lennox's dog license was expired by 9 months , they were sent two reminders prior to the dog wardens visit , 2 reminders they chose to ignore. in NI it is law that your dogs details have to be up to date , unfortunately for Lennox they broke that law , had they kept his license completely up to date , there would have been no reason why the dog warden paid them a visit , those are the facts. it is also true the family very early on asked for donations , if you google them you may well find everything in google cache and you may find evidence that they did indeed take donations that were paid straight into their paypal account , also at the time lennox was seized sitting on their drive was their old family motor , which i`ve read was 'off the road' now they drive round in a brand new BMW - what funded this? neither of the barnes work and the lennox case was funded completely by legal aid , yet ask any questions relating to any of that information and you are blocked and banned from the SL page , they won`t answer questions - but were completely happy to take other peoples money , without being answerable regarding what they did with it , many of whom donated couldn`t afford to , but did. also , i`m not really happy that they and others are encouraging folks to send questions and other mail to BCC`s freepost address , BCC have to pay to get that mail , so who really funds this ? it sure isn`t the barnes family and their masses of followers and it wouldn`t be BCC picking up the true cost of that either , in the longrun , it`s the tax payer
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2012 17:08:45 GMT
The dog warden couldnt have thought that much of Lennox to let him get in that state!!...or were the pics tampered with?...
|
|
|
Post by hooch on Jul 15, 2012 17:15:47 GMT
The dog warden couldnt have thought that much of Lennox to let him get in that state!!...or were the pics tampered with?... some of the photo`s were Photoshopped to show BCC up in a very bad light , one of them very badly , which looks as if Lennox`s tail has been docked / amputated. the family knew he had an ongoing skin condition , yet failed miserably to present any evidence in court relating to ongoing treatment as their own vet hadn`t seen him in some time BEFORE it even got to the stage he were seized. regarding the photo`s that were of lennox sitting in a cell on sawdust , those were photos taken by madeleine forsyth those photos are of lennox sitting in a `holding kennel` from the time she went to assess him it were nothing sinister there , those are where all dogs are taken upon being seized , that has been confirmed. yet those photo`s have been used throughout the whole campaign , photo`s taken shortly after he were seized. he isn`t sitting on faeces , it`s actually a log he`d had a chew on , again all confirmed by the very first person that appointed by the family to assess him.
she wasn`t biased and didn`t have anything against lennox , she were completely impartial , he simply failed her assessment where she advised the family to immediately have him put to sleep , she has saved more dogs like lennox than she has condemned and given other expert testimonies in court where dogs like lennox have been returned to their owners , read here. www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/news-focus/the-canine-mike-tyson-or-loveable-family-pet-1.828584?referrerPath=news/news-focus#read where it says she helped this dog gain his freedom and helped get him back to his owners. what possibly could this woman have to hide? nothing , serves no purpose only to those who were attempting to conceal.
|
|
|
Post by parsonsmum on Jul 15, 2012 17:22:50 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hooch on Jul 15, 2012 17:41:09 GMT
i`ve only referred to the court documents in them she stated `one of the most aggressive and unpredictable dogs she had ever met` a conclusion that was backed up [but sadly not in court] by madeleine forsyth who the family appointed first to assess lennox. Ms lightfoot does not actually state in those documents that she were afraid of him , if she were truly afraid of him , why continue the visits after she left her post ? i think the only conclusion that can be made is that over all those months she had worked hard to gain his trust , she were the only one he trusted and i do think she probably felt some 'loyalty' to lennox to see things through until a final decision was made. i dunno , it`s all very sad.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2012 17:45:00 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hooch on Jul 15, 2012 18:08:15 GMT
victoria stilwell contradicted herself yesterday in a radio interview , she were forced to admit live on air , she were never in a position to beable to offer lennox sanctuary , VS getting involved was nothing more than a publicity stunt.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2012 19:45:51 GMT
She maybe ment that she could get him sanctuary...not that she was actually going to take him...why would she need publicity she is a well established personality...or do you mean publicity for the family?...
|
|
|
Post by hooch on Jul 15, 2012 19:59:07 GMT
She maybe ment that she could get him sanctuary...not that she was actually going to take him...why would she need publicity she is a well established personality...or do you mean publicity for the family?... NO! she were forced to actually admit live on air , had the judge offered to exempt lennox , it wouldn`t have been legal for her to take him , so she couldn`t offer lennox a home OR home him with a sanctuary. had lennox been offered exemption , he would have legally have to have been returned to his family , no one else could legally take him , she admitted that live on air yesterday morning. i don`t see her as a well established celeb i switch her off , can`t stand the woman , she were so rude to a lady yesterday on the radio who forced her to admit that! look at the mess she made of this. cant really believe she instructed this dogs owners to put him to sleep over the phone! and didn`t have one shred of decency to visit the family prior or after they had their dog sadly put to sleep.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2012 21:56:09 GMT
I dont like her either...but i thought i might think differently about her if she helped Lennox...x
|
|
|
Post by micki on Jul 15, 2012 22:15:29 GMT
Its all a sorry mess isnt it. Are the family not what they appear? is the dog warden guilty? All the "if's and buts" that surround this. I still feel theres certain things which are very wrong. I still dont understand why the family couldnt have his collar?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2012 22:43:29 GMT
I know Micki but god knows where his collar went too!!...i was told from someone that has FB...that theirs a lot of trolls friends of the dog warden...putting about a load of s**t...who do you believe!!...
|
|