A blog with one purpose for Sarah GUNTHER


Sarah Gunthers blog For the Love of Dogz supposedly about Bruce but actually about Lennox BSL owners

For the Love of Dogz! – Blogging the truth is a Sarah Gunther creation. It will come as no great surprise that her blog isn’t really about putting records straight or solely ‘for the love of dogz‘ in general.  

And although they both get a mention, it’s not even about ‘Bruce her (golden) Goose’, as she calls him (yes, really), or her pal Sandie Lightfoot – it’s about Sarah Gunther finding another way of venting her festering resentment and taking potshots at Lennox’s owners, with a quick swipe at Victoria Stilwell plus a stab at ‘other rescues’ along the way.

Gunther started her blog in July 2012, a few days after Lennox was destroyed, and it’s been abandoned since September of the same year, active just long enough to spill the bile eating away at her like a maggot.

From information and screenshots you’ve provided, it seems Gunther has always been very confident that the inaccuracies and fabrications littering her blog are taken as fact, so it’s time to put that right.

The initial post (link) drew our attention more because it contains, almost verbatim, the same accusations and allegations found on The Lav (LLAAV), the trolls’ website.

We’ll briefly go through some of Gunther’s comments here, and cover more points in an additional post – Feedback for Sarah Gunther.

» Statement re Lennox «
The above screenshot shows Gunther ensuring the email extract heavily implies Lennox was a full time yard dog when, in fact, she knew ‘being kept in a secure back garden’ meant nothing of the sort.

She’s never coughed up the full emails as evidence. You’d expect to see a screenshot of said emails start to finish, including headers and footers. In fact she’s never come up with so much as one sentence. You’ll just have to take her word for everything she says, much like Page and Rushmore.

In her blog, Gunther goes on to boldly state as fact that Lennox was a yard dog, in spite of never having been to his home nor possessing any proof to support her accusation. In fact even if Gunther’s mate Sandie Lightfoot had provided her with that information, it still wouldn’t hold water, because Lightfoot’s habit of sitting outside Lennox’s home (with the intention of intimidating his owners) happened after he was seized.

The ‘yard and status‘ dog claims are very familiar stories spread by all the other HC members, but in light of Gunther’s comments and source for her false allegations, it must be assumed the others took their cue directly from her.

According to the flotsam of the HC (as opposed to the Jetsam), they’ve never even met each other let alone Sarah Gunther, so if that’s the case they’ve obviously been spreading rumours based solely on information supplied by her, at face value, although it should be remembered it was the (still very active) people behind the fake Heather Jones and Roxanne Summers profiles who ran with the ‘yard and status dog‘ stories. The rest of the HC, the hangers-on, merely supported, agreed and shared. 

In fact that whole post contains exactly what we’ve all seen on HC pages and websites, time and again – the same wild accusations and suppositions, the exact same lies, word for word. Strange.

According to Gunther, she has nothing to do with the HC and couldn’t possibly be one of the people hiding behind a fake profile. The reality is that, in spite of being the proprietor of a so-called busy animal rescue, she still spends most of time waging a vendetta against a family, all because she didn’t get her own way. Sounds familiar doesn’t it Mel Page?

How important are those animals to her if she’s prepared to give up precious time blogging and posting lies on Facebook, The Lav and various HC pages, when that time could be better spent elsewhere?

For example, Gunther made herself very busy with her vindictive accusations, including links to media articles regarding threats made to BCC employees:

  • The so-called petrol-soaked letters, smashed windows and tyre slashing claims:  Whoever delivered these stories to the media were obviously undecided about who had received the threats, because at first it was reported to be Sandie Lightfoot, then it changed to Yolanda Elwood. However, in the end the PSNI did not follow up any of those complaints owing to the fact that THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE to back up the claims. So what happened – did the petrol-soaked letter get accidentally binned and the windows and tyres repair themselves?

Those links are intended to make it appear as if Lennox’s owners and closest supporters were responsible for the alleged (and most likely non-existent) attacks and abuse, otherwise why include them? Again more lies and, in any case, not a shred of evidence.

That in itself isn’t surprising, we’ve seen it happen repeatedly with the HC, but it doesn’t make any sense that someone with supposedly so much to lose has so little self-control that even as late as July 2012 (two years after her offer to take Lennox was rejected) she still held a grudge, resentment still eating away. 

Gunther obviously published that post in July last year because Lennox had been killed a few days earlier, but the content makes it obvious it wasn’t due to any kind of sadness that his cause had been lost and she was, at the very least, instrumental in trying to harm his reputation – her own blog confirms it. So why did she choose to write it so soon after Lennox had been destroyed? 

Most people are now of the opinion that the refusal to allow Gunther’s involvement was the main catalyst for the start of the Hate Campaign, and you all know the reasons why her offer was turned down.

Had Gunther responded to the owners with an ‘ok fine, it’s your decision‘ and left it at that, the chances are that many of the false rumours and ‘facts’ based on conjecture and malicious lies wouldn’t have occurred at all, that’s if you leave Sandie Lightfoot and Mel Page out of the equation, which isn’t easy to do.

Sarah Gunther didn’t leave it at that, she responded with bitterness and proved that she’s incapable of constraint and unable to remain unbiased, but then complained about the response and backlash she received.

She blamed other people’s reaction for her own behaviour towards the family, made excuses that others were criticising her, asking why she wasn’t offering to help Lennox, using that as a reason to fan the flames of the Hate Campaign.

There were a few grounds for the owners refusal of Gunther’s offer; one because it did not occur to them Lennox would never come home (choosing to legally fight his case – something Ms Gunther refers to as ‘not cooperating’**).

The other reason of course is kept quiet by Gunther – Caroline Barnes sent numerous emails to different people asking for advice very soon after Lennox had been seized. However, it was only when Lennox’s story became more high profile that Ms Gunther responded, by which time the process was in motion.

Gunther maintains the family pestered her for help over several weeks – another lie, made obvious by the fact that she has never been able back up that claim.

In any case, even if Lennox’s owners had known their efforts to save him were going to be in vain, they would have opted for someone else other than Gunther to take him. She doesn’t have the best of reputations as you all know, and is famously very cagey about her past.

Whatever made Lennox’s owners refuse Gunther’s help, their instincts were obviously spot-on and it was exactly the right decision to make.

(**At one point in her blog, Gunther cites differences between the reactions of the respective owners of Lennox and Bruce, and this particular comment of hers inadvertently illustrates the real reason for her unmasked hatred of Caroline Barnes and Craig Winters:Bruce’s owner cooperated with the Courts and us“.)

» Musings of the day «
Not much we need say about that post from Gunther; it speaks for itself, full of resentment and jealousy.

Just one observation though – Gunther seems to admire Terrierman (Patrick Burns); she quotes and lauds him on his observations of Victoria Stilwell. Yep, he’s a real nice chap that Mr Burns

Patrick Burns Terrier man

When she created that blog, Sarah Gunther must have been convinced she would be taken seriously by everyone who read it. Perhaps she was guilty of believing her own publicity and opinion of herself, or maybe she was buoyed-up by the support from like-minded, bitter and vindictive people; who knows, but she was obviously very confident she couldn’t risk her self-styled reputation and the lives of all the dogs she claims to help, because for the most part it’s made up of conjecture, gossip and lies

In reality, Sarah Gunther is unprofessional, unstable, envious and malicious.

Feedback for Sarah Gunther


For the love of dogz by Sarah Gunther

»» Bruce :

“Our solicitor was Alison Douglas. She was committed and no nonsense. She cried with us when the judge ruled in our favour and was professional throughout the whole legal ordeal. She also helped with the last legal bill! She knows how wrong BSL is and went way beyond her call of duty to help Bruce.”

Fair enough.


"Alison was the first solicitor Lennox owners had and she stepped down as their legal counsel only a few short months into the case. She was vilified by the owners and their followers and countless stories were made up. People forget or do not know that a solicitor can’t just step down from a case, they have to state their case as to why to a judge and obviously it was good enough for the Judge to grant it."

