Mum and daughter 'didn't properly feed dog for weeks'

Mum and daughter 'didn't properly feed dog for weeks'

A photograph showing how starved the dog was

Mum and daughter 'didn't properly feed dog for weeks'

First published in Crime

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)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

5:19am Wed 29 Aug 12

BenjiWinsor says...

Poor dog :/
Poor dog :/ BenjiWinsor
  • Score: 0

7:19am Wed 29 Aug 12

bigfella777 says...

They should cut their benefits off for a few weeks, see how they like it.
They should cut their benefits off for a few weeks, see how they like it. bigfella777
  • Score: 0

7:20am Wed 29 Aug 12

thankfully not a PO postcode says...

good call echo pet lovers everywhere no know exactly where they live :) ................
good call echo pet lovers everywhere no know exactly where they live :) ................ thankfully not a PO postcode
  • Score: 0

7:20am Wed 29 Aug 12

Saintschick says...

This really annoys me, why do people have pets if they don't want to look after them properly? So selfish.
This really annoys me, why do people have pets if they don't want to look after them properly? So selfish. Saintschick
  • Score: 0

8:04am Wed 29 Aug 12

Higginz says...

Urgh, that picture just put me off my breakfast. Look at them, in their Sunday best.
Urgh, that picture just put me off my breakfast. Look at them, in their Sunday best. Higginz
  • Score: 0

8:16am Wed 29 Aug 12

Solomon's Boot says...

I like thew picture of them 'AVIN A FAAAAG.

It was 'avin a faaag and being selfish that made this poor dog suffer in the first place!
I like thew picture of them 'AVIN A FAAAAG. It was 'avin a faaag and being selfish that made this poor dog suffer in the first place! Solomon's Boot
  • Score: 0

8:23am Wed 29 Aug 12

Taskforce 141 says...

What chavey ****...
What chavey ****... Taskforce 141
  • Score: 0

8:42am Wed 29 Aug 12

Queen Victoria says...

they must be so proud of themselves to make the Echo!
they must be so proud of themselves to make the Echo! Queen Victoria
  • Score: 0

8:45am Wed 29 Aug 12

chunky_lover says...

ah, the working classes - where would we be without them.....

list all positives and no negatives......
ah, the working classes - where would we be without them..... list all positives and no negatives...... chunky_lover
  • Score: 0

8:51am Wed 29 Aug 12

KA says...

Disgusting!! I hope they look after the child better than they did the poor dog.
Disgusting!! I hope they look after the child better than they did the poor dog. KA
  • Score: 0

9:33am Wed 29 Aug 12

Linesman says...

For a start, it should have been a lifetime ban from having pets not just five years. People like this do not change.
For a start, it should have been a lifetime ban from having pets not just five years. People like this do not change. Linesman
  • Score: 0

9:34am Wed 29 Aug 12

MrBrightside85 says...

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.
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. MrBrightside85
  • Score: 0

9:37am Wed 29 Aug 12

Georgem says...

> "Any reasonable person would have considered veterinary attention when the dog was becoming so thin.”

Err, no. Any reasonable person would have been feeding the poor animal properly in the first place.
> "Any reasonable person would have considered veterinary attention when the dog was becoming so thin.” Err, no. Any reasonable person would have been feeding the poor animal properly in the first place. Georgem
  • Score: 0

9:37am Wed 29 Aug 12

Polkadotty says...

Absolutely sickening, no way to treat an animal. Is the daughter pregnant in the picture? If so, she is treating her unborn baby to the delights of nicotine too. Another unfairness as the unborn baby has no choice!
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.
Absolutely sickening, no way to treat an animal. Is the daughter pregnant in the picture? If so, she is treating her unborn baby to the delights of nicotine too. Another unfairness as the unborn baby has no choice! 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. Polkadotty
  • Score: 0

9:38am Wed 29 Aug 12

Georgem says...

chunky_lover wrote:
ah, the working classes - where would we be without them.....

list all positives and no negatives......
"Working" class? Are you sure?
[quote][p][bold]chunky_lover[/bold] wrote: ah, the working classes - where would we be without them..... list all positives and no negatives......[/p][/quote]"Working" class? Are you sure? Georgem
  • Score: 0

9:55am Wed 29 Aug 12

espanuel says...

I take exception to working class and we have two dogs thet are fed twice a day.
I take exception to working class and we have two dogs thet are fed twice a day. espanuel
  • Score: 0

10:23am Wed 29 Aug 12

Nicole23 says...

Working class? I dont think so. Look at the daughter who is heavily pregnant smoking,that is so out of order.She must have her eye on more benefit or a bigger flat.
Working class? I dont think so. Look at the daughter who is heavily pregnant smoking,that is so out of order.She must have her eye on more benefit or a bigger flat. Nicole23
  • Score: 0

10:34am Wed 29 Aug 12

Shoong says...

