Big softy Stitch is home with his Dad now, safe and sound, and has been for some time. There is absolutely no legal reason it can’t stay that way.
We all know Delaney likes to throw her weight around. It’s common knowledge she’s prone to making threats (going way back – hence the name change) and making life difficult for anyone who doesn’t tow her line or who she’s taken a dislike to, and that’s often made owners of seized dogs in the Newham area reluctant to complain about her conduct and attitude, once their dogs are released back home.
We’re told she was so unpopular with ex-colleagues, they pushed for a promotion, just to see the back of her, and nothing’s changed.
It was for that reason, until now, we’ve also been reluctant to draw attention to the unethical and unprofessional behaviour of certain people who forcibly involved themselves in Stitch’s case, and the fact that his owner is a gentle, older man who has no access to the Internet – and therefore social media – makes it all the more disgraceful.
Five-year-old Stitch was yet another victim seized by a puffed-up, overbearing Delaney, trailing the inevitable camera crew for her stint on BBC Animal Saints & Sinners (archived). This short clip shows her confronting Stitch’s bewildered owner:
Yes, you heard that right. Delaney really does tell Stitch’s owner his dog can’t go to the toilet.
That man didn’t know what hit him. He was obviously confused and surprised, as anyone would be, with a camera and bolshy dog warden in his face. Desperate to explain, he tells Delaney the dog is his life. He had a better chance of getting sympathy from a slab of meat.
It’s anyone’s guess how this respectable and polite gentleman felt when they took his dog away and he went home alone, and it’s hard to imagine the thoughts going through his mind until he made contact with DDA Watch two days later. All because an arrogant, emotionally-devoid control freak, and wannabe police officer, is determined to have her five minutes of fame.
With her experience, Delaney could quite easily have gauged the situation, instantly observing this gentleman was not young and the dog far from a threat, and even though Delaney’s struggled with literacy in the past, there’s nothing wrong with her eyesight – she could have dealt with it away from the TV crew on this occasion, but that would mean she’d be off camera, not centre of attention.
Stitch’s Dad was forced to relinquish his best friend that day. He contacted DDA Watch two days later.
DDA Watch have given this account :
“The owner of a dog called Stitch telephoned one of the DDA Watch helplines on Thursday 1st May. He was relieved to be able to speak to someone sympathetic and began by describing how his five year old dog Stitch had been seized – Stitch was being walked by his owner two days earlier on the 29th April on his normal morning walk when he noticed police officers standing at the bottom of his street; he then saw police officers leaving a block of flats with a camera crew, he saw poles but no dogs. The camera crew then pointed at Stitch and Stitch’s owner stood still; he was approached by officers and a dog warden, the officers made a fuss of his dog who was wagging his tail in his usual friendly way. Stitch’s owner was then informed that his dog was being seized as a prohibited type of dog (BSL).
Our case worker volunteer explained the legislation and options available in detail to Stitch’s owner. Stitch’s owner obtained the necessary 3rd party insurance and a DDA 4b application was heard before the local magistrates’ court who ordered Stitch be added to the Index of Exempted Dogs within two calendar months. This court order was given on the 7th May; Stitch’s owner was very relieved when we spoke to him after the hearing and we discussed the process of exemption which now had to be completed within two months.”
Stitch’s dad explained to DDA Watch that he did not currently have the funds to pay for the Index Fee, which amounted to £103 including the postal order fee, nor did he have the £305 owed to Newham Borough Council :
“We (DDA Watch) discussed how we could put out an appeal for donations for Stitch, but first Stitch’s owner was asked if any of his family or friends could help financially, this is something we ask all owners in the cases we assist financially due to the amount of cases coming through needing financial help and the available funds at any given time, we also discussed with Stitch’s owner that he could also try contacting the Dogs Trust to see if they could offer him any help and he was going to ask Newham Council whether a payment plan could be arranged for the £305; once this information has been gathered we would then assess what was needed for an appeal, as we do with all our cases.
We contacted Newham Council and an Animal Welfare Officer emailed a photograph of Stitch taken whilst in their care, to us for our records and to help with fundraising if necessary.”
Just after that, Stitch’s owner sent off the necessary paperwork without the fee, which prompted a call to DDA Watch from a Newham dog warden asking if they were going to pay it:
“Stitch’s owner received his application pack from the Index of Exempted Dogs and completed the necessary paperwork and returned it via post to the Index, without the fee. DDA Watch received a telephone call from a Newham Council dog warden on the 21st May; we were asked if we were paying the £305 to the council for Stitch to be released. Our volunteer replied that we did not at this moment in time have the funding to pay the full amount needed, explaining that we often have to fundraise for each dog as they come through. “
And there it was – the Green Light for Page and Rushmore.
Delaney tells her best friends the fee hasn’t been paid yet – a golden opportunity for Page & Rushmore to take a swipe at DDA Watch and at the same time score points with fans and cronies, all at the expense of an elderly dog owner.
We leave it to you decide whether they thought they were intelligent enough to pull it off without anyone noticing they’d lied through their teeth, or whether they really are that Base and Nasty they didn’t care how it looked :
It’s common knowledge there is only one other voluntary organisation dedicated to assisting victims of BSL and therefore only one other organisation that will enter people’s minds. Page and Rushmore – those shifty, noxious excuses for humans, knew exactly what conclusion people would come to.
Surely even someone like Page would have realised how underhand and dishonest this looked, but she posted it anyway, arrogant and confident in the knowledge she’ll have the backing of her fan club :
The outrageous blatancy of that very public pack of lies takes some beating . We knew they were desperate, and we’ve seen the seething resentment they have for DDA Watch’s status and professionalism spill over on occasions, but it never occurred to anyone they could be so openly stupid using their own identities.
It’s very sad when resentment and jealousy have eaten away to the extent it seems perfectly acceptable to use an innocent man and his dog as puppets in a sick, vindictive game….
…sadder still, they paid the fee without informing Stitch’s owner either before or after. He had no idea they had gone over his head and that of DDA Watch, even though he was just a phone call away as far as Delaney was concerned. It’s not as if she was reluctant to use the phone!
That’s the fiction. Here are the facts.
“We know what we were asked for and why”
→ They weren’t asked for anything. Stitch’s owner didn’t even know they existed, so that rules him out, and if they REALLY wanted to help, Delaney would have got back on the phone and told DDA Watch the fee could be covered. Instead, almost immediately after discovering the fee would be delayed, Delaney gave Page the go ahead. They didn’t even bother getting in touch with Stitch’s owner.
‘At no point have we named anyone nor would we because funnily enough we’re not in the business of trying to discredit other people.‘‘
→ For starters, ‘at no point‘ did they name anyone because they didn’t have to, on account of there being only one other possible organisation. Obviously they already knew DDA Watch had the Stitch case covered, courtesy of their very good friend Tina Delaney, Newham Dog Warden, who seized the dog in the first place and was following the case closely, keeping Page updated.
‘The whole point of this was to help a dog and that is what we have done. THAT is what matters, not who paid for what. Again, huge thanks to everyone who donates to us and helps us continue doing what we do (smiley face)”
→ The ONLY point was grabbing the chance to smear DDA Watch and get the attention they crave, without all the hard, honest work that normally goes with it. THAT is what matters and only THAT. Their huge thanks to nameless people makes them look magnanimous and (they think) deflects from what they’ve done.
Needless to say Page and Rushmore‘s grand, selfless gesture elicited back-slapping compliments, with a few people being none the wiser and voicing genuine concern, while others like the conniving Day and Bellamy go along with the sick game, deceiving anyone else who genuinely believed the Page & Rushmore lies :
Page & Rushmore had a field day with this. With DDA Watch’s reputation temporarily (very temporarily – about two hours max) smeared, albeit with only a handful of gullible people, it was a good day’s work from their sick and twisted point of view.
The thread is still on Deed not Breed’s page, at the time of writing this. You’ll find the post by scrolling back to 22 May 2014 » Link
We know that’s probably left you full of anger and with a bad taste in your mouth, so we’ll finish off with something positive – the Truth from DDA Watch – an accurate, professional and very dignified response to the sick and twisted lies:
(DDA Watch post dated 22 May 2014 – linked to image) :
(Update from DDA Watch dated 20 June May 2014 – linked to image) :