Yes, Ms Douglas did step down, and that’s because she was spreading herself a bit thin. Ms Douglas made errors regarding evidence and relating to the instructing of an expert witness. If the owners had simply dismissed her they would have been assigned a solicitor chosen by the court.

To avoid that happening, and to give themselves enough time to instruct a solicitor who would be more committed, the owners informed Ms Douglas they were aware she had made certain mistakes and she therefore took herself off the case. Furthermore, she was not ‘vilified’ by the owners, they simply told the truth. If others chose to ‘vilify’ her, the owners can hardly be responsible for that.


"Since Alison was our legal rock for Bruce so why did she pack in the case? She must have had a very very good reason for stepping down and I am sure she will eventually answer the question when put to her."

Refer to our response above, plus enquire about a certain ‘conflict of interest’. Ms Douglas will no doubt answer that question when put to her.


"Anyone who asked Lennox’ owner was told she hates dogs and is pro BSL – this we KNOW to be untrue, given our experience with her and the way she handled Bruce’s case."

Ms Gunther provides no evidence to substantiate that accusation.


"Could it be that the very first assessor of Lennox for the defense stated that Lennox was aggressive? Why did the assessment of Lennox by Madeleine Forsythe never presented to the Courts? Could it be that Alison realised she had been lied to by the very people whom she represented?"

Madeleine Forsythe was indeed the first assessor. She was not known to, nor requested by, Lennox’s owners and was, in fact, brought in by someone else – we suggest Ms Gunther asks Alison Douglas to apprise her of that, if she hasn’t done so already.

In brief, Ms Forsythe assessed Lennox for over an hour (contrary to fabrications and gossip, she took him out of the kennel without using a catchpole) but her written report described a different dog and was dated incorrectly. Ms Forsythe was not allowed to be mentioned in court and therefore that assessment was not used.


"YES, many of you have never heard of Madeleine Forsythe, have you? Lennox’ owners kept that one VERY quiet, aye?"

It’s evident from that comment Ms Gunther’s relationship with Alison Douglas isn’t as cosy as she makes out, because Ms Douglas would have told her that Madeleine Forsythe’s name and assessment was ‘kept quiet’ for legal reasons, as instructed by the court. Or perhaps Ms Gunther did know, but was just scoring another cheap point.


As for the rest of that post, it’s hardly worth bothering with. We all know that Lennox was ‘deemed highly unstable and aggressive‘ by extremely unreliable and, let’s face it, very dodgy sources. Enough said about that, for now.

And then there’s Bruce, whose owners ‘cooperated’ with Sarah Gunther. In other words, they did as they were told and she got her hands on the dog.


»» Statement re Lennox :

“HOW did a yard dog all of a sudden become a *therapy* dog? WHY had the solicitor dropped the case? WHY the need for donations when the whole case was funded by Free Legal Aid? WHY did the vet, who allegedly treated Lennox for hair loss, not testify, neither did the dog trainer they allegedly had? WHY did none of the neighbours testify on Lennox’s behaviour? WHY did the owner now say that her daughter was traumatised when the dog warden ripped the dog from her arms when she stated clearly in her email to EGAR that her daughter was in school?”

For starters, Gunther’s got a bloody cheek asking those questions. But considering she was seriously pissed off that her offer had been rejected, it makes sense.

As with pretty much everything the Hate Campaign churn out as ‘fact’, Gunther had no proof whatsoever that Lennox was a yard dog, that’s just pure spite; similarly the ‘therapy’ dog remark. In one instance on her blog Gunther is piqued because she wasn’t made aware of certain facts, so those facts she then decided were henceforth going to be called ‘lies’. Why the hell would the owners tell her what’s going on anyway?

The solicitor question has been answered previously, and as for donations and ‘the whole case was funded by Free Legal Aid‘, that’s another nasty HC lie, but quite how Gunther can claim to be privy to protected information is anyone’s guess.

Even if, as we all suspect, a certain BCC employee was leaking documents and information, she would not have access to those details. But, as usual, what the HC don’t know, they make up as they go along.

As you all know, there never was thousands and thousands received in donations, Caroline Barnes received only partial Legal Aid and David Ryan’s assessment was not covered by it. Anyone who says differently is a vindictive and malicious liar because there is no way those outside of the family, their legal team and people they choose to confide in can possibly have access to that privileged information. Not even a fake barrister or a dog warden.

The vet question is bizarre – why would a vet testify? Does Gunther think a vet would do that out of the goodness of their heart, and not charge a blinding hourly fee for the privilege?

The neighbours’ question is probably the daftest one to date, and she hasn’t shown any evidence for asking the last question (you can’t have failed to notice that, in spite of their claims never to bring the child into the mix, without fail they always manage to mention or allude to her in some way. Nice people.).


"**The dog wardens attended on 19 May 2010. One of the wardens, Ms Lightfoot, attempted to examine the dog in the kitchen. The dog was very agitated, barking and growling. The dog lunged at her head and hit her with his muzzle. She was unable to carry out the examination because the dog was repeatedly lunging at her. The applicant finally agreed that the dog wardens could take the dog and she placed the dog in the Council van.**

It took her months to gain Lennox’s trust and she was the one who handled the dog when the assessments were carried out. This was used against her in the following hate campaign against her person. Absolutely ludicrous."

Regarding the day Lennox was seized, at one point there were five adults in that kitchen, four of them strangers in uniform.

Ms Lightfoot testified that ‘the Appellant’s kitchen was neither small nor crowded‘ but it’s our understanding that the kitchen is not large at all and is narrow in shape. In other words, everyone in that room would have been in close proximity to each other, and we don’t know of any dog who is likely to be comfortable in that situation.

However, regarding the ‘lunge’ (that word they love to use for greater impact) and Lightfoot being ‘hit on the head’ by Lennox’s muzzle – another dog warden who was present on that occasion, on being questioned in court, pointed to her chest whilst physically describing how Ms Lightfoot was hit, and the other warden didn’t testify on that question at all. The police officer had already left prior to Lennox being removed from the house, so that just left the three dog wardens, one of which couldn’t seem to make up her mind where on Lightfoot’s body Lennox had made contact.

It always brings a wry smile, whenever we see statements like this: ‘It took her (Lightfoot) months to gain Lennox’s trust‘. Visual evidence says something entirely different, with Lightfoot looking extremely relaxed and comfortable in Lennox’s company virtually from the off (e.g. link), and what Ms Gunther means by ‘against her person‘ is anyone’s guess, but chances are she’s alluding to the unsubstantiated claims of physical harassment again. Absolutely ludicrous!


"Their own defence expert said in Court: ** On the other hand Mr David Ryan, on behalf of the applicant, in a report dated 16 March 2011 recorded that when he reached over the dog’s head to clip a line to the back of his collar in one movement the dog lunged towards him, growled, barked and snapped.**"

Covered previously (link). This is another example of how Gunther and the rest of the HC prefer to take quotes out of context or, in this case, accidentally-on-purpose omit the rest of the statement, which is: ‘fortunately the dog did not bite Mr (Ryan) although he acknowledged that it could have done so if it had wanted to.‘.

Mr Ryan’s own report states: ‘in one movement he lunged towards me, growled, barked and snapped. He did not make.contact with me and returned to sit with Ms Lightfoot. As he did so, I again offered him cheese, which he took immediately in a relaxed manner‘.


 “The owner admitted in Court: **The applicant accepted that the dog was of the type known as a Pit Bull Terrier and that she was guilty of the offence of being the keeper of such a dog within Article 25A of the 1983 Order as amended. **"

Given Ms Gunther’s familiarity with BSL and court procedures, we’re surprised she’s bothered drawing attention to that. She knows full well the reason for the ‘applicant’s acceptance’ that the dog was type and, even so, her friends over at Deed not breed could no doubt explain the procedure to her.

But she’s pushing her luck expecting anyone to believe she’s unaware that agreeing with an assessment, pleading guilty to owning a banned type and cooperating with the courts would be the only way to get a dog like Lennox home, because it would then be based on temperament and, since Lennox had never had any complaints and no incidents had ever occurred, it should have been cut and dried.