'Lacking time?'

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'.
'Lacking time?' 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'. Shoong
  • Score: 0

10:40am Wed 29 Aug 12

Higginz says...

Is it wrong that I'm so turned on?
Is it wrong that I'm so turned on? Higginz
  • Score: 0

11:06am Wed 29 Aug 12

rich the stitch says...

Good old Millbrok. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.
The Mos Eisley of Southampton.
Good old Millbrok. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. The Mos Eisley of Southampton. rich the stitch
  • Score: 0

12:38pm Wed 29 Aug 12

Laura85 says...

Those 2 scum bags look like they need to be starved. How can they said that dog was fed 3 times a day, disgusting. Too busy spending their benefits on fags and take always but the looks of things. Typical chavs mistreating dogs!
Those 2 scum bags look like they need to be starved. How can they said that dog was fed 3 times a day, disgusting. Too busy spending their benefits on fags and take always but the looks of things. Typical chavs mistreating dogs! Laura85
  • Score: 0

12:52pm Wed 29 Aug 12

Inform Al says...

I would like to know what the 'controlled diet' was. I once had a visit from the RSPCA as a neighbour had noticed that my alsation **** had become very thin. Fortunately so had I and the dog was already under the vet for what turned out to be coeliac desease, apparently quite prevalent in our canine friends. It is possible that the dog was being fed but the owners should have taken it to the vet, so they are still at fault..
I would like to know what the 'controlled diet' was. I once had a visit from the RSPCA as a neighbour had noticed that my alsation **** had become very thin. Fortunately so had I and the dog was already under the vet for what turned out to be coeliac desease, apparently quite prevalent in our canine friends. It is possible that the dog was being fed but the owners should have taken it to the vet, so they are still at fault.. Inform Al
  • Score: 0

12:53pm Wed 29 Aug 12

Inform Al says...

This is bl00dy stupid when the name for a female dog is censored
This is bl00dy stupid when the name for a female dog is censored Inform Al
  • Score: 0

1:26pm Wed 29 Aug 12

sotongirl72 says...

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 !!
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
  • Score: 0

1:30pm Wed 29 Aug 12

Georgem says...

Inform Al wrote:
This is bl00dy stupid when the name for a female dog is censored
It isn't censored. It quite clearly states that the bitch is called 'Tori'.
[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: This is bl00dy stupid when the name for a female dog is censored[/p][/quote]It isn't censored. It quite clearly states that the bi[bold][/bold]tch is called 'Tori'. Georgem
  • Score: 0

1:47pm Wed 29 Aug 12

KA says...

Georgem wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
This is bl00dy stupid when the name for a female dog is censored
It isn't censored. It quite clearly states that the bitch is called 'Tori'.
I think they mean the comment they made before.. Georgem.:D
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: This is bl00dy stupid when the name for a female dog is censored[/p][/quote]It isn't censored. It quite clearly states that the bi[bold][/bold]tch is called 'Tori'.[/p][/quote]I think they mean the comment they made before.. Georgem.:D KA
  • Score: 0

1:53pm Wed 29 Aug 12

Georgem says...

KA wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
This is bl00dy stupid when the name for a female dog is censored
It isn't censored. It quite clearly states that the bitch is called 'Tori'.
I think they mean the comment they made before.. Georgem.:D
I know they did!
[quote][p][bold]KA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: This is bl00dy stupid when the name for a female dog is censored[/p][/quote]It isn't censored. It quite clearly states that the bi[bold][/bold]tch is called 'Tori'.[/p][/quote]I think they mean the comment they made before.. Georgem.:D[/p][/quote]I know they did! Georgem
  • Score: 0

2:09pm Wed 29 Aug 12

MegGriffin says...

sotongirl72 wrote:
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 !!
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.
[quote][p][bold]sotongirl72[/bold] wrote: 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 !![/p][/quote]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. MegGriffin
  • Score: 0

2:15pm Wed 29 Aug 12

sotongirl72 says...

MegGriffin wrote:
sotongirl72 wrote:
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 !!
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.
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.
[quote][p][bold]MegGriffin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotongirl72[/bold] wrote: 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 !![/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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
  • Score: 0

2:53pm Wed 29 Aug 12

jane doe. says...

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.
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. jane doe.
  • Score: 0

3:01pm Wed 29 Aug 12

KA says...

Georgem wrote:
KA wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
This is bl00dy stupid when the name for a female dog is censored
It isn't censored. It quite clearly states that the bitch is called 'Tori'.
I think they mean the comment they made before.. Georgem.:D
I know they did!
Oh ok.. some people are so Touchy!!
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: This is bl00dy stupid when the name for a female dog is censored[/p][/quote]It isn't censored. It quite clearly states that the bi[bold][/bold]tch is called 'Tori'.[/p][/quote]I think they mean the comment they made before.. Georgem.:D[/p][/quote]I know they did![/p][/quote]Oh ok.. some people are so Touchy!! KA
  • Score: 0

3:47pm Wed 29 Aug 12

MegGriffin says...

jane doe. wrote:
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.
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.
The woman is a disgrace.
[quote][p][bold]jane doe.[/bold] wrote: 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.[/p][/quote]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. The woman is a disgrace. MegGriffin
  • Score: 0

5:40pm Wed 29 Aug 12

sotonbev says...

There the only to **** in this photo, bloody chavs!!
There the only to **** in this photo, bloody chavs!! sotonbev
  • Score: 0

5:43pm Wed 29 Aug 12

Nearly an OAP says...

Perhaps magistrates should have recommended re-educating these two. For myself I would recommend sterilisation and a reduction in benefits.
Perhaps magistrates should have recommended re-educating these two. For myself I would recommend sterilisation and a reduction in benefits. Nearly an OAP
  • Score: 0

6:06pm Wed 29 Aug 12

100%HANTSBOY says...

Georgem wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
This is bl00dy stupid when the name for a female dog is censored
It isn't censored. It quite clearly states that the bitch is called 'Tori'.
I thougt the **** names were Lillian and Jordan!
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: This is bl00dy stupid when the name for a female dog is censored[/p][/quote]It isn't censored. It quite clearly states that the bi[bold][/bold]tch is called 'Tori'.[/p][/quote]I thougt the **** names were Lillian and Jordan! 100%HANTSBOY
  • Score: 0

6:45pm Wed 29 Aug 12

Inform Al says...

KA wrote:
Georgem wrote:
KA wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
This is bl00dy stupid when the name for a female dog is censored
It isn't censored. It quite clearly states that the bitch is called 'Tori'.
I think they mean the comment they made before.. Georgem.:D
I know they did!
Oh ok.. some people are so Touchy!!
How interesting that the mention of my **** (lady) alsation was censored when the next post carries an uncensored ****. Now I am getting touchy
[quote][p][bold]KA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: This is bl00dy stupid when the name for a female dog is censored[/p][/quote]It isn't censored. It quite clearly states that the bi[bold][/bold]tch is called 'Tori'.[/p][/quote]I think they mean the comment they made before.. Georgem.:D[/p][/quote]I know they did![/p][/quote]Oh ok.. some people are so Touchy!![/p][/quote]How interesting that the mention of my **** (lady) alsation was censored when the next post carries an uncensored ****. Now I am getting touchy Inform Al
  • Score: 0

7:19pm Wed 29 Aug 12

Stillness says...

Must have got a reminder to feed the dog every time they looked in a mirror. What a pair of dogs breakfasts.
Must have got a reminder to feed the dog every time they looked in a mirror. What a pair of dogs breakfasts. Stillness
  • Score: 0

7:24pm Wed 29 Aug 12

Georgem says...

Inform Al wrote:
KA wrote:
Georgem wrote:
KA wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
This is bl00dy stupid when the name for a female dog is censored
It isn't censored. It quite clearly states that the bitch is called 'Tori'.
I think they mean the comment they made before.. Georgem.:D
I know they did!
Oh ok.. some people are so Touchy!!
How interesting that the mention of my **** (lady) alsation was censored when the next post carries an uncensored ****. Now I am getting touchy
Weird. I can post bitch quite easily, yet you can't.
[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: This is bl00dy stupid when the name for a female dog is censored[/p][/quote]It isn't censored. It quite clearly states that the bi[bold][/bold]tch is called 'Tori'.[/p][/quote]I think they mean the comment they made before.. Georgem.:D[/p][/quote]I know they did![/p][/quote]Oh ok.. some people are so Touchy!![/p][/quote]How interesting that the mention of my **** (lady) alsation was censored when the next post carries an uncensored ****. Now I am getting touchy[/p][/quote]Weird. I can post bit[bold][/bold]ch quite easily, yet you can't. Georgem
  • Score: 0

7:39pm Wed 29 Aug 12

wilson castaway says...

Disgusting.In all ways.
Disgusting.In all ways. wilson castaway
  • Score: 0

7:48pm Wed 29 Aug 12

ShakeyWiffles says...

£250 each? Is that it? Ha. Joke! This is disgusting.

P.S. Echo - get a proof reader.
£250 each? Is that it? Ha. Joke! This is disgusting. P.S. Echo - get a proof reader. ShakeyWiffles
  • Score: 0

7:49pm Wed 29 Aug 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

MrBrightside85 wrote:
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.
That's still a problem, throw them out of a plane flying 2 miles high without parachutes, problem solved.
[quote][p][bold]MrBrightside85[/bold] wrote: 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.[/p][/quote]That's still a problem, throw them out of a plane flying 2 miles high without parachutes, problem solved. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

7:59pm Wed 29 Aug 12

Stillness says...

Georgem wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
KA wrote:
Georgem wrote:
KA wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
This is bl00dy stupid when the name for a female dog is censored
It isn't censored. It quite clearly states that the bitch is called 'Tori'.
I think they mean the comment they made before.. Georgem.:D
I know they did!
Oh ok.. some people are so Touchy!!
How interesting that the mention of my **** (lady) alsation was censored when the next post carries an uncensored ****. Now I am getting touchy
Weird. I can post bitch quite easily, yet you can't.
Wondering is someone is spelling it bich rather than ****......This should tell.
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: This is bl00dy stupid when the name for a female dog is censored[/p][/quote]It isn't censored. It quite clearly states that the bi[bold][/bold]tch is called 'Tori'.[/p][/quote]I think they mean the comment they made before.. Georgem.:D[/p][/quote]I know they did![/p][/quote]Oh ok.. some people are so Touchy!![/p][/quote]How interesting that the mention of my **** (lady) alsation was censored when the next post carries an uncensored ****. Now I am getting touchy[/p][/quote]Weird. I can post bit[bold][/bold]ch quite easily, yet you can't.[/p][/quote]Wondering is someone is spelling it bich rather than ****......This should tell. Stillness
  • Score: 0

8:00pm Wed 29 Aug 12

Stillness says...

Stillness wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
KA wrote:
Georgem wrote:
KA wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
This is bl00dy stupid when the name for a female dog is censored
It isn't censored. It quite clearly states that the bitch is called 'Tori'.
I think they mean the comment they made before.. Georgem.:D
I know they did!
Oh ok.. some people are so Touchy!!
How interesting that the mention of my **** (lady) alsation was censored when the next post carries an uncensored ****. Now I am getting touchy
Weird. I can post bitch quite easily, yet you can't.
Wondering is someone is spelling it bich rather than ****......This should tell.
Nope lol.
[quote][p][bold]Stillness[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: This is bl00dy stupid when the name for a female dog is censored[/p][/quote]It isn't censored. It quite clearly states that the bi[bold][/bold]tch is called 'Tori'.[/p][/quote]I think they mean the comment they made before.. Georgem.:D[/p][/quote]I know they did![/p][/quote]Oh ok.. some people are so Touchy!![/p][/quote]How interesting that the mention of my **** (lady) alsation was censored when the next post carries an uncensored ****. Now I am getting touchy[/p][/quote]Weird. I can post bit[bold][/bold]ch quite easily, yet you can't.[/p][/quote]Wondering is someone is spelling it bich rather than ****......This should tell.[/p][/quote]Nope lol. Stillness
  • Score: 0

8:05pm Wed 29 Aug 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

Stillness wrote:
Stillness wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
KA wrote:
Georgem wrote:
KA wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
This is bl00dy stupid when the name for a female dog is censored
It isn't censored. It quite clearly states that the bitch is called 'Tori'.
I think they mean the comment they made before.. Georgem.:D
I know they did!
Oh ok.. some people are so Touchy!!
How interesting that the mention of my **** (lady) alsation was censored when the next post carries an uncensored ****. Now I am getting touchy
Weird. I can post bitch quite easily, yet you can't.
Wondering is someone is spelling it bich rather than ****......This should tell.
Nope lol.
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.
[quote][p][bold]Stillness[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stillness[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: This is bl00dy stupid when the name for a female dog is censored[/p][/quote]It isn't censored. It quite clearly states that the bi[bold][/bold]tch is called 'Tori'.[/p][/quote]I think they mean the comment they made before.. Georgem.:D[/p][/quote]I know they did![/p][/quote]Oh ok.. some people are so Touchy!![/p][/quote]How interesting that the mention of my **** (lady) alsation was censored when the next post carries an uncensored ****. Now I am getting touchy[/p][/quote]Weird. I can post bit[bold][/bold]ch quite easily, yet you can't.[/p][/quote]Wondering is someone is spelling it bich rather than ****......This should tell.[/p][/quote]Nope lol.[/p][/quote]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. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

9:00pm Wed 29 Aug 12

Peed orf big time says...

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/
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/ Peed orf big time
  • Score: 0

9:07pm Wed 29 Aug 12

Georgem says...

Stillness wrote:
Stillness wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
KA wrote:
Georgem wrote:
KA wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
This is bl00dy stupid when the name for a female dog is censored
It isn't censored. It quite clearly states that the bitch is called 'Tori'.
I think they mean the comment they made before.. Georgem.:D
I know they did!
Oh ok.. some people are so Touchy!!
How interesting that the mention of my **** (lady) alsation was censored when the next post carries an uncensored ****. Now I am getting touchy
Weird. I can post bitch quite easily, yet you can't.
Wondering is someone is spelling it bich rather than ****......This should tell.
Nope lol.
I am definitely spelling it bitch.
[quote][p][bold]Stillness[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stillness[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: This is bl00dy stupid when the name for a female dog is censored[/p][/quote]It isn't censored. It quite clearly states that the bi[bold][/bold]tch is called 'Tori'.[/p][/quote]I think they mean the comment they made before.. Georgem.:D[/p][/quote]I know they did![/p][/quote]Oh ok.. some people are so Touchy!![/p][/quote]How interesting that the mention of my **** (lady) alsation was censored when the next post carries an uncensored ****. Now I am getting touchy[/p][/quote]Weird. I can post bit[bold][/bold]ch quite easily, yet you can't.[/p][/quote]Wondering is someone is spelling it bich rather than ****......This should tell.[/p][/quote]Nope lol.[/p][/quote]I am definitely spelling it bit[bold][/bold]ch. Georgem
  • Score: 0

9:08pm Wed 29 Aug 12

Georgem says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Stillness wrote:
Stillness wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
KA wrote:
Georgem wrote:
KA wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
This is bl00dy stupid when the name for a female dog is censored
It isn't censored. It quite clearly states that the bitch is called 'Tori'.
I think they mean the comment they made before.. Georgem.:D
I know they did!
Oh ok.. some people are so Touchy!!
How interesting that the mention of my **** (lady) alsation was censored when the next post carries an uncensored ****. Now I am getting touchy
Weird. I can post bitch quite easily, yet you can't.
Wondering is someone is spelling it bich rather than ****......This should tell.
Nope lol.
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.
It seems to pick up most people using the word bitch. What the hell?
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stillness[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stillness[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: This is bl00dy stupid when the name for a female dog is censored[/p][/quote]It isn't censored. It quite clearly states that the bi[bold][/bold]tch is called 'Tori'.[/p][/quote]I think they mean the comment they made before.. Georgem.:D[/p][/quote]I know they did![/p][/quote]Oh ok.. some people are so Touchy!![/p][/quote]How interesting that the mention of my **** (lady) alsation was censored when the next post carries an uncensored ****. Now I am getting touchy[/p][/quote]Weird. I can post bit[bold][/bold]ch quite easily, yet you can't.[/p][/quote]Wondering is someone is spelling it bich rather than ****......This should tell.[/p][/quote]Nope lol.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]It seems to pick up most people using the word bit[bold][/bold]ch. What the he[bold][/bold]ll? Georgem
  • Score: 0

9:27pm Wed 29 Aug 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

Georgem wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Stillness wrote:
Stillness wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
KA wrote:
Georgem wrote:
KA wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
This is bl00dy stupid when the name for a female dog is censored
It isn't censored. It quite clearly states that the bitch is called 'Tori'.
I think they mean the comment they made before.. Georgem.:D
I know they did!
Oh ok.. some people are so Touchy!!
How interesting that the mention of my **** (lady) alsation was censored when the next post carries an uncensored ****. Now I am getting touchy
Weird. I can post bitch quite easily, yet you can't.
Wondering is someone is spelling it bich rather than ****......This should tell.
Nope lol.
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.
It seems to pick up most people using the word bitch. What the hell?
Yes... Who wants to test how many times in one comment it will pick up on the same word?
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stillness[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stillness[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: This is bl00dy stupid when the name for a female dog is censored[/p][/quote]It isn't censored. It quite clearly states that the bi[bold][/bold]tch is called 'Tori'.[/p][/quote]I think they mean the comment they made before.. Georgem.:D[/p][/quote]I know they did![/p][/quote]Oh ok.. some people are so Touchy!![/p][/quote]How interesting that the mention of my **** (lady) alsation was censored when the next post carries an uncensored ****. Now I am getting touchy[/p][/quote]Weird. I can post bit[bold][/bold]ch quite easily, yet you can't.[/p][/quote]Wondering is someone is spelling it bich rather than ****......This should tell.[/p][/quote]Nope lol.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]It seems to pick up most people using the word bit[bold][/bold]ch. What the he[bold][/bold]ll?[/p][/quote]Yes... Who wants to test how many times in one comment it will pick up on the same word? Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

10:10pm Wed 29 Aug 12

yellowcard says...

thankfully not a PO postcode wrote:
good call echo pet lovers everywhere no know exactly where they live :) ................
and your point is?
[quote][p][bold]thankfully not a PO postcode [/bold] wrote: good call echo pet lovers everywhere no know exactly where they live :) ................[/p][/quote]and your point is? yellowcard
  • Score: 0

10:13pm Wed 29 Aug 12

yellowcard says...

rich the stitch wrote:
Good old Millbrok. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.
The Mos Eisley of Southampton.
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?
[quote][p][bold]rich the stitch[/bold] wrote: Good old Millbrok. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. The Mos Eisley of Southampton.[/p][/quote]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? yellowcard
  • Score: 0

10:51pm Wed 29 Aug 12

Georgem says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Stillness wrote:
Stillness wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
KA wrote:
Georgem wrote:
KA wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
This is bl00dy stupid when the name for a female dog is censored
It isn't censored. It quite clearly states that the bitch is called 'Tori'.
I think they mean the comment they made before.. Georgem.:D
I know they did!
Oh ok.. some people are so Touchy!!
How interesting that the mention of my **** (lady) alsation was censored when the next post carries an uncensored ****. Now I am getting touchy
Weird. I can post bitch quite easily, yet you can't.
Wondering is someone is spelling it bich rather than ****......This should tell.
Nope lol.
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.
It seems to pick up most people using the word bitch. What the hell?
Yes... Who wants to test how many times in one comment it will pick up on the same word?
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.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stillness[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stillness[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: This is bl00dy stupid when the name for a female dog is censored[/p][/quote]It isn't censored. It quite clearly states that the bi[bold][/bold]tch is called 'Tori'.[/p][/quote]I think they mean the comment they made before.. Georgem.:D[/p][/quote]I know they did![/p][/quote]Oh ok.. some people are so Touchy!![/p][/quote]How interesting that the mention of my **** (lady) alsation was censored when the next post carries an uncensored ****. Now I am getting touchy[/p][/quote]Weird. I can post bit[bold][/bold]ch quite easily, yet you can't.[/p][/quote]Wondering is someone is spelling it bich rather than ****......This should tell.[/p][/quote]Nope lol.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]It seems to pick up most people using the word bit[bold][/bold]ch. What the he[bold][/bold]ll?[/p][/quote]Yes... Who wants to test how many times in one comment it will pick up on the same word?[/p][/quote]Are you suggesting that if I put the word bit[bold][/bold]ch in my post more than once, like if I put bit[bold][/bold]ch here several times - once again, bit[bold][/bold]ch - then the bit[bold][/bold]ch of a swear filter will catch the word bit[bold][/bold]ch some times, but not others? Well, that's a bit[bold][/bold]ch of a thing to test, really. Don't bit[bold][/bold]ch at me if none of my instances of bit[bold][/bold]ch get censored, though. It's a bit[bold][/bold]ch. Georgem
  • Score: 0

11:05pm Wed 29 Aug 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

Georgem wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Stillness wrote:
Stillness wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
KA wrote:
Georgem wrote:
KA wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
This is bl00dy stupid when the name for a female dog is censored
It isn't censored. It quite clearly states that the bitch is called 'Tori'.
I think they mean the comment they made before.. Georgem.:D
I know they did!
Oh ok.. some people are so Touchy!!
How interesting that the mention of my **** (lady) alsation was censored when the next post carries an uncensored ****. Now I am getting touchy
Weird. I can post bitch quite easily, yet you can't.
Wondering is someone is spelling it bich rather than ****......This should tell.
Nope lol.
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.
It seems to pick up most people using the word bitch. What the hell?
Yes... Who wants to test how many times in one comment it will pick up on the same word?
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.
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 ****.
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stillness[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stillness[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: This is bl00dy stupid when the name for a female dog is censored[/p][/quote]It isn't censored. It quite clearly states that the bi[bold][/bold]tch is called 'Tori'.[/p][/quote]I think they mean the comment they made before.. Georgem.:D[/p][/quote]I know they did![/p][/quote]Oh ok.. some people are so Touchy!![/p][/quote]How interesting that the mention of my **** (lady) alsation was censored when the next post carries an uncensored ****. Now I am getting touchy[/p][/quote]Weird. I can post bit[bold][/bold]ch quite easily, yet you can't.[/p][/quote]Wondering is someone is spelling it bich rather than ****......This should tell.[/p][/quote]Nope lol.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]It seems to pick up most people using the word bit[bold][/bold]ch. What the he[bold][/bold]ll?[/p][/quote]Yes... Who wants to test how many times in one comment it will pick up on the same word?[/p][/quote]Are you suggesting that if I put the word bit[bold][/bold]ch in my post more than once, like if I put bit[bold][/bold]ch here several times - once again, bit[bold][/bold]ch - then the bit[bold][/bold]ch of a swear filter will catch the word bit[bold][/bold]ch some times, but not others? Well, that's a bit[bold][/bold]ch of a thing to test, really. Don't bit[bold][/bold]ch at me if none of my instances of bit[bold][/bold]ch get censored, though. It's a bit[bold][/bold]ch.[/p][/quote]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
  • Score: 0

11:06pm Wed 29 Aug 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Stillness wrote:
Stillness wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
KA wrote:
Georgem wrote:
KA wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
This is bl00dy stupid when the name for a female dog is censored
It isn't censored. It quite clearly states that the bitch is called 'Tori'.
I think they mean the comment they made before.. Georgem.:D
I know they did!
Oh ok.. some people are so Touchy!!
How interesting that the mention of my **** (lady) alsation was censored when the next post carries an uncensored ****. Now I am getting touchy
Weird. I can post bitch quite easily, yet you can't.
Wondering is someone is spelling it bich rather than ****......This should tell.
Nope lol.
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.
It seems to pick up most people using the word bitch. What the hell?
Yes... Who wants to test how many times in one comment it will pick up on the same word?
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.
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 ****.
Something tells me I failed at trying to break the word filter.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stillness[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stillness[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: This is bl00dy stupid when the name for a female dog is censored[/p][/quote]It isn't censored. It quite clearly states that the bi[bold][/bold]tch is called 'Tori'.[/p][/quote]I think they mean the comment they made before.. Georgem.:D[/p][/quote]I know they did![/p][/quote]Oh ok.. some people are so Touchy!![/p][/quote]How interesting that the mention of my **** (lady) alsation was censored when the next post carries an uncensored ****. Now I am getting touchy[/p][/quote]Weird. I can post bit[bold][/bold]ch quite easily, yet you can't.[/p][/quote]Wondering is someone is spelling it bich rather than ****......This should tell.[/p][/quote]Nope lol.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]It seems to pick up most people using the word bit[bold][/bold]ch. What the he[bold][/bold]ll?[/p][/quote]Yes... Who wants to test how many times in one comment it will pick up on the same word?[/p][/quote]Are you suggesting that if I put the word bit[bold][/bold]ch in my post more than once, like if I put bit[bold][/bold]ch here several times - once again, bit[bold][/bold]ch - then the bit[bold][/bold]ch of a swear filter will catch the word bit[bold][/bold]ch some times, but not others? Well, that's a bit[bold][/bold]ch of a thing to test, really. Don't bit[bold][/bold]ch at me if none of my instances of bit[bold][/bold]ch get censored, though. It's a bit[bold][/bold]ch.[/p][/quote]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 ****.[/p][/quote]Something tells me I failed at trying to break the word filter. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

11:16pm Wed 29 Aug 12

sotongirl72 says...

Peed orf big time wrote:
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/
She is a disgrace & its about time people like that got punished more than just fines !
[quote][p][bold]Peed orf big time[/bold] wrote: 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/[/p][/quote]She is a disgrace & its about time people like that got punished more than just fines ! sotongirl72
  • Score: 0

11:17pm Wed 29 Aug 12

Georgem says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Stillness wrote:
Stillness wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
KA wrote:
Georgem wrote:
KA wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
This is bl00dy stupid when the name for a female dog is censored
It isn't censored. It quite clearly states that the bitch is called 'Tori'.
I think they mean the comment they made before.. Georgem.:D
I know they did!
Oh ok.. some people are so Touchy!!
How interesting that the mention of my **** (lady) alsation was censored when the next post carries an uncensored ****. Now I am getting touchy
Weird. I can post bitch quite easily, yet you can't.
Wondering is someone is spelling it bich rather than ****......This should tell.
Nope lol.
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.
It seems to pick up most people using the word bitch. What the hell?
Yes... Who wants to test how many times in one comment it will pick up on the same word?
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.
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 ****.
Something tells me I failed at trying to break the word filter.
Life's a bitch, eh.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stillness[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stillness[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: This is bl00dy stupid when the name for a female dog is censored[/p][/quote]It isn't censored. It quite clearly states that the bi[bold][/bold]tch is called 'Tori'.[/p][/quote]I think they mean the comment they made before.. Georgem.:D[/p][/quote]I know they did![/p][/quote]Oh ok.. some people are so Touchy!![/p][/quote]How interesting that the mention of my **** (lady) alsation was censored when the next post carries an uncensored ****. Now I am getting touchy[/p][/quote]Weird. I can post bit[bold][/bold]ch quite easily, yet you can't.[/p][/quote]Wondering is someone is spelling it bich rather than ****......This should tell.[/p][/quote]Nope lol.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]It seems to pick up most people using the word bit[bold][/bold]ch. What the he[bold][/bold]ll?[/p][/quote]Yes... Who wants to test how many times in one comment it will pick up on the same word?[/p][/quote]Are you suggesting that if I put the word bit[bold][/bold]ch in my post more than once, like if I put bit[bold][/bold]ch here several times - once again, bit[bold][/bold]ch - then the bit[bold][/bold]ch of a swear filter will catch the word bit[bold][/bold]ch some times, but not others? Well, that's a bit[bold][/bold]ch of a thing to test, really. Don't bit[bold][/bold]ch at me if none of my instances of bit[bold][/bold]ch get censored, though. It's a bit[bold][/bold]ch.[/p][/quote]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 ****.[/p][/quote]Something tells me I failed at trying to break the word filter.[/p][/quote]Life's a bit[bold][/bold]ch, eh. Georgem
  • Score: 0

11:18pm Wed 29 Aug 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

Georgem wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Stillness wrote:
Stillness wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
KA wrote:
Georgem wrote:
KA wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
This is bl00dy stupid when the name for a female dog is censored
It isn't censored. It quite clearly states that the bitch is called 'Tori'.
I think they mean the comment they made before.. Georgem.:D
I know they did!
Oh ok.. some people are so Touchy!!
How interesting that the mention of my **** (lady) alsation was censored when the next post carries an uncensored ****. Now I am getting touchy
Weird. I can post bitch quite easily, yet you can't.
Wondering is someone is spelling it bich rather than ****......This should tell.
Nope lol.
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.
It seems to pick up most people using the word bitch. What the hell?
Yes... Who wants to test how many times in one comment it will pick up on the same word?
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.
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 ****.
Something tells me I failed at trying to break the word filter.
Life's a bitch, eh.
Yeah, then some people marry one.
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stillness[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stillness[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: This is bl00dy stupid when the name for a female dog is censored[/p][/quote]It isn't censored. It quite clearly states that the bi[bold][/bold]tch is called 'Tori'.[/p][/quote]I think they mean the comment they made before.. Georgem.:D[/p][/quote]I know they did![/p][/quote]Oh ok.. some people are so Touchy!![/p][/quote]How interesting that the mention of my **** (lady) alsation was censored when the next post carries an uncensored ****. Now I am getting touchy[/p][/quote]Weird. I can post bit[bold][/bold]ch quite easily, yet you can't.[/p][/quote]Wondering is someone is spelling it bich rather than ****......This should tell.[/p][/quote]Nope lol.[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]It seems to pick up most people using the word bit[bold][/bold]ch. What the he[bold][/bold]ll?[/p][/quote]Yes... Who wants to test how many times in one comment it will pick up on the same word?[/p][/quote]Are you suggesting that if I put the word bit[bold][/bold]ch in my post more than once, like if I put bit[bold][/bold]ch here several times - once again, bit[bold][/bold]ch - then the bit[bold][/bold]ch of a swear filter will catch the word bit[bold][/bold]ch some times, but not others? Well, that's a bit[bold][/bold]ch of a thing to test, really. Don't bit[bold][/bold]ch at me if none of my instances of bit[bold][/bold]ch get censored, though. It's a bit[bold][/bold]ch.[/p][/quote]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 ****.[/p][/quote]Something tells me I failed at trying to break the word filter.[/p][/quote]Life's a bit[bold][/bold]ch, eh.[/p][/quote]Yeah, then some people marry one. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

6:34am Thu 30 Aug 12

100%HANTSBOY says...

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!
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! 100%HANTSBOY
  • Score: 0

8:38am Thu 30 Aug 12

sotongirl72 says...

100%HANTSBOY wrote:
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!
Hahaha love it & so very very true !
[quote][p][bold]100%HANTSBOY[/bold] wrote: 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![/p][/quote]Hahaha love it & so very very true ! sotongirl72
  • Score: 0

12:47pm Thu 30 Aug 12

MegGriffin says...

sotongirl72 wrote:
100%HANTSBOY wrote:
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!
Hahaha love it & so very very true !
Spot on
[quote][p][bold]sotongirl72[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]100%HANTSBOY[/bold] wrote: 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![/p][/quote]Hahaha love it & so very very true ![/p][/quote]Spot on MegGriffin
  • Score: 0

6:20pm Thu 30 Aug 12

jordan andrews says...

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
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 jordan andrews
  • Score: 0

6:54pm Thu 30 Aug 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

jordan andrews wrote:
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' &lt; Therefore the dog was NOT underfed
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?
[quote][p][bold]jordan andrews[/bold] wrote: 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[/p][/quote]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? Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

1:18pm Fri 31 Aug 12

sotongirl72 says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
jordan andrews wrote:
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' &lt; Therefore the dog was NOT underfed
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?
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.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jordan andrews[/bold] wrote: 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[/p][/quote]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?[/p][/quote]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. sotongirl72
  • Score: 0

1:18pm Fri 31 Aug 12

sotongirl72 says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
jordan andrews wrote:
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' &lt; Therefore the dog was NOT underfed
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?
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.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jordan andrews[/bold] wrote: 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[/p][/quote]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?[/p][/quote]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. sotongirl72
  • Score: 0

5:54pm Fri 31 Aug 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

sotongirl72 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
jordan andrews wrote:
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' &lt; Therefore the dog was NOT underfed
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?
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 &amp; be in such a bad way, it was neglected, just like the kids are, she should stand up &amp; except she is in the wrong.
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.
[quote][p][bold]sotongirl72[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jordan andrews[/bold] wrote: 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[/p][/quote]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?[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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
  • Score: 0

2:51pm Sat 1 Sep 12

BlackbirdFly says...

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
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 BlackbirdFly
  • Score: 0

5:10pm Sat 1 Sep 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

BlackbirdFly wrote:
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
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.
[quote][p][bold]BlackbirdFly[/bold] wrote: 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[/p][/quote]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. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree