Forum Topic

Dead dog photo

Not sure what sick bar steward found it ok to post but does anyone know how we can get it taken down?Outrageous. Somewhere editing/in control of a website should know better.

Simon Wycombe ● 1228d33 Comments

Complain to the site owners NeighbourNet (details on the front page).

N V Brooks ● 1228d

It appears to have been supplied by the RSPCA. They clearly want anyone not sufficiently shocked by the bare facts of the case to understand the nature of the crime. Fully justified if it helps them catch the culprit in my view.

Mark Evans ● 1228d

The RSPCA have not been shy in the past of issuing graphic photos in cases like this one. This is probably because it gets results. Obviously some people with more delicate sensibilities will be upset but they presumably balance this with the need to see justice done.

Gordon Southwell ● 1228d

I get the logic but find it a tad OTT and I am one of life's least sensitive people!I can imagine veggie/vegan/swampy types going crazy over this.

Simon Wycombe ● 1228d

I'd assume most animal lovers, which would include the people working for the RSPCA, would be on board with the use of the photo. They are probably well aware it will trigger some people but any resulting outrage will increase the reach of the story.

Gordon Southwell ● 1228d

Anyone who is capable of and does this to a defenceless & trusting dog is only a hair's breadth away from doing similar to a human.

Rosco White ● 1227d

Agree with you all.Upset me as a dog owner ,myself.Hopefully it will provoke enough outrage for the perpetrator to be turned in

Peter Yale ● 1227d

Was talking to someone yesterday evening who has a bit more insight into dog welfare issues. She pointed out the the English Bull terrier is often used in illegal dog fights and these do take place in this area.There are no visible wounds on Sky's body but they may be obscured by the mud. The police are unlikely to devote resources to case of a dog, which may already have been dead, being disposed of in an improper manner but if she was killed in a fight then that would be a different matter.The willingness of the RSPCA to release these photos may well be an indication that they are trying to collect evidence to identify the people involved in dog fighting in  the area. Catching them must outweigh the possibility of offending a few people with delicate sensibilities.

Mark Evans ● 1227d

Nice thought but I don't think the RSPCA are that clever. I think it's just a crass, inconsiderate piece of journalism.

Simon Wycombe ● 1226d

The whole thing is appalling Firstly the photo - proper upsetting. My instant reaction same as thread starter and I don’t agree with use of photo.Would it be okay to use the image of a person this way? No.I do get the argument about stirring up emotions though.The incident is totally sickening. The person(s) responsible for this are a stain on society and are factually proven to be most likely to inflict harm on a person in next level progression. The other angle that I find horrendous is this apparently “much loved family pet” has been sold by her previous family in Wales. I’m sorry but if you are a true dog owner who loves your K9 part of the family you do not sell them to some random from Southall. That part stinks.What a sad snapshot of the state of our nation

Colin Goodman ● 1225d

Greenford, Northolt, Yeading, Hayes and The West Drayton and Harefield areas have a long history of dog fighting and Bantam Fighting as well as breeding of dangerous dogs. Used to be a very regular item in the local papers particularly in the 1980s.It's seldom reported now although a lot of operations were carried out to stop the clandestine events taking place.  Drug protection seems to have moved in since and those who 'need' protection from threats or being too close to dangerous connections.But publishing the picture is something that editors seldom did until after a court case was concluded.  But for me this is yet another aspect of why good local newspapers and reporting are so seriously missed and damaging to a civil and stable society.

Raymond Havelock ● 1223d

There is no court case as yet and so rules about sub judice do not apply. The RSPCA are clearly trying to gather evidence to present to the police about dog fighting in the local area. Quite what justifies Simon Wycombe's claim that the people working for this organisation are not that bright escapes me.Unfortunately instances of disposing of a dead pet has become much more prevalent since the cost of living crisis began and the RSPCA is unlikely to consider that this is a problem that they need to deal with. Dog fighting on the other hand is in their ambit and, if the police are not giving it priority, then they have to get people's attention.I'm struggling to understand the squeamishness of people about the release of this image. Watch day time TV and you will see far worse images on adverts raising funds for animal charities. We do have guidelines in this country about the publication of pictures dead human victims although we are quite unusual in this as you would see from news coverage abroad. Pictures of dead animals in news coverage in the UK is fairly commonplace.Editorially the decision would be is it appropriate to support the RSPCA's strategy to try and catch the people responsible for Sky's death or do the delicate feelings of some readers rule this out. My view absolutely is that the right call was made.

Tricia Arbuthnot ● 1223d

The RSPCA has attracted some criticism for issues such as its position on badger culling and legal cases it has pursued against hunts. This has made it a bete noire of the Daily Mail and, rather like with the RNLI, it rarely misses the opportunity to publish a negative story about this charity. Inevitably this does shape certain sections of public opinion which perhaps is behind some of the pearl clutching about the release of this image.

Gordon Southwell ● 1223d

I think it's more a matter of reporting. It's simply not good enough to rewrite a press release on a news story.From a local perspective it needs to go further, and add to the vagaries of press releases - which are seldom balanced, factually correct or impartial.Even basic stories are published incorrect.  One I fell for was the Yellow Box issue.In actual fact the detail was incorrect as was the source.  As it turns out the actual Yellow Box is far more simple and straightforward than implied. But in fairness the source material was incorrect and vague and questions should have been asked before publishing.  In this case probably a spike as it was not controversial at all.

Raymond Havelock ● 1222d

Are you now seriously suggesting the RSPCA made up this story?

Tricia Arbuthnot ● 1222d

"Are you now seriously suggesting the RSPCA made up this story?"Where, and HOW on earth do you remotely make such a connection from Mr Havelock's posting?

Rosco White ● 1222d

Could it be the bit where he says, "the vagaries of press releases - which are seldom balanced, factually correct or impartial"?

Gordon Southwell ● 1222d

Oh purleeeeeze.....  😂

Rosco White ● 1222d

Perhaps it would be best left to Raymond to clarify exactly what he meant, but at the very least he clearly doesn't believe that the RSPCA is an authoritative source. I am struggling to understand quite why he has this opinion particularly as in this case the facts appear to be clear cut. As I said earlier, some unpopular policy stances by the RSPCA have generated  negative press for them in the Daily Mail which has encouraged some to never give them the benefit of the doubt. My own experiences of them confirm what I believe is the view of most people in this country, that they are a an invaluable national institution that deserves our support and confidence.

Gordon Southwell ● 1221d

Not made up. But bereft of key facts and often slanted by the organisation or it's PR representatives.Nothing is ever as it seems and a proper journalists job is to check that source wherever it comes from. Be it a corporate, govt or charity.Unfortunately, more one or two newspapers last and right , never let the facts get in the way of a good story and most of the big names in British Journalism are pretty deft at that.

Raymond Havelock ● 1221d

Have to confess to finding this a profoundly odd perspective. If any facts were left out of the information released by the RSPCA then surely this would have been as a result of legal concerns. If, as has been very credibly speculated, they believe there is a connection with a dog fighting ring, they couldn't possibly release that information without firm evidence, which is what the sharing of this story may well be seeking to obtain. What possible other motivation could they have had for suppressing information or even making up aspects of this story? It seems perfectly reasonable to me to accept the facts as they present them. I think you may have gone down a particularly dark rabbit hole if you have emerged unable to trust the RSPCA.

Gordon Southwell ● 1221d

Tricia . Subtle difference between not very bright and not that clever.Where I was coming from was I wouldn't expect the RSPCA to be ''business minded'' enough to send a photo of a dead dog to gain reactions so shocking that it would make us sit up and take notice. The story without a photo should be enough for that.Why not show a photo of a recently killed human on a motorbike to show people how dangerous riding a motorbike can be? And many other analogies.

