Shopping Cart
Your Cart is Empty
There was an error with PayPalClick here to try again
CelebrateThank you for your business!You should be receiving an order confirmation from Paypal shortly.Exit Shopping Cart

Apricot and Amberleigh Emusibles

Adventures in Recording.

News, Views and Mewsings

News, Views and Mewsings

Trial by Jury or Summary Sentencing?

Posted by apricotandamberleighemusibles on June 5, 2012 at 5:50 AM Comments comments (2)

I was saddened to read about yet another child being savaged by a "dangerous dog" today. The poor child will probably bear the scars for life and may well lose his eyesight as a result, but I find myself asking more and more questions about this.

Inevitably when a dog attacks it is immediately put down. No questions are asked as to probable cause and no defence is offered. The dog attacked, so it is destroyed. When the dog is a so-called "dangerous breed" there is usually an outcry to "ban dangerous dogs". Quite apart from the fact that if a HUMAN attacks and seriously injures a toddler it is offered a fair trial and if convicted will only serve a few years, we are not encouraged to address the real problems. It seems we expect higher standards of behaviour and morality from companion animals than we do from adult human beings.

Here it seems to me that there were two sets of adult humans at fault:

Firstly, the dog owners would  seem to be at fault for allowing their dog free and unsupervised access to a garden that was not secure against a child invading. Had this been an entirely secure garden, or a responsible adult had been with the dog we would not be reading about any horror attack, the child would not be critically ill in hospital and the dog would still be happy in its garden! The tragic result of leaving this pet alone may well have been the dog "protecting its pack" from an intruder. However sweet a two year old boy might seem to us,  his extreme noise, erratic behaviour and stumbling gait will be intimidating to any animal. (Ever seen cats and kittens scurry away from kids?)

Secondly, and to me far more serious, the two year old was left unsupervised by his parents in an insecure garden. He found his way, bless his heart, into the "lion's den". He undoubtedly squealed with pleasure or with fear, either of which which would infuriate the dog, and he suffered appalling injuries as a result.

We have a situation yet again where the child has an undoubted life sentence, the dog has a death sentence, the adults are traumatised and the public opinion machine is blaming the dog breed YET AGAIN.  No trial, no jury, no common sense. The only thing that is sure is that this WILL happen again and again. Children will be attacked by someone else's loving family pet - or even by predatory adult humans - just as long as there are parents leaving toddlers unsupervised in  gardens!

Buzzards and Pheasants....A Victimless Crime

Posted by apricotandamberleighemusibles on May 31, 2012 at 5:55 AM Comments comments (1)

You need Adobe Flash Player to view this content.

Have you seen this stunning video before? Aren't birds of prey amazing in flight? I love all birds of prey, so I am so pleased to hear about the U-Turn on buzzards! (Not that any buzzards have done a U-turn although I am sure they probably could). No, the British government has! Hooray! (Or should it be Hurrah!?!) The law was quite obviously a token measure to please a few landowners.
Buzzards never were villains - pheasants never were victims. Predation is simply nature trying to balance itself and the RSPB was so right to oppose such an incredibly self serving law. In a world with an astronomical (and largely hungry) human population it is morally indefensible in my view to describe any living creature as "vermin" because it does not serve a commercial interest. The numbers make a nonsense of it....