Unfortunately, at the time, no one could have foreseen the likes of Tallack and Lightfoot making up stories about Lennox’s aggression, ensuring only one tragic outcome.


And finally to Sarah Gunther’s bullet point Q’s:

  • ‘WHY was the petition signed by so many thousands never even presented to the Courts?’    Why does she think it wasn’t?
  • WHY neither, was any petition made to remove Lennox from the jurisdiction despite plenty of offers from various countries/organisations, not just EGAR.’   Already answered above.
  • And WHY the constant need for donations, when the whole case was funded by the taxpayer via Free Legal Aid?‘  Already answered above.
  • ‘WHY are there no pictures of Lennox in the house as an adult (apart from a badly photo shopped one)?’  What makes her think there wasn’t? How could she know one way or another, ergo why is she stating it as ‘fact’? And where is her proof the image was photoshopped?
  • WHY did Craig Winters aka John Winters aka Micheal Hunter threaten another well known anti BSL organisation with terrorist organisations and spammed the EGAR wall with vile threats and ridiculous allegations?‘  Where is Gunther’s proof of all this? And why didn’t she just come out and name ‘Deed not Breed’? If she has no real involvement in it, or anyone connected to it, as she claims, why be so shy about using their title? 
  • WHY did the owner never sent any treats or bedding to Lennox? EVER..?’  Another mindless and vindictive HC lie. So did this one originate from Gunther herself or is she just spreading gossip quoted by others? Where is her proof? Perhaps she’s referring to the dog a certain BCC employee passed off as Lennox claiming him to be so starved of toys a member of the HC sent him a few so the BCC employee could photograph the dog playing with them (link).
  • ‘WHY did they not ring the dog warden to enquire about their dog?’  Which ‘dog warden’? Would that be the dog warden whose lie was dismissed in court because her colleague couldn’t back it up? The same dog warden who said Lennox was ‘aggressive’ when she knew damn well he wasn’t? The same dog warden who was photographed outside the owners’ property when she was allegedly on ‘indefinite leave’? 
  • And WHY did he say in Court: *Ms Barnes’ partner told the dog wardens that the dog would “rip your head off” if approached**’. Ms Gunther seems to be getting confused with her use of the word ‘he’ (and so are we). She should ask her friends who were in court on a particular day what happened when Lightfoot testified that Craig Winters had allegedly told her ‘the dog will rip your head off‘. As those friends will recall, the dog warden who accompanied Lightfoot that day testified under oath that she did not hear those words and ‘could not recall them being spoken’. In fact that little piece of evidence from Lightfoot was disallowed. It’s probably a shame to burst that particular HC balloon but they’ve had more than enough mileage out of it already.


Before we go….

"PS. NONE of us were against Lennox to suggest otherwise is ludicrous, we are, however, anti lies and deception. And to those who direct their energy towards threats, violence and untruths: there are countless dogs like Lennox in the Pound, if you want to do something CONSTRUCTIVE then we strongly suggest you help them and lobby the government in the UK to abolish BSL."

Unfortunately for Ms Gunther, protestations about being onside with Lennox don’t hold water any more owing to the content of her blog.

Same goes for the ‘anti-lies and deception’ claims, which are laughable given her track record, particularly on the blog.

We couldn’t agree more with her final sentiment, it’s just a pity she didn’t take her own advice. All that time spent bitching about Lennox’s owners, blogging about it and posting on Facebook could have been used wisely and productively from an anti-BSL point of view. 

Expert Witness – another HC target


You know a vendetta has hit rock-bottom when the people behind it resort to an attempt at discrediting the reputation of someone like Sarah Fisher, and the Hate Campaign did just that (link). Had David Ryan not said something the HC could extract to give their spite a little lift, he would have received the same treatment (*below).

Sarah Fisher’s reputation as a renowned animal behaviourist of long-standing could not be disputed by the HC, so the malignant excuse-for-a-human behind the Roxanne Summers profile set about fabricating a story, claiming to have personally acquired this ‘scoop’. Once again the rest of the HC lapped it up, because, as far as they’re concerned, anything Summers and Jones spewed was Gospel, whether it was suspect or not (admittedly, the ‘or not‘ is pushing the boundaries just a bit).

That particular ‘scoop’ entailed Summers apparently privy to the workings of Belfast City Council. Despite her report being a big fat lie, it’s interesting that whatever the real (and still active) identity of the sleazeball behind ‘Summers’, the other hate campaigners either believed or knew the BCC connection existed. Since we all know that ‘Summers’ was not a barrister, what role can we assume that person played in BCC then? Probably not a lavatory attendant.

One thing’s for sure, we can whittle down possible suspects by dismissing the likes of Day, Gathercole, Vermin, Jules, Enselmann, yada, yada, who are merely the flotsam picked up along the way, each one with about as much clout, influence and nous of a gnat.

(From the evidence so far, it’s highly unlikely a single one of them is capable of coming up with anything that remotely smacks of an intelligent fabrication, their only use in the HC being to back-up, bolster, fawn and share.)

Sarah Fisher was probably unaware of that particular piece of vindictive gossip at the time, and she’s unlikely to have responded anyway. However, she had previously been compelled to issue a statement for other reasons (below and link), which is most likely why the HC tried to discredit her with one of their usual potboilers.

Right from the start of the Save Lennox campaign, it was evident the people behind the HC were quite prepared, in their efforts to degrade his owners, to damage any chances of Lennox being released, that’s common knowledge now, the evidence is everywhere. So all the crap about Lennox’s welfare being paramount to them is a crock.

To illustrate that point, as we all know, one of their efforts to discredit Lennox backfired spectacularly when a small extract of David Ryan’s recorded assessment was leaked in an attempt at demonstrating Lennox’s so-called ‘aggression’. The only purpose that extract served was to highlight how very comfortable and relaxed dog warden Sandie Lightfoot was in the company of Lennox, and, in turn, his own good manners and sweet nature.

The extract also elicited another response, and details of Mr Ryan’s full assessment were revealed, disclosing methods used by him to taunt and goad Lennox into a negative reaction, which actually showed Lennox to be a well behaved dog.

*(As they just love to quote the court documents, this is taken from David Ryan’s statement regarding part of his assessment where he more or less pinned Lennox to a wall, giving the dog no place to go : “..’in one movement he lunged towards me, growled, barked and snapped’. Fortunately the dog did not bite Mr (Ryan) although he acknowledged that it could have done so if it had wanted to.” – link). That was the only ‘aggressive’ reaction from Lennox recorded in the whole of Mr Ryan’s assessment, which we understand lasted for an hour, more or less.

(That extract direct from David Ryan’s report states: “… in one movement he lunged towards me, growled, barked and snapped. He did not make.contact with me and returned to sit with Ms Lightfoot. As he did so, I again offered him cheese, which he took immediately in a relaxed manner…”)

It was after that particular HC home goal that the vendetta stepped up, becoming more malicious and inventive, getting to the point where a vindictive idea that came right off the top of their boneheads was quoted as fact.

  • Consider who, right from the beginning, was affronted by Lennox’s owners and their refusal to back down and allow Lennox to be destroyed without a fight. Who decided Lennox’s owners had absolutely no right to challenge an unjust system and stand up against the arrogance of certain people within that system? And who stood to lose credibility or, come to that, was refused an offer of involvement?
  • Who had reason, motive and the ability to leak documents and video extracts and pass off images of another dog, claiming to show Lennox in good health during his incarceration (link)? Who is closely associated with someone who could have done all those things?
  • When the lies, innuendo and gossip didn’t take hold and were dismissed or ignored by all but a handful of people, who became so desperate for attention they risked fabricating evidence, assuming fake profiles would prevent them from being discovered? (e.g. link)

That vendetta commenced almost immediately after Lennox was seized, making it perfectly obvious that the reasons for the hate campaign were very personal indeed and had nothing whatsoever to do with Lennox, but everything to do with revenge and resentment.

