Fire at Manchester Dogs Home - Over 50 dogs dead

[vegster]

I'm not more concerned with dogs than people but as an animal lover I'm equally concerned and I see nothing wrong with that. Animals rarely have the capacity to hurt or harm others, which is more than can be said for some humans.

Skip on to post #39 on here and rethink.

 

[Zebedee]

Skip on to post #39 on here and rethink.

I think you know what I meant.

 

[ferring seagull]

Why? The issue is more about the intent behind the action. Raising animals for meat is not murder; hunting them for food is not murder. Deliberately setting fire to a locked shed with them in is murder whether they are children, dogs, sheep or foxes.

Absolutely correct, raising animals for food for human consumption resulting in their humane slaughter is one thing but as you say .......
Hopefully the bar steward responsible will suffer hell for this particular atrocity and I, for one, certainly hope so.

 

[edna krabappel]

Why? The issue is more about the intent behind the action. Raising animals for meat is not murder; hunting them for food is not murder. Deliberately setting fire to a locked shed with them in is murder whether they are children, dogs, sheep or foxes.

Ridiculous though it may seem, I suspect the perpetrator will turn out to be some clueless little no-good who actually just didn't expect anything to go as far as it did.

To you or I as adults, we might think "alright, what if this little fire DOES get out of control?". To some ill-educated, troublesome 14 year old (speculating of course, but it's possible, isn't it?), it might have been just his idea of a bit of a stunt, perhaps to annoy someone or get back at them, with no real consideration that it might go massively out of control.

I'm not defending it, and in fact the law with regard to arson allows for recklessness as well as pure intent, which means a greater likelihood of a court proving the necessary mens rea. But kids, no matter how much they know right from wrong, simply don't always think things through the same as the rest of us do (that's why 17-21 year olds are significantly more prone to killing themselves by driving like idiots, for example. It actually never occurs to them that they might get it wrong and crash).

Like I said, at the end of the day what's happened is horrendous, it really is. And the law probably will penalise any conviction more heavily than you might expect- someone recently got a stiffer punishment for torturing a squirrel than a driver did for causing the death of a cyclist by careless driving. My instinct, however, says is that this is probably a monumentally stupid and thoughtless act, rather than an out-and-out, purposely evil one.

One other thing to consider- it's not uncommon for people who start fires deliberately to have mental health issues. I remember dealing with someone who used to continually start little fires, usually in rubbish bins, and often a string of them in the same night. He used to be fascinated by the fire brigade turning up, by all the drama, and was quite regularly found nearby when they happened. Doesn't mean he wouldn't be arrested or charged, but he had an absolute fixation with fire that was genuinely dangerous. He never seemed to have any concept of what could happen as a result of his actions. I suppose it's possible that this is the case in Manchester.

Go on, shoot me down...

 

[vegster]

Ridiculous though it may seem, I suspect the perpetrator will turn out to be some clueless little no-good who actually just didn't expect anything to go as far as it did.

To you or I as adults, we might think "alright, what if this little fire DOES get out of control?". To some ill-educated, troublesome 14 year old (speculating of course, but it's possible, isn't it?), it might have been just his idea of a bit of a stunt, perhaps to annoy someone or get back at them, with no real consideration that it might go massively out of control.

I'm not defending it, and in fact the law with regard to arson allows for recklessness as well as pure intent, which means a greater likelihood of a court proving the necessary mens rea. But kids, no matter how much they know right from wrong, simply don't always think things through the same as the rest of us do (that's why 17-21 year olds are significantly more prone to killing themselves by driving like idiots, for example. It actually never occurs to them that they might get it wrong and crash).

Like I said, at the end of the day what's happened is horrendous, it really is. And the law probably will penalise any conviction more heavily than you might expect- someone recently got a stiffer punishment for torturing a squirrel than a driver did for causing the death of a cyclist by careless driving. My instinct, however, says is that this is probably a monumentally stupid and thoughtless act, rather than an out-and-out, purposely evil one.

One other thing to consider- it's not uncommon for people who start fires deliberately to have mental health issues. I remember dealing with someone who used to continually start little fires, usually in rubbish bins, and often a string of them in the same night. He used to be fascinated by the fire brigade turning up, by all the drama, and was quite regularly found nearby when they happened. Doesn't mean he wouldn't be arrested or charged, but he had an absolute fixation with fire that was genuinely dangerous. He never seemed to have any concept of what could happen as a result of his actions. I suppose it's possible that this is the case in Manchester.

Go on, shoot me down...

Valid points Edna.

 

[BN9 BHA]

Ridiculous though it may seem, I suspect the perpetrator will turn out to be some clueless little no-good who actually just didn't expect anything to go as far as it did.

To you or I as adults, we might think "alright, what if this little fire DOES get out of control?". To some ill-educated, troublesome 14 year old (speculating of course, but it's possible, isn't it?), it might have been just his idea of a bit of a stunt, perhaps to annoy someone or get back at them, with no real consideration that it might go massively out of control.

I'm not defending it, and in fact the law with regard to arson allows for recklessness as well as pure intent, which means a greater likelihood of a court proving the necessary mens rea. But kids, no matter how much they know right from wrong, simply don't always think things through the same as the rest of us do (that's why 17-21 year olds are significantly more prone to killing themselves by driving like idiots, for example. It actually never occurs to them that they might get it wrong and crash).

Like I said, at the end of the day what's happened is horrendous, it really is. And the law probably will penalise any conviction more heavily than you might expect- someone recently got a stiffer punishment for torturing a squirrel than a driver did for causing the death of a cyclist by careless driving. My instinct, however, says is that this is probably a monumentally stupid and thoughtless act, rather than an out-and-out, purposely evil one.

One other thing to consider- it's not uncommon for people who start fires deliberately to have mental health issues. I remember dealing with someone who used to continually start little fires, usually in rubbish bins, and often a string of them in the same night. He used to be fascinated by the fire brigade turning up, by all the drama, and was quite regularly found nearby when they happened. Doesn't mean he wouldn't be arrested or charged, but he had an absolute fixation with fire that was genuinely dangerous. He never seemed to have any concept of what could happen as a result of his actions. I suppose it's possible that this is the case in Manchester.

Go on, shoot me down...

No shooting down needed Edna, all fair comments.

 

[El Presidente]

The kid who did this is a stupid scrote, but what about the ********s who abandoned their dogs in the first place? There are some people who have to give up their pets due to illness or old age, but the vast majority are there because the owners can't be bothered to walk them, or lose interest after they have a dump on the carpet.

 

[edna krabappel]

No shooting down needed Edna, all fair comments.

Cheers. What's happened is awful. But I'm not a fan of witch-hunts, particularly when the full facts have yet to emerge.

 

[wellquickwoody]

Raised nearly a million now....bloody superb and that tells you all you need to know about what the public think

Soft underbelly, but without a stomach for a culture changing battle? Fluffy, friendly creatures higher up the agenda than FGM?

 

[BN9 BHA]

Cheers. What's happened is awful. But I'm not a fan of witch-hunts, particularly when the full facts have yet to emerge.

Exactly.

Yes it's terrible what has happened, it's bad enough when the dogs get abandoned or given up by their owners anyway, but to think of them dying this way is just horrible.

 

[El Presidente]

Soft underbelly, but without a stomach for a culture changing battle? Fluffy, friendly creatures higher up the agenda than FGM?

Most of the dogs there are staffies, rotties, greyhounds or bulldogs. Not sure how many tick the fluffy and friendly box.

 

[gregbrighton]

I think there needs to be more more education on keeping pets so fewer end up on the streets and shelters. Perhaps licensing needs to be brought in for dangerous breeds.

 

[nwgull]

So someone makes an ill-judged quip and you threaten to set your (I assume large) dogs on him. Sorry, who's the pathetic prick again?

I thought something similar. If the threat to set dogs on someone for making a questionable taste joke was serious, then it would suggest that they're not responsible enough to be dog owners.

 

[wellquickwoody]

Most of the dogs there are staffies, rotties, greyhounds or bulldogs. Not sure how many tick the fluffy and friendly box.

Being oop north I would have expected whippets, although Canal Street would be Bijon Frisse of course.......