They’re not happy

Well no, don’t suppose they are, having been exposed as liars and fakes. On top of that most of the names mentioned in Connections felt the need to close, clean up or lock down their Facebook pages and Tweets, in some cases disassociating themselves from each other and certain ‘interests’. All that to avoid being incriminated, and all very much too late.

Here’s a small reminder why:



12 thoughts on “They’re not happy

  1. Corporal punishment of dogs is banned in the Home Office Police Training manual. Yet by his own admission, he uses corporal punishment. One can’t help but wonder who’s training methods were being used when the RSPCA decided to stop supplying dogs to police forces in England and Wales following allegations of cruelty during the animals’ training after the death of Acer.

  2. It would seem BSL is the Goose that lays the Golden Egg which will have and still is an attraction to some that are less than scrupulous about the methods used to earn money. The way I see it is, within the law of BSL many other laws are being broken, bent and twisted.

  3. isn’t this one of the people who lambasted someone for having a spare profile on the name of a dog? counting at least 3 doggy profiles for their resident expert in psycho-logic AND latin hmmm 😉 one rule for them and another for the rest of the world, innit 😉

  4. Whatever your opinion on ceaser Milan,his foundation does a lot of good work promoting and saving pibbles in the USA,more than can be said for mr tallackwho comes across as a pit bull hater who just wants to wipe out the breed altogether,

    • As Pit Bulls are not a breed and ‘pure bred Pit Bulls’ are simply a tighter line of a specific range of dogs bred, one can only assume the person in question believes only the ‘type’ of person HE approves of, as he is so ‘qualified’ to judge, should own one.

  5. I need to ask a question but was unsure where to ask, but i have been assured that if i post it here, it will be seen though maybe not answered, so ever the optimist, i am going to try,

    My question is a serious one, Has Mr Tallack, the BCC advisor in court, ever written a paper on BSL ? that’s what the experts i know do, they write study papers, articles, release study papers each year , Is he qualified in ANY dog related field ?, there’s no recorded qualifications on any examination body and that’s why i ask, Does he rely soley on his 25 years experience as a dog handler ? I walk dogs with handling experience, I hold a recognised behaviour qualification and you do need first hand knowledge and know things about the field, you need to care about such but more importantly you need to hold recognised qualifications or no one will take you seriously. Why does he keep going on about a couple of child mauling cases he happened to be involved in? Tragic as they where,
    I never ever in the few instances he has been on radio or television not heard him mention the Lawrence case or the other case he was involved in,
    He keeps referring to two cases he just happened to be involved in when he’s in every court witness stand as well,… why?

    Cesar Milan also holds NO qualifications and also relies on his word of mouth “experience” of so many years and interesting that Milan also practices the very same tactics and aggression towards dogs that Mr Tallack said he does? I’ve also seen Milan kick, punch and coincidentally bite a dog back when it bit him!… It has been scientifically rejected as rubbish and that’s why experts in the field, REAL qualified experts don’t like those methods,

    There are lot’s of training course provider’s . eg : Cambridge Institute for Dog Behaviour & Training, Animal Care College ,Guide dog training,National Association of Security Dog Users
    Home Office police dog training, The British Institute of Professional Dog Trainers. None use aggression toward the dog’s,

    In general an Animal Behaviour Degree will average 1800 hours study time on wild animals and some domestic species. Dog specific theory is generally taught at less than 5% of the entire degree and rarely by a dog expert but by a teacher who has no practical experience. Animal behaviour degrees are not an expertise level in dog behaviour, training, theory or otherwise.

    All learning in canine work-based roles should be taught by highly skilled people with extensive hands-on experience. *Degrees obtained*, therefore, provide targeted theory learning in canine behaviour and training as well as extensive hands-on work .

    In regards to Lennox’s behaviour. In his report he acknowledges that he was not asked to assess Lennox’s temperament or behaviour, nevertheless he qratuitiously offers his opinion .

    According to the provisions of the Dangerous Dog Act, Mr Tallack does not have the necessary credentials to be an “expert.” He does not have a college degree. He also offer’s opinions that he was not asked for including saying that Ms. Barnes shouldn’t own a dog because of her disability. ?????????????

    Sorry for the lengthy post and i wont hold my breath waiting for a reply,

    • A nobody who saw an opportunity, a ‘gap in the market’, and has been using it to his financial and status benefit for a long time and at the cost of thousands of dogs lives. I do not believe he has been responsible for saving any lives, indeed his opinions on the dogs involved in the fatalities were given after the dogs had been killed if the media are to be believed? For a nobody to proclaim that a dog is a killer after it has killed, is no stroke of genius but he goes further and condemns the breed, categorises the ‘type’ of owner and sits high on his self made pedestal playing God as he is, or avoids, being challenged. It would be interesting to see him introduced to a genuine expert to see if he would start sweating again and feel the need for a stiff drink before the introduction 😉

      • that explains why none of the other experts used a catchpole, and why lennox wasn’t even muzzled during the assessments of mr ryan and mrs fisher, only an unqualified person (possibly scared of dogs or a tad paranoid) would use a catchpole on a pet who hadn’t bitten anyone all his life, another FACT that has been grossly overlooked in this case. heck, lennox hadn’t even bitten anyone in the two years of his incarceration. how can anyone still say that dog was ‘ready to go off’ with a straight face?? the poor boy proved he was harmless, that ‘lunge’ was blown out of proportion, and we only have mr tallacks word for the supposed ‘attack’ (and what was lennox going to do, bite him across the iron bars of a kennel door?!) the more i read about this case the more it stinks. this was NOT a dangerous dog. PERIOD.

        • Given the very clear links between the main players, its blatantly obvious that that man could absolutely not be described as an ‘impartial’ ”’expert”’…and I am not just referring to a pit bull cake……the evidence speaks for itself.

          • I don’t think any of those involved in the ‘demonising’ of a breed of dog, are impartial. They are all gaining financially from it which immediately destroys any impartiality claim. As with any badly thought out legislation, there will always be some cretins who use it to their advantage. Tallack appears to be one of the more obvious ones.

Leave a Reply..

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s