♠ ♠ ♠ ♠ ♠

Statement of Sarah Fisher made on 11 October 2011:

»» ” It has been brought to my attention that a small clip of my assessment of Lennox has been put on the Internet.  This clip has been taken completely out of context and whilst I have remained relatively quiet on this case since I spoke in court, I feel that I am now forced to make a statement to clarify what actually happened during the time I was with Lennox.

Wrongly or rightly many documents and details about this case have been passed onto different parties. I do not feel it is appropriate for me at this moment to discuss in detail everything that has been said to me, nor to put forward my own ideas regarding all the statements made, as everyone is entitled to their own opinion and beliefs.  What I am qualified to do however is to discuss behaviour. My assessments, statements and videos of those assessments have been accepted in other court cases at Magistrates, County and Crown Courts here in the UK, so the field of assessment in cases such as this is not unknown to me.

I do not care if I am to be criticized by members of the public or even other professional bodies as I have a wealth of experience handling and working with many breeds of dogs, large and small, and I also work with horses with behavioural issues, so I do not need to defend the claims that I have little or no experience of working with powerful animals such as Pit Bull Types. I would however like to clarify that a Pit Bull Type is often a mix of dogs.  Nothing extraordinary happens to the psyche of a dog when it conforms to certain measurements.

I do care however that Lennox is being portrayed in a poor light through this video clip as my experience of handling Lennox was thoroughly enjoyable and I now feel the need to explain in greater detail the truth, as I see it, about my assessment.  I know that Victoria Stilwell has been, what I would consider to be, a sane voice amidst the madness that surrounds this case, and she has seen full video footage of the assessments carried out by myself and David Ryan, plus other documentation.

When the door to the van was first opened Lennox barked.  He barked at me three times when I approached.  As I said in my report this is not uncommon behaviour in any dog that is in a confined situation in a crate, kennel or in a car.  He was also shaking like a leaf but this does not come over in the video that my assistant took of this assessment.  He was clearly frightened as he could not have known what was going to happen to him and again this is not an uncommon behaviour in the dogs that come to me for help. No one has ever disputed that Lennox can be anxious around some strangers but I believe the key word some has sadly been overlooked.

I asked for someone that Lennox knew to take him out of the crate to keep his stress levels low. Entry and exit points can be a source of conflict for any dog. I was told I had to handle Lennox on my own for the entire assessment and that he had bitten the last person that came to see him (see below).  This is the clip that has been released.  Had I had any concerns for my safety or those around me given that I was to be fully and wholly responsible for a dog that I do not know and that I had been told has bitten, I would not have continued with the assessment if I believed that dog to be a danger either to myself or those who were standing in the car park. Lennox gave me a lot of information about his temperament whilst in the crate.

In court however, and therefore under oath, Ms Lightfoot, the Dog Warden stated that in fact Lennox had not bitten anyone so I have to assume on the evidence placed before the court that the statement made to me at the start of my assessment was untrue.  Given the publicity surrounding this case I am also confident that had Lennox actually bitten anyone whilst in the care of his family, as has been suggested, someone would have come forward by now.

I spent approx fifteen minutes with Lennox prior to being taken from the crate, working with a clicker and some treats to see if, even in the environment that was causing him some anxiety, he could still learn and take direction from a stranger. He could. His eyes were soft and he was friendly. At this point I would also like to clarify the meaning of the word friendly.  It does not mean confident.  Was Lennox anxious? Yes.  Hostile?  No.

I believe that Lennox would have been totally at ease had I indeed taken him out myself but I also believe I have a duty of care to reduce stress where possible when handling any animal in a situation that is causing them distress.  No doubt this statement will also be taken out of context by those who wish to discredit me and to discredit my belief that Lennox is not a danger to the public based on my experience with him, and also based on the video assessment carried out by David Ryan, which I have also seen.

I use food in an assessment to monitor the dogs stress levels and emotions at all times. It is not a bribe. A habitually aggressive dog will generally seek out conflict in my experience but even these dogs can often be rehabilitated. No amount of food can disguise this behaviour and giving food to a dog with aggression issues can be extremely dangerous. The dog may be lured to a person by the promise of food but once it has taken the food it may panic as the offering of the food has now brought that dog into close proximity with the threat i.e. a stranger. I have worked with dogs with aggression issues and whilst some may well take the food, the person delivering the food may not be able to move once the food has gone as the movement of the person, even the smallest movement of their arm, may trigger the dog to lunge and bite.

I would not hand feed a dog that I deem to be aggressive. The delivery of the treat must come from the person that the dog knows and trusts – not the stranger. The dog can learn to approach a threat and then turn back to the person that the dog trusts for the reward if the approach to the person is appropriate.  I use food throughout an assessment to monitor what is happening with the dog on an emotional and physical level not to make him my best friend.

Lennox was so gentle with the taking of the food both in the crate and also later in the car park.  He was also appropriate in his behaviour with the games we played. He was also gentle when he jumped up at me to see if he was allowed the food that I was withholding in my hand. When he realised it wasn’t forthcoming he politely backed off. This would suggest to me that he has been around a family. Not chained up in a yard as has also been claimed by people who do not know the family or the dog.

Lennox showed excellent impulse control at all times and at no point did he grab me or my own clothing, which many dogs do when getting excited by a game.  I have worked with some truly challenging dogs and some will become increasingly aroused by lead ragging or games with toys and start seriously mouthing or biting the handlers arms or clothing. This can quickly flip over to more overt aggression and these dogs can be dangerous particularly if they are being handled by just one person.  It is imperative that dogs with this behaviour are taught a more appropriate way of interacting with people and responding to the leash and also greater self control. There are many ways to help dogs that have been encouraged, through mishandling and misunderstanding, to behave in such a manner.  Kicking and beating them is certainly not the answer.

Lennox does rag on the lead but it is very self controlled. He did not exhibit any of the behaviours that I have mentioned above. Regardless of what some uneducated people may wish to think, it is possible to glean a lot of information about a dog through games and food as many behaviour counsellors and trainers will confirm.

I wrote a fifteen page report on my experience with Lennox and my thoughts about the David Ryan assessment. In this report I state that I have concerns about the appearance of Lennox’s neck. In the video I explain this too.  His ears are unlevel and there was a change in the lay of his coat over the Atlas in line with the nuchal ligament that is present between T1 and C2 vertebrae.  Coat changes often occur in dogs, cats and horses that have suffered injury or those that are unwell. I have studied this over seventeen years of handling many animals. In all cases where I referred an animal back to a vet, whether it was in the care of a shelter, owned by my private clients or students that I teach changes to the soft tissue or skeleton were noted on further detailed investigation.  When I see this around the neck in a dog I know that it is likely to give the dog cause for concern when someone unknown to that dog attempts to handle the collar or put on or take off a lead.  Coat changes may well be present where deep bruising has also occurred. Pain and pain memory is a key factor in many behavioural problems.

Lennox was quite rightly put on Amitriptyline. I do not believe that the Council have failed in their duty to care for Lennox when it comes to the stress that he has been under and I understand that this drug is used to treat anxiety and depression.  It was with interest, though, that I discovered that this drug is also used to treat chronic pain in dogs. Again this was mentioned in my written report.  This may explain in part why my experience with Lennox seems to fly in the face of other evidence presented before the courts. He was not on Amitriptyline when he was assessed by David Ryan.

I would absolutely move on to touch an animal all over its body in any assessment that I do.  I may or may not choose to muzzle a dog that is unknown to me to do this if I have concerns about the body language that I have seen prior to this part of my assessment.  I elected not to stroke Lennox all over because of my concerns about his neck, the newly forming scabs that were present on his flanks and the blood that was present around the nail beds around his right hind foot. This decision was made based on the physical evidence before me not because I felt I would be in danger.  I talked about this in court which was open to the public and at the end of my assessment which is also on film I explained this to a representative from the BCC Dog Warden team and asked if there was anything else that she would like me to do with Lennox.  She said no.

