Mum and daughter 'didn't properly feed dog for weeks' (From Daily Echo)
When news happens, text SDE and your photos or videos to 80360. Or contact us by email and phone.
Mum and daughter 'didn't properly feed dog for weeks'
4:00am Wednesday 29th August 2012 in News
A photograph showing how starved the dog was
A MOTHER and daughter starved their dog so much they have been banned from having pets.
Magistrates heard that Lillian Mitchell and her teenage daughter Jordan Andrews had failed to feed their Boxer-cross dog Tori properly for weeks.
The dog was so badly looked after that it was severely malnourished, suffered with sores on its back and had overgrown nails.
When RSPCA staff turned up to rescue Tori the found her barricaded in a kitchen at their Millbrook home and inspectors get her out through a broken window.
At Southampton Magistrates Court Mitchell, 43, and 19-year-old Andrews, who is also a mum, admitted causing unnecessary suffering to the dog.
The pair, of Mardale Walk, were ordered to do 140 hours community service and pay £250 each towards of the case which cost the RSPCA £8,500.
Magistrates also banned them from keeping a pet for up to five years.
Prosecutor Christine Henson said: “The dog appeared to be very underweight, the backbone and ribs were visible. There was also diarrhoea in the middle of the room.”
She added: “PC Taylor [who visited the property at the time] described the dog as jumping up at the window in a desperate manner.”
Tori was treated by a vet, Caroline Loach, who said: “The dog had suffered inadequate nutrition which would have been going on for more than two weeks.
“Any reasonable person would have considered veterinary attention when the dog was becoming so thin.”
Miss Henson said that Mitchell had noticed the dog was not well for a couple of weeks but was unable to do anything about it because she had a “lack of time”.
Andrews did not take the dog to the vets “because she was embarrassed about how the dog had looked” after it had been unwell for three weeks, Miss Henson added.
Defending heavily-pregnant Andrews and Mitchell, Kirstie Leighton said the dog was fed twice a day by Andrews and once a week by Mitchell.
“The dog was slim but they did everything they could to look after her and feed her,” Miss Leighton said.
After a controlled diet, Tori was brought back to full health following a few weeks but was put down in the autumn of last year for being aggressive at the kennel where she was re-homed.
A second charge of failing to ensure welfare of the animal was dropped.
Comments(66)
bigfella777
says...
7:19am Wed 29 Aug 12
thankfully not a PO postcode
says...
7:20am Wed 29 Aug 12
Saintschick
says...
7:20am Wed 29 Aug 12
Higginz
says...
8:04am Wed 29 Aug 12
Solomon's Boot
says...
8:16am Wed 29 Aug 12
It was 'avin a faaag and being selfish that made this poor dog suffer in the first place!
Taskforce 141
says...
8:23am Wed 29 Aug 12
Queen Victoria
says...
8:42am Wed 29 Aug 12
chunky_lover
says...
8:45am Wed 29 Aug 12
list all positives and no negatives......
KA
says...
8:51am Wed 29 Aug 12
Linesman
says...
9:33am Wed 29 Aug 12
MrBrightside85
says...
9:34am Wed 29 Aug 12
Georgem
says...
9:37am Wed 29 Aug 12
Err, no. Any reasonable person would have been feeding the poor animal properly in the first place.
Polkadotty
says...
9:37am Wed 29 Aug 12
They should be banned for life, not just five years from keeping animals, not a lot of punishment either for the amount of suffering they caused! Sick sick people.
Georgem
says...
9:38am Wed 29 Aug 12
chunky_lover wrote:"Working" class? Are you sure?
ah, the working classes - where would we be without them.....
list all positives and no negatives......
espanuel
says...
9:55am Wed 29 Aug 12
Nicole23
says...
10:23am Wed 29 Aug 12
Shoong
says...
10:34am Wed 29 Aug 12
Well, the Jeremy Kyle show is shown several times a day so I'm told, I can see how that would take up most the day.
'Kylers'.
Higginz
says...
10:40am Wed 29 Aug 12
rich the stitch
says...
11:06am Wed 29 Aug 12
The Mos Eisley of Southampton.
Laura85
says...
12:38pm Wed 29 Aug 12
Inform Al
says...
12:52pm Wed 29 Aug 12
Inform Al
says...
12:53pm Wed 29 Aug 12
sotongirl72
says...
1:26pm Wed 29 Aug 12
Georgem
says...
1:30pm Wed 29 Aug 12
Inform Al wrote:It isn't censored. It quite clearly states that the bitch is called 'Tori'.
This is bl00dy stupid when the name for a female dog is censored
KA
says...
1:47pm Wed 29 Aug 12
Georgem wrote:I think they mean the comment they made before.. Georgem.:D
Inform Al wrote:It isn't censored. It quite clearly states that the bitch is called 'Tori'.
This is bl00dy stupid when the name for a female dog is censored
Georgem
says...
1:53pm Wed 29 Aug 12
KA wrote:I know they did!
Georgem wrote:I think they mean the comment they made before.. Georgem.:D
Inform Al wrote:It isn't censored. It quite clearly states that the bitch is called 'Tori'.
This is bl00dy stupid when the name for a female dog is censored
MegGriffin
says...
2:09pm Wed 29 Aug 12
sotongirl72 wrote:True. She reproduces every 18 months - 2 years and then leaves all the offspring at the house while she lives elsewhere with her boyfriend. She should be held down and sterilised.
That mother has 9 or 10 kids that she leaves to fend for themselves, no wonder the dog was starving, she should be banned from having kids aswell as animals !!
sotongirl72
says...
2:15pm Wed 29 Aug 12
MegGriffin wrote:Those kids have brought themselves up & now are out of control. Thing is social services know she leaves those kids while she stays at her boyfriends with the babies. Totally agree, she should be sterilised & her kids given to a good home before they end up like that poor dog.
sotongirl72 wrote:True. She reproduces every 18 months - 2 years and then leaves all the offspring at the house while she lives elsewhere with her boyfriend. She should be held down and sterilised.
That mother has 9 or 10 kids that she leaves to fend for themselves, no wonder the dog was starving, she should be banned from having kids aswell as animals !!
jane doe.
says...
2:53pm Wed 29 Aug 12
KA
says...
3:01pm Wed 29 Aug 12
Georgem wrote:Oh ok.. some people are so Touchy!!
KA wrote:I know they did!
Georgem wrote:I think they mean the comment they made before.. Georgem.:D
Inform Al wrote:It isn't censored. It quite clearly states that the bitch is called 'Tori'.
This is bl00dy stupid when the name for a female dog is censored
MegGriffin
says...
3:47pm Wed 29 Aug 12
jane doe. wrote:I find it hard to believe that she was ever a fantastic mother. If that were true, she wouldn't have put a bloke before her children.
she used to be a fantastic mother untill she met my (hate saying this) brother who was,nt interested in her 7 kids but wanted her as a doormat and wanted her at his beck n call!! her and tony are very selfish......FACT! and i agree with all your coments.
The woman is a disgrace.
sotonbev
says...
5:40pm Wed 29 Aug 12
Nearly an OAP
says...
5:43pm Wed 29 Aug 12
100%HANTSBOY
says...
6:06pm Wed 29 Aug 12
Georgem wrote:I thougt the **** names were Lillian and Jordan!
Inform Al wrote:It isn't censored. It quite clearly states that the bitch is called 'Tori'.
This is bl00dy stupid when the name for a female dog is censored
Inform Al
says...
6:45pm Wed 29 Aug 12
KA wrote:How interesting that the mention of my **** (lady) alsation was censored when the next post carries an uncensored ****. Now I am getting touchy
Georgem wrote:Oh ok.. some people are so Touchy!!
KA wrote:I know they did!
Georgem wrote:I think they mean the comment they made before.. Georgem.:D
Inform Al wrote:It isn't censored. It quite clearly states that the bitch is called 'Tori'.
This is bl00dy stupid when the name for a female dog is censored
Stillness
says...
7:19pm Wed 29 Aug 12
Georgem
says...
7:24pm Wed 29 Aug 12
Inform Al wrote:Weird. I can post bitch quite easily, yet you can't.
KA wrote:How interesting that the mention of my **** (lady) alsation was censored when the next post carries an uncensored ****. Now I am getting touchy
Georgem wrote:Oh ok.. some people are so Touchy!!
KA wrote:I know they did!
Georgem wrote:I think they mean the comment they made before.. Georgem.:D
Inform Al wrote:It isn't censored. It quite clearly states that the bitch is called 'Tori'.
This is bl00dy stupid when the name for a female dog is censored
wilson castaway
says...
7:39pm Wed 29 Aug 12
ShakeyWiffles
says...
7:48pm Wed 29 Aug 12
P.S. Echo - get a proof reader.
Ginger_cyclist
says...
7:49pm Wed 29 Aug 12
MrBrightside85 wrote:That's still a problem, throw them out of a plane flying 2 miles high without parachutes, problem solved.
Look at the state of the two scumbags, what a disgusting blot on the human race. Chav scum like this should be sterilised to prevent offspring that will grow with all the ill manners of their pikey parents.
Stillness
says...
7:59pm Wed 29 Aug 12
Georgem wrote:Wondering is someone is spelling it bich rather than ****......This should tell.
Inform Al wrote:Weird. I can post bitch quite easily, yet you can't.
KA wrote:How interesting that the mention of my **** (lady) alsation was censored when the next post carries an uncensored ****. Now I am getting touchy
Georgem wrote:Oh ok.. some people are so Touchy!!
KA wrote:I know they did!
Georgem wrote:I think they mean the comment they made before.. Georgem.:D
Inform Al wrote:It isn't censored. It quite clearly states that the bitch is called 'Tori'.
This is bl00dy stupid when the name for a female dog is censored
Stillness
says...
8:00pm Wed 29 Aug 12
Stillness wrote:Nope lol.
Georgem wrote:Wondering is someone is spelling it bich rather than ****......This should tell.
Inform Al wrote:Weird. I can post bitch quite easily, yet you can't.
KA wrote:How interesting that the mention of my **** (lady) alsation was censored when the next post carries an uncensored ****. Now I am getting touchy
Georgem wrote:Oh ok.. some people are so Touchy!!
KA wrote:I know they did!
Georgem wrote:I think they mean the comment they made before.. Georgem.:D
Inform Al wrote:It isn't censored. It quite clearly states that the bitch is called 'Tori'.
This is bl00dy stupid when the name for a female dog is censored
Ginger_cyclist
says...
8:05pm Wed 29 Aug 12
Stillness wrote:Seems like The Daily Echo have a faulty word filter on the site if it only picks up one or 2 people saying the word **** even though they're describing their dog which is a **** as it's female.
Stillness wrote:Nope lol.
Georgem wrote:Wondering is someone is spelling it bich rather than ****......This should tell.
Inform Al wrote:Weird. I can post bitch quite easily, yet you can't.
KA wrote:How interesting that the mention of my **** (lady) alsation was censored when the next post carries an uncensored ****. Now I am getting touchy
Georgem wrote:Oh ok.. some people are so Touchy!!
KA wrote:I know they did!
Georgem wrote:I think they mean the comment they made before.. Georgem.:D
Inform Al wrote:It isn't censored. It quite clearly states that the bitch is called 'Tori'.
This is bl00dy stupid when the name for a female dog is censored
Peed orf big time
says...
9:00pm Wed 29 Aug 12
http://www.dailyecho
.co.uk/news/2193732.
Mum_of_nine_falsely_
claims___17_000_of_b
enefits/
Georgem
says...
9:07pm Wed 29 Aug 12
Stillness wrote:I am definitely spelling it bitch.
Stillness wrote:Nope lol.
Georgem wrote:Wondering is someone is spelling it bich rather than ****......This should tell.
Inform Al wrote:Weird. I can post bitch quite easily, yet you can't.
KA wrote:How interesting that the mention of my **** (lady) alsation was censored when the next post carries an uncensored ****. Now I am getting touchy
Georgem wrote:Oh ok.. some people are so Touchy!!
KA wrote:I know they did!
Georgem wrote:I think they mean the comment they made before.. Georgem.:D
Inform Al wrote:It isn't censored. It quite clearly states that the bitch is called 'Tori'.
This is bl00dy stupid when the name for a female dog is censored
Georgem
says...
9:08pm Wed 29 Aug 12
Ginger_cyclist wrote:It seems to pick up most people using the word bitch. What the hell?
Stillness wrote:Seems like The Daily Echo have a faulty word filter on the site if it only picks up one or 2 people saying the word **** even though they're describing their dog which is a **** as it's female.
Stillness wrote:Nope lol.
Georgem wrote:Wondering is someone is spelling it bich rather than ****......This should tell.
Inform Al wrote:Weird. I can post bitch quite easily, yet you can't.
KA wrote:How interesting that the mention of my **** (lady) alsation was censored when the next post carries an uncensored ****. Now I am getting touchy
Georgem wrote:Oh ok.. some people are so Touchy!!
KA wrote:I know they did!
Georgem wrote:I think they mean the comment they made before.. Georgem.:D
Inform Al wrote:It isn't censored. It quite clearly states that the bitch is called 'Tori'.
This is bl00dy stupid when the name for a female dog is censored
Ginger_cyclist
says...
9:27pm Wed 29 Aug 12
Georgem wrote:Yes... Who wants to test how many times in one comment it will pick up on the same word?
Ginger_cyclist wrote:It seems to pick up most people using the word bitch. What the hell?
Stillness wrote:Seems like The Daily Echo have a faulty word filter on the site if it only picks up one or 2 people saying the word **** even though they're describing their dog which is a **** as it's female.
Stillness wrote:Nope lol.
Georgem wrote:Wondering is someone is spelling it bich rather than ****......This should tell.
Inform Al wrote:Weird. I can post bitch quite easily, yet you can't.
KA wrote:How interesting that the mention of my **** (lady) alsation was censored when the next post carries an uncensored ****. Now I am getting touchy
Georgem wrote:Oh ok.. some people are so Touchy!!
KA wrote:I know they did!
Georgem wrote:I think they mean the comment they made before.. Georgem.:D
Inform Al wrote:It isn't censored. It quite clearly states that the bitch is called 'Tori'.
This is bl00dy stupid when the name for a female dog is censored
yellowcard
says...
10:10pm Wed 29 Aug 12
thankfully not a PO postcode wrote:and your point is?
good call echo pet lovers everywhere no know exactly where they live :) ................
yellowcard
says...
10:13pm Wed 29 Aug 12
rich the stitch wrote:really well i live in millbrook and have all my life so has my family and all of us are hard working. what area are you from?
Good old Millbrok. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.
The Mos Eisley of Southampton.
Georgem
says...
10:51pm Wed 29 Aug 12
Ginger_cyclist wrote:Are you suggesting that if I put the word bitch in my post more than once, like if I put bitch here several times - once again, bitch - then the bitch of a swear filter will catch the word bitch some times, but not others? Well, that's a bitch of a thing to test, really. Don't bitch at me if none of my instances of bitch get censored, though. It's a bitch.
Georgem wrote:Yes... Who wants to test how many times in one comment it will pick up on the same word?
Ginger_cyclist wrote:It seems to pick up most people using the word bitch. What the hell?
Stillness wrote:Seems like The Daily Echo have a faulty word filter on the site if it only picks up one or 2 people saying the word **** even though they're describing their dog which is a **** as it's female.
Stillness wrote:Nope lol.
Georgem wrote:Wondering is someone is spelling it bich rather than ****......This should tell.
Inform Al wrote:Weird. I can post bitch quite easily, yet you can't.
KA wrote:How interesting that the mention of my **** (lady) alsation was censored when the next post carries an uncensored ****. Now I am getting touchy
Georgem wrote:Oh ok.. some people are so Touchy!!
KA wrote:I know they did!
Georgem wrote:I think they mean the comment they made before.. Georgem.:D
Inform Al wrote:It isn't censored. It quite clearly states that the bitch is called 'Tori'.
This is bl00dy stupid when the name for a female dog is censored
Ginger_cyclist
says...
11:05pm Wed 29 Aug 12
Georgem wrote:Yes, it is a **** of a thing to test when talking about a person who has a **** that had a litter with only one **** who is a good **** but still learning from the parent **** and that a **** who is a friend of the adult **** loves playing with the puppy ****. The Daily Echo should know, as a publications company that depending on the context used, the word "****" could either be used as slander, or to describe a dog that IS a ****.
Ginger_cyclist wrote:Are you suggesting that if I put the word bitch in my post more than once, like if I put bitch here several times - once again, bitch - then the bitch of a swear filter will catch the word bitch some times, but not others? Well, that's a bitch of a thing to test, really. Don't bitch at me if none of my instances of bitch get censored, though. It's a bitch.
Georgem wrote:Yes... Who wants to test how many times in one comment it will pick up on the same word?
Ginger_cyclist wrote:It seems to pick up most people using the word bitch. What the hell?
Stillness wrote:Seems like The Daily Echo have a faulty word filter on the site if it only picks up one or 2 people saying the word **** even though they're describing their dog which is a **** as it's female.
Stillness wrote:Nope lol.
Georgem wrote:Wondering is someone is spelling it bich rather than ****......This should tell.
Inform Al wrote:Weird. I can post bitch quite easily, yet you can't.
KA wrote:How interesting that the mention of my **** (lady) alsation was censored when the next post carries an uncensored ****. Now I am getting touchy
Georgem wrote:Oh ok.. some people are so Touchy!!
KA wrote:I know they did!
Georgem wrote:I think they mean the comment they made before.. Georgem.:D
Inform Al wrote:It isn't censored. It quite clearly states that the bitch is called 'Tori'.
This is bl00dy stupid when the name for a female dog is censored
Ginger_cyclist
says...
11:06pm Wed 29 Aug 12
Ginger_cyclist wrote:Something tells me I failed at trying to break the word filter.
Georgem wrote:Yes, it is a **** of a thing to test when talking about a person who has a **** that had a litter with only one **** who is a good **** but still learning from the parent **** and that a **** who is a friend of the adult **** loves playing with the puppy ****. The Daily Echo should know, as a publications company that depending on the context used, the word "****" could either be used as slander, or to describe a dog that IS a ****.
Ginger_cyclist wrote:Are you suggesting that if I put the word bitch in my post more than once, like if I put bitch here several times - once again, bitch - then the bitch of a swear filter will catch the word bitch some times, but not others? Well, that's a bitch of a thing to test, really. Don't bitch at me if none of my instances of bitch get censored, though. It's a bitch.
Georgem wrote:Yes... Who wants to test how many times in one comment it will pick up on the same word?
Ginger_cyclist wrote:It seems to pick up most people using the word bitch. What the hell?
Stillness wrote:Seems like The Daily Echo have a faulty word filter on the site if it only picks up one or 2 people saying the word **** even though they're describing their dog which is a **** as it's female.
Stillness wrote:Nope lol.
Georgem wrote:Wondering is someone is spelling it bich rather than ****......This should tell.
Inform Al wrote:Weird. I can post bitch quite easily, yet you can't.
KA wrote:How interesting that the mention of my **** (lady) alsation was censored when the next post carries an uncensored ****. Now I am getting touchy
Georgem wrote:Oh ok.. some people are so Touchy!!
KA wrote:I know they did!
Georgem wrote:I think they mean the comment they made before.. Georgem.:D
Inform Al wrote:It isn't censored. It quite clearly states that the bitch is called 'Tori'.
This is bl00dy stupid when the name for a female dog is censored
sotongirl72
says...
11:16pm Wed 29 Aug 12
Peed orf big time wrote:She is a disgrace & its about time people like that got punished more than just fines !
As you can see, it's not the first time the lovely Lillian has graced the pages of the Echo!!
http://www.dailyecho
.co.uk/news/2193732.
Mum_of_nine_falsely_
claims___17_000_of_b
enefits/
Georgem
says...
11:17pm Wed 29 Aug 12
Ginger_cyclist wrote:Life's a bitch, eh.
Ginger_cyclist wrote:Something tells me I failed at trying to break the word filter.
Georgem wrote:Yes, it is a **** of a thing to test when talking about a person who has a **** that had a litter with only one **** who is a good **** but still learning from the parent **** and that a **** who is a friend of the adult **** loves playing with the puppy ****. The Daily Echo should know, as a publications company that depending on the context used, the word "****" could either be used as slander, or to describe a dog that IS a ****.
Ginger_cyclist wrote:Are you suggesting that if I put the word bitch in my post more than once, like if I put bitch here several times - once again, bitch - then the bitch of a swear filter will catch the word bitch some times, but not others? Well, that's a bitch of a thing to test, really. Don't bitch at me if none of my instances of bitch get censored, though. It's a bitch.
Georgem wrote:Yes... Who wants to test how many times in one comment it will pick up on the same word?
Ginger_cyclist wrote:It seems to pick up most people using the word bitch. What the hell?
Stillness wrote:Seems like The Daily Echo have a faulty word filter on the site if it only picks up one or 2 people saying the word **** even though they're describing their dog which is a **** as it's female.
Stillness wrote:Nope lol.
Georgem wrote:Wondering is someone is spelling it bich rather than ****......This should tell.
Inform Al wrote:Weird. I can post bitch quite easily, yet you can't.
KA wrote:How interesting that the mention of my **** (lady) alsation was censored when the next post carries an uncensored ****. Now I am getting touchy
Georgem wrote:Oh ok.. some people are so Touchy!!
KA wrote:I know they did!
Georgem wrote:I think they mean the comment they made before.. Georgem.:D
Inform Al wrote:It isn't censored. It quite clearly states that the bitch is called 'Tori'.
This is bl00dy stupid when the name for a female dog is censored
Ginger_cyclist
says...
11:18pm Wed 29 Aug 12
Georgem wrote:Yeah, then some people marry one.
Ginger_cyclist wrote:Life's a bitch, eh.
Ginger_cyclist wrote:Something tells me I failed at trying to break the word filter.
Georgem wrote:Yes, it is a **** of a thing to test when talking about a person who has a **** that had a litter with only one **** who is a good **** but still learning from the parent **** and that a **** who is a friend of the adult **** loves playing with the puppy ****. The Daily Echo should know, as a publications company that depending on the context used, the word "****" could either be used as slander, or to describe a dog that IS a ****.
Ginger_cyclist wrote:Are you suggesting that if I put the word bitch in my post more than once, like if I put bitch here several times - once again, bitch - then the bitch of a swear filter will catch the word bitch some times, but not others? Well, that's a bitch of a thing to test, really. Don't bitch at me if none of my instances of bitch get censored, though. It's a bitch.
Georgem wrote:Yes... Who wants to test how many times in one comment it will pick up on the same word?
Ginger_cyclist wrote:It seems to pick up most people using the word bitch. What the hell?
Stillness wrote:Seems like The Daily Echo have a faulty word filter on the site if it only picks up one or 2 people saying the word **** even though they're describing their dog which is a **** as it's female.
Stillness wrote:Nope lol.
Georgem wrote:Wondering is someone is spelling it bich rather than ****......This should tell.
Inform Al wrote:Weird. I can post bitch quite easily, yet you can't.
KA wrote:How interesting that the mention of my **** (lady) alsation was censored when the next post carries an uncensored ****. Now I am getting touchy
Georgem wrote:Oh ok.. some people are so Touchy!!
KA wrote:I know they did!
Georgem wrote:I think they mean the comment they made before.. Georgem.:D
Inform Al wrote:It isn't censored. It quite clearly states that the bitch is called 'Tori'.
This is bl00dy stupid when the name for a female dog is censored
100%HANTSBOY
says...
6:34am Thu 30 Aug 12
There was an old chavvie named Lill
Who refused to go on the pill
She never says maybe
And churns out the babies
Cos the Tax payer picks up the bill!
sotongirl72
says...
8:38am Thu 30 Aug 12
100%HANTSBOY wrote:Hahaha love it & so very very true !
An Ode to dog murderer Lillian Mitchell.....
There was an old chavvie named Lill
Who refused to go on the pill
She never says maybe
And churns out the babies
Cos the Tax payer picks up the bill!
MegGriffin
says...
12:47pm Thu 30 Aug 12
sotongirl72 wrote:Spot on
100%HANTSBOY wrote:Hahaha love it & so very very true !
An Ode to dog murderer Lillian Mitchell.....
There was an old chavvie named Lill
Who refused to go on the pill
She never says maybe
And churns out the babies
Cos the Tax payer picks up the bill!
jordan andrews
says...
6:20pm Thu 30 Aug 12
Ginger_cyclist
says...
6:54pm Thu 30 Aug 12
jordan andrews wrote:I'm no vet but I would have to agree with this if there was fecal matter of any sort on the floor as to produce feces, a living being has to eat to absorb needed nutrients and then expel it as feces, some diseases and parasites prevent that from happening in animals and humans and they end up with diarrhea (which they found when they went to retrieve the dog) and start losing weight so in turn they hadn't under fed it, they neglected it's health by not taking it to the vet, would this be about right?
This is from the vet ' in my professional opinion that the case of the poor body condition in the dog was not due to failure to supply the dog with appropriate nutrition but was instead caused by a gastro-intestinal compliant which appears to have resolved within 24 hours of the dog being in the care of the RSPCA spite being provided with no treatment in relation to a gastro-intestinal problem. it is however my professional opinion that the owner of the dog should of sought veterinary advice and investigation for the dog prior to the RSPCA Attending The Property' < Therefore the dog was NOT underfed
sotongirl72
says...
1:18pm Fri 31 Aug 12
Ginger_cyclist wrote:If the dog was loosing weight it should have been taken to a vet, if a child was loosing weight you would take it to a doctor ! no excuse what so ever for the dog to have sores on its back & be in such a bad way, it was neglected, just like the kids are, she should stand up & except she is in the wrong.
jordan andrews wrote:I'm no vet but I would have to agree with this if there was fecal matter of any sort on the floor as to produce feces, a living being has to eat to absorb needed nutrients and then expel it as feces, some diseases and parasites prevent that from happening in animals and humans and they end up with diarrhea (which they found when they went to retrieve the dog) and start losing weight so in turn they hadn't under fed it, they neglected it's health by not taking it to the vet, would this be about right?
This is from the vet ' in my professional opinion that the case of the poor body condition in the dog was not due to failure to supply the dog with appropriate nutrition but was instead caused by a gastro-intestinal compliant which appears to have resolved within 24 hours of the dog being in the care of the RSPCA spite being provided with no treatment in relation to a gastro-intestinal problem. it is however my professional opinion that the owner of the dog should of sought veterinary advice and investigation for the dog prior to the RSPCA Attending The Property' < Therefore the dog was NOT underfed
sotongirl72
says...
1:18pm Fri 31 Aug 12
Ginger_cyclist wrote:If the dog was loosing weight it should have been taken to a vet, if a child was loosing weight you would take it to a doctor ! no excuse what so ever for the dog to have sores on its back & be in such a bad way, it was neglected, just like the kids are, she should stand up & except she is in the wrong.
jordan andrews wrote:I'm no vet but I would have to agree with this if there was fecal matter of any sort on the floor as to produce feces, a living being has to eat to absorb needed nutrients and then expel it as feces, some diseases and parasites prevent that from happening in animals and humans and they end up with diarrhea (which they found when they went to retrieve the dog) and start losing weight so in turn they hadn't under fed it, they neglected it's health by not taking it to the vet, would this be about right?
This is from the vet ' in my professional opinion that the case of the poor body condition in the dog was not due to failure to supply the dog with appropriate nutrition but was instead caused by a gastro-intestinal compliant which appears to have resolved within 24 hours of the dog being in the care of the RSPCA spite being provided with no treatment in relation to a gastro-intestinal problem. it is however my professional opinion that the owner of the dog should of sought veterinary advice and investigation for the dog prior to the RSPCA Attending The Property' < Therefore the dog was NOT underfed
Ginger_cyclist
says...
5:54pm Fri 31 Aug 12
sotongirl72 wrote:I agree, i even said that it wasn't being underfed but it's health was neglected and I totally agree that they should be banned from keeping animals for life if they think a dog will just miraculously never get sick or will just get better, would have been obvious the poor thing was sick as soon as it started to get the squirts.
Ginger_cyclist wrote:If the dog was loosing weight it should have been taken to a vet, if a child was loosing weight you would take it to a doctor ! no excuse what so ever for the dog to have sores on its back & be in such a bad way, it was neglected, just like the kids are, she should stand up & except she is in the wrong.
jordan andrews wrote:I'm no vet but I would have to agree with this if there was fecal matter of any sort on the floor as to produce feces, a living being has to eat to absorb needed nutrients and then expel it as feces, some diseases and parasites prevent that from happening in animals and humans and they end up with diarrhea (which they found when they went to retrieve the dog) and start losing weight so in turn they hadn't under fed it, they neglected it's health by not taking it to the vet, would this be about right?
This is from the vet ' in my professional opinion that the case of the poor body condition in the dog was not due to failure to supply the dog with appropriate nutrition but was instead caused by a gastro-intestinal compliant which appears to have resolved within 24 hours of the dog being in the care of the RSPCA spite being provided with no treatment in relation to a gastro-intestinal problem. it is however my professional opinion that the owner of the dog should of sought veterinary advice and investigation for the dog prior to the RSPCA Attending The Property' < Therefore the dog was NOT underfed
BlackbirdFly
says...
2:51pm Sat 1 Sep 12
Ginger_cyclist
says...
5:10pm Sat 1 Sep 12
BlackbirdFly wrote:That can't be a coincidence, just noticed myself, maybe she came on here to try and drum up support against her mum and wants to try and say she had no part to play, wouldn't surprise me, it's something people with a guilty conscience do.
The persons name above is the same as the woman convicted? There is no excuse for not getting medical help it would have taken a long time for the dog to look like that. Should be banned for life
BenjiWinsor says...
5:19am Wed 29 Aug 12