Simon Wycombe ● 1221d

The answer to your question is that current UK regulation and practice mean that photos of human fatalities are generally not shown on TV or other media. This has been pointed out to you previously. It is not the case in other countries.You seem to have a very misconceived and patronising view of the way a large charity like the RSPCA would operate. Its media team would be highly professional and most will have had previous experience in the public or private sector. Although, the pay would be less than an equivalent role in another organisation, the demand for the jobs would be high because applicants would tend to share the charity's aims. Therefore the RSPCA would have a wide range of high quality candidates to choose from none of whom you would be able to describe either as not very bright and not that clever.

Tricia Arbuthnot ● 1220d

You do seem rather tetchy about it but have not answered my main qtn which was isn't it  a tad, little, tiny, weeny bit insensitive to post such a photo? Apologies for not realising about human photo's but I was somewhat exaggerating to prove the point. Talking of patronising....!

Simon Wycombe ● 1220d

As before, I did answer this question earlier, you just haven't bothered to read it. If I am being tetchy it is because you are clearly basing your opinions on your belief that the media department of a large charity like the RSPCA would be staffed by volunteers thereby questioning its professionalism. You may disagree with their methods, and that is a view you are entitled to, but not the notion that they are 'not that clever'. I'm sure they will regret that you are upset by the photo but their priority will be to increase the chances that people who are cruel to animals are brought to justice.

Tricia Arbuthnot ● 1220d

I hope that you're right and that it will bear fruit.

Simon Wycombe ● 1217d

There are several London funded Wildlife charities and organisations that will text to animal rescuers NOT under any circumstances take a wild animal or endangered one to the RSPCA as they will simply euthanise the creature irrespective of the depth of it's ailment or injuries.That really shocked me but delving further discovered a huge degree of disparity between this charity and other animal welfare organisations - charity, funded or volunteer.Quite how or why I cannot fathom.

Raymond Havelock ● 1216d

Are you trying to wind Tricia up even more?

Simon Wycombe ● 1215d

Not at all.As I mentioned before, All is never as it seems or appears.The practice of Never letting the facts get in the way of a good story is now very much part of PR.  Where some would say failed journalists end up and sell out for the £££s that are denied to those many good, diligent journalists.Far too much of what is in Newspapers, on the BBC and TV is drip fed by PR companies. Some better than others.  Plenty of the politics is spoon fed in rotation.It's quick cheap, easy and lazy for news organisations to fill the gaps.One has to ask more, listen more and question more and not just sit back and be spoon fed.It's not just the RSPCA. It's more about how PR works and who is calling the shots.

Raymond Havelock ● 1215d

I agree I wasn't knocking the RSPCA specifically, they just happened to be the ones who sent in the photo. Allegedly!

Simon Wycombe ● 1215d

We really are getting into tinfoil hat territory if we start believing that the RSPCA has some sort of hidden agenda. It is easy to find fault with larger organisations who often have to make difficult choices when faced with complex dilemmas but if you have found yourself believing they are not, overall, a force for good, then you have lost the plot. There are two rational explanations for their actions here — they want to catch the individual who callously dumped Sky's body or, as some have speculated, they believe she was disposed of by someone connected with a dog fighting ring and they want to collect evidence. How people have reached the conclusion that it is neither of these things and is rather something malign that may require further investigation is beyond me.

Alison Howard ● 1215d

It is clearly nothing sinister on RSPCA's behalf.My initial line and still is the case, is that I find it a sick bit of journalism. I have nothing but respect for the RSPCA and their like.

Simon Wycombe ● 1212d

I'm confused now. It was the RSPCA that released these photos. How do you get to the point where you absolve them but describe the people helping them make their point as 'sick'? For me the use is definitely fully justified in this context particularly as the image does not constitute what normally would be considered graphic. If the intention was to stir debate it certainly has succeeded which suggests the RSPCA press people are cleverer than you think.

Mark Evans ● 1212d