I cannot comment on what happened when Lennox was seized or measured by Peter Tallack because I wasn’t there. I can explain behaviour though and any frightened animal can be intimidating. I have recently been in Romania working with traumatised horses and two stallions had not been mucked out for months as the staff (men) were too scared to go in with them. They called them ‘pitbulls’ such is the misguided impression of this type of dog.  Hay had been simply thrown over the stable doors and their water buckets were hanging crushed against the stable wall.  I went in with them, not because I have any desire to be a hero, but because I can read an animal well and within minutes they were quiet, standing at the end of their stables albeit it pressed up against the walls. I was calm with them and we took out all the filthy bedding and fetched new water buckets for them too. They didn’t attack anyone. They were simply terrified and they were not provoked. I spent time with one of them on my own, hand feeding him and was finally able to touch his face.

This process probably took less than half an hour. I was totally absorbed in what I was doing and when I turned to walk out I realised that one of the Romanian men had been watching me. He raised his eyebrows, gave me the thumbs up and walked away. Other people could then go in with this magnificent horse too and hand feed him the fresh sweet grass that we had picked from the surrounding fields so it isn’t simply that I am quiet in my handling of animals nor possess some extraordinary skill that can make even the most savage lion behave like a lamb when in my company.

I can perhaps, help an animal that is struggling, gain trust in human beings as many people can.  I can perhaps work with a difficult animal and make it look as though that animal is calm but all the time I am reading that animal. Every second of the way. I am looking at the eyes if it is safe to do so, I am watching the respiration, I am studying the movement, the set of the ears and the tail and so on and my opinions about an animal are based on many years of working in this way.  One case that will always stand out in my mind was a large member of the Bull Breed family.  I believe she was two years old.  I won’t go into the details here but I will say that when I worked with her she appeared to be very good to the member of kennel staff that was watching.  At the end of my assessment the member of staff asked me what I thought.  I sadly had to say that I thought the dog should be put to sleep. The member of staff was horrified and I remember her saying ‘but she’s been so good with you’.  But I had noticed some worrying signs.  The shelter ignored my advice and rehomed the dog who savaged the new owner so badly the owner ended up in the ICU. Of course the dog was immediately destroyed.

I knew what I was walking into when I agreed to go and assess Lennox for the family.  To have to defend Lennox outside of the court has, however, come as a surprise.  I have made this statement to shed a little more light on what is a distressing case for all those involved,  knowing full well that I will no doubt be subject to further scrutiny and criticism. So be it. I am not afraid. If nothing else this case has highlighted some important issues about the fears and prejudice concerning dogs, their breed types and their behaviour. Certainly it highlights the sad truth as Xenephon said so wisely in 400 BC, ‘Where knowledge ends, violence begins’.” ««

Tied up in Notts


Heather Jones Facebook posting from Nottingham. Now who else lives in a place like that?

Friday observations


As mentioned when going over the ‘Roxanne Summers’ profile (now deactivated), if you like to play judge and jury, it’s best to be squeaky clean. Allowing yourself to give way to hate and resentment tends to come back and haunt you sooner or later, but those now desperately trying to distance themselves from the HC have been too arrogant to believe that could happen.

Certain people have remained hidden behind aliases, either targeting victims on a daily basis, concocting stories, twisting facts, photoshopping images, making intimidating phone calls, contacting employers and creating childish names for people (or backing those who do), with the intention of degrading and bullying individuals.

They’ve pretty much had free rein to do whatever they please over the last two years. Now their stupidity is being exposed, they’re threatening us with all sorts. Well we welcome the intervention of Mel Page‘s ‘people in authority’ because, regardless of the consequences for us, her hidden activity over that period of time will also be revealed, and with luck she’ll drag the rest down with her. Not before time.

Meanwhile, just a reminder that any protestations of innocence are hot air. In fact only this week Mel Page contradicted herself in two different posts, one on Lem Thirteen (the page she claims to have nothing whatsover to do with, but to which she’s been inviting and adding people since before the Lem pages acquired numbers – now unpublished oddly enough!).

First Mel Page claimed not to know Heather Jones, only Roxanne Summers, and then she changed her mind and claimed to know Heather Jones but not Roxanne Summers. Confusing.

Mel page seems confused about knowing Summers and Jones 1

Speaking of Summers, it’s strange those profiles disappeared overnight, with no warning or explanation at all. HC pages often bow out with some sort of fanfare or feigned excuse, but not this time. Perhaps the Bar Council finally made contact with the person behind the profile, or maybe Connections hit a nerve.

So bearing in mind that Roxanne Summers and Heather Jones were fake and the people behind them still very much active, we’ll leave you with another reminder of their mental state, and let Mel Page herself do the introduction and set the theme:

Mel page Facebook claiming she's not a supporter of BBB

The comment above was posted on the now deactivated Boycott Boycott Belfast page, the page ‘Heather Jones’ forgot was supposed to be hers and the one Mel Page has ‘nothing to do with’ *cough* (link).

The screenshot immediately below is from one of the Roxanne Summer’ pages, with Mel Page drawing attention to a website she also claims to have nothing to do with:

Mel Page promoting LLAAV on Roxanne Summers Facebook page

Mel Page celebrating return of Lem Nine, currently Lem Thirteen Facebook

Mel Page NCG on Candy Rogers

Mel Page Facebook seems to like the HC favourite C word

Mel Page as Ann Banford and Billie Bennet targeting Craig Winters again

Regards the above, to confuse matters, Mel Page is also Ann Banford (her maiden name). Nothing unusual or wrong about that, except that it gets Page off the hook with her excuses about having nothing to do with the hate pages, because there she is, again.

Now this is where it gets really complicated because, as we all know, the Billie Bennet profile belonged to ‘Heather Jones’ (link), but ‘Heather Jones’ isn’t real so…..ah, what the heck, it could fry our brains trying to untangle that lot.

And here’s Mel Page or, more likely, Melanie Rushmore in disguise again as Larry Lawrence, only evident because someone none too bright slipped up:

Mel Page aka Larry Lawrence outed by Wardley

Heathers deep seated hatred

Roxanne Summers vitriolRoxanne summers you are filth

Mel Page NCG on Candy Rogers

Finally, sometimes amusing, but always disturbing (link):

BBBBB Heather Jones with her xmas marvelous and hilarious xmas ditty

Questions from TED ISMAY


Hello Ted, your completely unaltered comments are activated now. What, surprised?

Anyone who hasn’t commented on the blog before has to be approved, that’s to stop the odd airhead from Lem Thirteen or The Lav posting inane and childish remarks when we’re not around, as they’ve tried in the past.

We’ve also screenshot your comments so they can be covered better here, and you’ll find them below, although we’ve blanked out your IP address.

Looking at the overall questions, in a nutshell, the short answer to the whole lot is ‘You reap what you sow‘ Ted.

Comment 1
As we said right at the start, the purpose of this blog is to draw attention to things that have been said and done by members of the Hate CampaignWe’re aware you don’t like the term ‘Hate Campaign’, but it’s a step up from ‘Syco’, so not too bad in the circumstances and, in any case, it happens to be true.

We’ve also maintained right from the start that we control the topics and do not answer questions unless we feel the need, that’s our prerogative, and we have never pretended otherwise. As you’ve been reading the blog regularly in one guise or another, you should know that.

Also from the off we explained that we were not directly involved with (what you all like to call) the ‘core’ of the Save Lennox campaign. Obviously over the last few months we’ve become acquainted with many of them, in fact we wouldn’t have access to most of the evidence without them. That doesn’t mean we run a message service, so if you want to draw attention to any one of them directly, we suggest you do what comes naturally – use your own page, Deed not breed or The Lav, since they seem to be the only outlets you have left.

As far as pillow cases go, white or otherwise, nope, we don’t wear them.

The ‘abusive’ remark is subjective. You’ve all been exposed and caught red-handed, so from your point of view it’s a completely natural and expected reaction to make your accusers out to be the villains of the piece. It’s what happens when bullies and liars are confronted.

Comment 2
It’s pretty much the same as above in that you’re accusing your own personal hate targets of now being the bullies and abusers, and all because you’ve been outed. You’re backed into a corner so it’s fight or flight – a bit of both so far.

The KKK analogy is utterly ridiculous; they’re an organisation based on shocking and disgusting principles and your preferance for mentioning them every chance you get just makes it appear as if you share the same values. If you do share those values then fair enough, but at least spit it out and make yourself clear.

And ditto Comment 1 regards us blogging anonymously. You have a choice; read our blog, don’t read our blog. The time will come when (according to her) Mel Page’s solicitor and local police will have done their job and all will be revealed, including HC’s antics and hidden profiles. Until that day we can all carry on the way we are – the HC with more fakes than a mannequin factory, and us with our little blog.

In the meantime, clearing out comments on The Lav, deleting Tweets, closing down Facebook profiles and unpublishing pages, none of that will do an ounce of good any more.

Comment 3
Your wires are a bit crossed regards proof; take another look and read what we actually have said, and then take on board our ‘prerogative’ comments above. Oh and Ted, it’s best to keep in mind that we don’t care what you think.

The reason ‘why?’ is an easy one, we’ve answered that many times before and, if we ever doubted ourselves for a second, all we’d have to do is pop over to a Lem page (currently Lem Thirteen) or The Lav, or go through our cache of screenshots, to confirm what everyone except you and that very small band of malicious people can see a mile off.

As for insisting both you and Mel Page are innocents in all this and were never involved, that’s a joke. It’s completely false and you know it (link). Your constant need to explain yourself and comment on Lem Thirteen to rally the dwindling troops makes it very obvious that you’re really wondering what kind of proof we have and when we’re going to use it.

You should have thought about that long before creating fake profiles to pursue a hate campaign, under the delusion that you’d get away with it indefinitely.

What you both should have done was – well, not done it in the first place;simple as that. You should have thought about the repercussions. You can’t blame anyone else but yourselves; nobody ‘made’ you do anything.

Ted Ismay Facebook wants to know what we actually know about him b

Teddy Bear Strikes Again!


This particular Teddy has an obsession with introducing the term ‘KKK’ (Ku Klux Klan) into pretty much every comment. Charming.

And, as mentioned previously (link), he either has an extremely short memory or doesn’t involve himself in the logistics of Deed not Breed because Ted Ismay states: ” ….DnB has saved the lives of hundreds of dogs over the past seven years or so and are still doing it, daily…”

All that saving must have occurred prior to 2012 then, because according to this comment posted on DnB’s Facebook page on Monday of this week (18 March):

Sarah Gunther confirming 7 dogs saved in last 12 months, not the hundreds Ted Ismay claims

So between the three of them (Deed not Breed / Bull Breed Advisory Service and EGAR) they’ve saved seven dogs in the last year. You’d be hard-pushed to add enough digits to that figure to turn it into ‘hundreds’, but no doubt they’ll find a way.

Ted also says ”  DnB ask for no money, they pay for the full running costs out of their own pockets, they fund it themselves “, which is odd because Mel Page said something completely different fairly recently didn’t she?


Anyway, enough about Ted, although there isn’t much more we need to blog today, they’re doing all the hard work for us, and a fantastic job it is too. If ever we wanted to illustrate to our followers the infantile mentality of the Hate Campaign and, more importantly, the stark difference between them and other organisations and support groups, we could not, on any given day, have found a better example.

Before we go, just to remind everyone that, if you do look in on The Lav or Lem Thirteen, keep in mind they are all still there, regardless of the excuses that they cannot post for one reason or another. In fact they have so many fake profiles and aliases they’re running out of ideas. The latest one is Sherlock Homes, newly hatched, and the only reason they chose that name is they couldn’t spell Moriarty (can’t spell Holmes either). Okay, fair enough, that’s just nitpicking, and so is this:

Debbie Gathercole Facebook version of a fully grown adult

We’ll go over the rest another time, but to leave you with an illustration of Debbie Gathercole’s version of ‘an adult’ and her alleged ‘disapproval’ of some disgusting things that occurred on their side of the fence:

Debbie Gathercole Facebook disturbed



Never Assume the Obvious aka Roxanne Summers Heather Jones Mel Page et al Libellous statement

Heather Jones of course. This sad, lonely and very base attempt at spreading the usual vindictive bile was ignored by everyone on that occasion, including the rest of the HC – it seems even they weren’t stupid enough to show support for the poison.

Since most are now convinced Heather Jones was a cover for Page and/or Ismay (well one thing’s for sure, the idiot is based in Nottingham), it won’t come as any surprise that the above ‘Never assume the obvious…’ page disappeared shortly after we posted » Connections « – at roughly the same time the Boycott Boycott Belfast page and all the Roxanne Summers‘ profiles miraculously disappeared as well. Must be coincidence.

Already covered in January (link):

Heather Jones Facebook accusing the Barnes' of  using Lennox as status dog owing to harness

Heather Jones‘ made one last ditch attempt to save face before throwing in that grubby towel:

Heather Jones Facebook accuses Craig Winters of taking part in dog fighting

Q and A

Think we deserve a bit of a rest after all that muck raking, it’s a sordid business following the Hate Campaign trail, so we’re passing the baton over to them for a while, with a view to gleaning some information.

Now we know from past experience they haven’t been able to cough up hard evidence to back up their accusations and bold statements, but we’re hoping that, because most of them have disappeared or retreated, the few that are left will be dead eager to show solidarity and try to appear credible, although we can’t be sure obviously. However, we are sure that they read every inch of this blog, so maybe they’ll give our challenge some consideration.

Without further ado HC, bearing in mind your claims and accusations, of which you’re very familiar, and if it’s not too much trouble, could you please show proof (i.e. solid evidence), to back up the following. Do bear in mind that cherry picking and taking comments and screenshots out of context to prove a point is cheating and unacceptable. Play fair now:

  • That huge amounts of money in the way of donations has been received via the Save Lennox campaign (we do recall several of you claiming to have calculated up to £60k? Remember now, absolute proof required);
  • That Caroline Barnes said she took the photograph of the dog warden in the BCC van from inside of her house;
  • That Caroline Barnes has been the only owner of a dog deemed as type who has not had to comply with that decision and admit the same to assist the appellant’s case (clue: procedure);
  • That Lennox was a status and yard dog;
  • You have asked Save Lennox supporters ‘where is the proof Lennox was mistreated or neglected‘ in BCC care. Similarly, where is your own proof that he was not?
  • That only Lennox’s owners and/or their closest supporters were directly responsible for bomb threats received by BCC on certain dates ;
  • That Sarah Fisher lied about visiting Caroline Barnes in hospital;
  • The ‘Family’ have made numerous threats of violence against some of your members (to give you a clue of where to look for that, it was a Heather Jones ‘FACT’)
  • That the family and/or their closest supporters were responsible for a petrol-soaked letter being put through a dog warden’s letter box;
  • That the incident(s) regarding a petrol-soaked letter actually happened in the first place (clue: PSNI)
  • The Family did not use the first assessment of Lennox only because it was negative to him;

As Mel Page has said, just today in fact, she despises Craig Winters, she might possibly want to cover this batch:

  • That Craig Winters couldn’t be bothered to attend court;
  • That Craig Winters is involved in dog fighting (link);
  • That Craig Winters ‘abused’ various kennels
  • That Craig Winters was guilty of domestic abuse (Jules, although not exclusively your statement, on this occasion you might want to cover that one)
  • That Craig Winters was responsible for slashing a dog warden’s car tyres and simultaneously involved in terrorist activities (Kirsten, one for you)
  • That the family have abused and vilified Deed not Breed;
  • That the picture plucked from the Internet of a man standing outside the Louvre in Paris shows Craig Winters having a holiday courtesy of donation money received after Lennox was seized;

Well that’s probably enough to be getting on with for now. A few more where that came from, obviously, especially comments about Brook Barnes, the child they swore would never be brought into their campaign. We’ll save those for another day.

In the meantime, and as a prelude to something else we have in mind, we’d also like to ask members of the HC how many of you attended the full court hearings, particularly this one – link? Thanks.

Demise of the HC

We were going to split the following into different blog entries because, even for those of you familiar with the stupidity of the Hate Campaign, some of this is about as contemptible and ugly as it gets, and hard to get to grips with even by their low standards. But we’ve decided to include them all on one page; after all, they deserve each other, and with each other is where they belong. Actually, most of them are each other.

Before getting on with today’s blog, it has to be said that, no matter what they say and how much they are now struggling to distance themselves from each other, even a child could figure out they are all equally involved, responsible and accountable for the spreading and/or supporting of vile rumours and malicious gossip based on nothing more than their own hatred and envy. Not one of them is separate from another.


Exposure as liars, fakes and manipulators of facts has eroded the Hate Campaign over the last few months, leading to the three Roxanne Summers profiles vanishing, the Heather Jones‘ profiles in limbo, and the disappearance altogether of a website (the real les trollops), a page (Boycott Boycott Belfast) and several other fake profiles.

We already know the Roxanne and Heather profiles are covers for other people in the Hate Campaign, they made that very obvious when the Summers profiles, website/blog and HC page suddenly disappeared shortly after we published Connections, and we knew that, in their desperation, they’d play dirty (well, dirtier than usual).

So it was predictable that once exposed they would also get careless again in an attempt to save face

Never Assume the Obvious aka Roxanne Summers Heather Jones Mel Page et al Libellous statement

Regular readers of this blog will know the HC have been caught manipulating the truth on many occasions, and when that happens they go strangely quiet, although that piece of depravity is probably the most snide and contemptible thing they’ve done to date. But all said and done, they really are quite stupid, and this precise statement will be their undoing. The severity of these accusations will make the discovery of the people behind that Facebook page much easier, even if they have frightened themselves and deactivated it – a pointless exercise.

You contacted us regarding this comment by Ted Ismay:

Ted Ismay Mel Page Facebook empty threats

And pretty much all of you said the same thing, why doesn’t he just ‘simply’ post the names and addresses? Good question, and hopefully we can look forward to seeing that happening soon.

Do give him time though, Mr Ismay is having currently having a problem with his short term memory, or perhaps he doesn’t check with Mel Page (hence the ‘oops’ comment from one of our followers). We’re sure if he reads back over his extremely long and desperate comments, he’ll figure out where he went wrong. He also needs to coordinate with Mel Page on the exact location of the Jubilee Mail Centre.

Regards the comment under Ismay’s, that lady should know that the page she’s commenting on is run by people who, regardless of their protestations, have been instrumental in a personal vendetta against Lennox’s family and close supporters for almost two years. If they’d spent all of that time ‘helping rescue animals’ they might be in the choice position that other similar organisations are in today, and you only have to look around Facebook and the Internet to compare the stark differences in support.

The problem with certain members of the Hate Campaign is that they are incapable or unwilling to put aside their bitterness. Other organisations are based on the hard work and patience that goes with gaining respect and a credible reputation, but that in itself requires a moral compass, something the HC lack entirely, as is evidenced by their accusations, shown here and throughout this blog.

Try as they might to throw the ball back into our court accusing us of damaging an outfit which has saved an untold number of dogs from destruction, it’s too little, too late. They should have thought about that long ago. In any case, if indeed they have saved ‘untold’ dogs from destruction, imagine how many more victims of BSL they could have helped if they hadn’t spent so much time hiding behind fake profiles, carrying on a personal vendetta. As someone quite rightly said recently, there’s no smoke without fire. Or, to put it another way, play with matches and expect to get burnt. We have done nothing except expose them for the bullies and liars they are.

If we had the time and inclination we’d go over Sammie J Chance’s version of War & Peace, but if you don’t mind we’ll just direct you over to Lem Thirteen to see for yourself (including the edited versions). Have a strong coffee first, it’s tedious, repetitive and will bore you to tears. It contains the usual ‘last ditch’ threats and infantile accusations, nothing new there, and it will remind you of another Magnum Opus found on a now defunct HC page, for which we’ll dig out the screenshot. Stating the obvious slightly, but you all know that profile is a fake, a cover for someone else. Enough said.

Before we get on to some lighter stuff, just to remind Mel Page she needs to let her local police know that she is accusing Janice Tyrrell and Maria Fawcett of writing and sending that nasty letter. In case she’s forgotten – link.


(Try not to laugh)…

Lem Thirteen Facebook another classic own goal

They’ve shut down every other avenue? She’s obviously confused, and must be referring to the departure of Roxanne Summers’ profiles, Boycott Boycott Belfast, the real les trollops and several other ‘spare’ profiles they had on the go. They’ve retained Tom Spencer though; guess it wouldn’t be practical to retire all of them.

If someone else had written the next bit, it would have made Heather Jones pee in her pants (again): “We held off on posting this as the BBC asked us to while Inside Out investigates” ! Blimey, they’ve got the BBC on side now, would you believe it? Hmm, must have a word with the BBC and Inside Out 😆

And just to cover their backsides they’ve given themselves a get-out clause in : “We don’t expect anything to come of this“. You couldn’t make it up. They obviously haven’t learnt a thing from the Loose Women and AG fiascos they created for themselves.

Okay, own up, who put that strapline on the recording? Was it one of you from the Save Lennox ‘core’? It must have been because Lem Thirteen said so, and they always make sure they have unadulterated proof before saying anything in public, and we’re absolutely sure they’ll be forthcoming with that proof any day now….

…while we wait, regarding the fake ‘Tom Spencer‘ profile back there, it’s interesting that s/he says ‘how many dogs has this vile group saved, none..’.

So what exactly is s/he is accusing Craig Winters of and what group is s/he talking about, Lem Thirteen or Save Lennox? If it’s the latter, where is the proof which we’re sure should accompany that statement? Come to that, is s/he comparing the saving of ‘many dogs’ to Deed not Breed? Why would s/he do that? It sure is a mystery.


Just another reminder – never think for one second that any single one of them is detached from another – they are not. They may be trying to distance themselves right now (link) and feign ignorance or even disapproval of certain other Hate Campaign members’ behaviour (“Don’t fear the enemy that attacks you, but the fake friend that hugs you”), but they are all equally involved, responsible and accountable for the spreading and/or supporting of vile rumours and malicious gossip based on nothing more than their own hatred and envy. They have backed each other to the hilt, and usually behind fake profiles in order to maintain a facade of what could laughingly be called ‘respectability’.

Which brings us back to Mel Page claiming she hasn’t agreed with everything the fake profiles Roxanne Summers and Heather Jones have done and said, and as one of you has quite rightly pointed out – if Page herself was not in any way a part of the intimidating phone call (where, incidentally, the caller didn’t have the ‘balls’ to reveal their identity), plus the contacting of a target’s employers (ditto), along with the abusive posts including mentions of the child (and yes we have screenshots), why didn’t she distance herself at the time unless she was a part of it or approved of that disgusting behaviour?

Mel Page knows there is evidence to show she joined in on many occasions, and just because those pages and profiles have disappeared, it doesn’t mean the evidence has gone with them. She’s not a victim, she’s just feeling sorry for herself and probably wishing she’d kept her opinions to yourself. Too late for that, and posting in a group, that she apparently has nothing to do with, as soon as a target appears is a dead giveaway.


Deed Not Breed Mel Page Facebook Libelous Letter Concoction

From Deed Not Breed, Facebook (for clarification, please contact one of the admins who we understand include: Mel Page, Andrea Williams Phillips, Denise Day, Mel Rushmore, and possibly Sarah Gunther).

A disgusting, libellous letter was sent to their local pet shop. Fair enough, they decided to let people know that someone who hates them, or one of them in particular, has sent a cowardly (yes, definitely agree there) anonymous letter saying some nasty things (see below).

Perhaps they went public in order to flush out the perpetrator, or at least put the wind up them, as a kind of warning. Makes sense really, they’d be hard-pushed to figure out who’s responsible from the many people they’ve made enemies of over the years. Still, that doesn’t excuse base behaviour like that; it’s not like they deserve it. Surely, only people capable of being vindictive and malicious themselves would deserve that?

However, something doesn’t sit right. For starters the Police incident date is over two weeks old and, unless a similar (but not separate) incident occurred on that date, or reported date, to which this has been added, why wait so long to draw attention to it?

On top of that, Deed not Breed announced they held a successful free chipping service at that particular pet store on 6th March, a week after the incident date (although it’s implied the letter was received this past week). So they waited until another ‘successful event’, which apparently took place on Wednesday, 13 March, before going public?

Something else niggles away – DnB state quite clearly that their solicitor and the local Police are investigating the incident, who are obviously very flexible if they advised using Facebook to publicise the incident details and letter itself (link)…

Mel Page Facebook Deed Not Breed own goal 1

Mel Page Facebook Deed Not Breed own goal 2

It seems Ms Page also had permission from her solicitor and local Police to openly name two people she alleges could be responsible for the letter, although she’s disguised that accusation as a ‘campaign’.

We certainly hope this isn’t another staged ‘incident’, the like of which we’ve seen many times before.

Hypocrisy and Short Term Memory Combo

Well, nothing new there with the HC, but this subject is particularly convoluted.

For example, they’ve said that Lennox was killed because he wasn’t licensed, hence a jobsworth dog warden paying him a visit in the first place, and that, in any case, he was Pit Bull.

On the other hand they’ve said, that whether Lennox was licensed or not, why should he be exempted if other dogs aren’t? In fact one particular HC member actually went as far as to say that Lennox’s destruction was the right decision because he was PB and the law is the law; remember that Mel?

But then, when it suits them, they say Lennox wasn’t PB. Wish they’d make their minds up!

It’s no wonder they confuse themselves….

Roxanne Summers Facebook admitting Lennox not destroyed because of no license or being type

 Heather Jones Facebook BBB confused and short term memory combo

(We’ll cover the first behaviourist mentioned there along with the ADBA standards used to assess Lennox in another blog entry)

While we’re here, and bearing in mind someone on the Connections list is behind the Heather Jones’ profile and pstill osting away under a different alias, here’s another illustration of that abnormal character’s malignant spite based on no facts whatsoever:

Heather Jones Facebook BBB more bile

Regarding ‘several reminders’ : [link]

Handy DIY Pack…

..for students of psychology.

Introducing a few ready-assembled Hate Campaign Psychological Profiles:


Debbie Gathercole Facebook disturbed


Jules Jules Facebook disturbed


Kate Smith Facebook what a charmer

speaking of ‘dregs at the bottom of an otherwise decent society‘, here’s Kate (Trotman) Smith’s spouse

Matt Smith Facebook, Kate Smith's (Trotman) husband. Deserve each other don't they?

Anyone familiar with Kate Smith’s particular brand of bile will be in no doubt these two deserve each other.

And the same can be said of Kel Leigh (aka Kel Gunner Steve, aka about half a dozen other profiles) and her equally sick-minded spouse Steve Leigh (aka various other profiles). Here he is demonstrating his well-adjusted sense of humour 

Stephen AgainstAnimalAbusers Leigh Facebook

Kel Leigh Facebook Friend List usual suspects

We didn’t bother with Vermin, Enselmann or Kulessa, who collectively are so far away with the fairies there’s no coming back. Aside from those three already taking up more than enough previous space here, their comments are too bland and you’re likely to nod off. Same with Moggy (Poosey Kat), who isn’t real anyway, so wouldn’t be much point.

And the rest is history

Silence or the Lams?

What happened to Roxanne Summers who seems to have departed one night never to return?

Could her vanishing act have anything to do with our Connections? If so, it’s probably safe to say that one of the people named in that blog entry is/was behind the Roxanne Summers profile. No other explanation for it really is there?

Well, when we say ‘vanished’ she hasn’t actually gone anywhere; she’s simply deactivated a couple of Facebook profiles that just happened to have the moniker Roxanne Summers. She’s always been a floater, so it’s a dead cert she’s still bobbing around out there.

But why go AWOL unless she has something to hide, such as actually being someone else on our list. In which case, who? Mel Page, Sarah Gunther, Sandie Lightfoot or Andrea Phillips? Thoughts anyone?

BCC Dog Licence Reminders

FOIR to Belfast City Council re Licence reminders Yolanda Elwood responding

We know those behind the Roxanne Summers and/or Heather Jones profiles are still floating around, and we thought they would be interested in our FOIR to BCC regarding the frequency and manner in which dog licence reminders are issued.

So next time they (in one of their disguises) feel like insisting Lennox’s licence was out of date by nine months and that his owners received no fewer than three reminders, maybe they’d like to consider Yolanda Elwood’s response, or better still, put in a request of their own, just to make sure it isn’t faked.

Tying in with our current topic

Roxanne Summers Facebook friends with Sandie Lightfoot and Mel Page approves big surprise

Underscores in red denote the usual lies by the person behind “Summers” and yellow denotes a truth (the Kay Jay profile is another fake btw). “Summers” (we’ll humour them for now) put the wind up herself there and came back with a sloppy explanation for having Lightfoot as a ‘recent’ friend. It wouldn’t be the first time this profile has been inflicted with Foot in Mouth; making rather a habit of it lately!

Here’s a thought, if you were a Council employee struggling to maintain credibility, would you want a character like “Summers”, a well known troll and psychotic, advertising your mutual friendship?

A statement from the Hate Campaign (aka LLAAV)

LLAAV targeted and abused bullies and vindictive liars Mel Page Sarah Gunther Roxanne Summers Heather Jones

For the majority of followers who are intelligent people, living in the real world, here is a translation of the latest LLAAV manifesto:

Just to remind everyone why we at the Hate Campaign decided to target Lennox’s owners and anyone else who openly came out in support of them. 

In public we wanted to show that we had the temerity to question. In reality it was simply that we had our own hate agenda steeped in malice and resentment. We managed to convince a handful of would-be followers that we alone, among thousands of people, were capable of revealing discrepancies and lies. 

Although many of our earlier followers soon realised what our true intentions are, some of them, owing to their base, pernicious natures, continue to support our hate campaign without question. Like attracts like, we are glad to say. Should we be ashamed of that?

Behind the assumed safety of our fake names and profiles, we have persistently abused, vilified, bullied and ridiculed anyone who criticised our behaviour, and even people who have not openly criticised us are often the focus of our hostility. 

Without much thought of future repercussions to ourselves, we have ensured that our malicious opinions, gossip and lies are made public on a daily basis, and have done that for almost two years. Should we be ashamed of that?

We have blamed random acts of unrelated violence (including some that didn’t exist) on Lennox’s owners and their closest supporters. We have accused our enemies of constantly bullying and harassing us, although the only evidence we have in support of that claim is a few remarks and statements made by people unrelated to the core Lennox Campaign. However, sometimes we are lucky enough to find a comment that, if extracted out of context with the rest of a thread or conversation, suitably makes it appear that we’re being bullied and harassed for no apparent reason.  

We have contrived spiteful and childish names for people who dared to question our ethics and, on more than one occasion, we have mocked the loss of Lennox, and even ridiculed his destruction. And they have the gall to call us trolls and Lennox haters!

We have manipulated images, taken comments and screenshots out of context, stalked one target with a phone call (where we did not have the courage to reveal the identity of the caller), and even made contact with another target’s employers for no other reason than that person dared to disagree with us. Should we be ashamed of that?

More recently, some of us have made statements that we are not linked to the Hate Campaign, and therefore have nothing to do with it, in any shape or form, and yet we know our enemies have evidence to the contrary. We have lied about our professions and our involvement in the Hate Campaign, and we have told our enemies to beware because we have ‘police friends’ on our side who will back us up.

But even though we have forewarned our enemies of our friends in high places, who will always support us, including our police friends, they refuse to take us seriously and just will not back down.  

We know that our enemies have proof of things we’ve said and done that will incriminate every single one of us, and we know they are being followed by people in authority and the media. In that respect we have assured them that we are not affected by their criticisms, and furthermore ‘it’s all water off a duck’s back to us’. That should do it. But, just to be on the safe side, we’ve issued a statement absolving ourselves of all blame, and that will surely get us off the hook?

Links in brief: