Save Ruby (Good news)

tk123

Has anybody been following the Save Ruby page on FB? Delighted to hear the dog is being released tomorrow!! Will the warden be reprimanded though I wonder - the dog would be dead if the owners had of taken his advise and had the dog PTS instead of fighting for her?

http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/dublin-family-were-begging-council-4742881

Posy

I was following this.

That's great news.

I don't see why the dog warden should be reprimanded. He done his job and gave Rubys owner an option - to put the dog to sleep as he felt she was dangerous or let a judge decide fairly. An article in The Mirror mentioned that the judge said the CCTV footage of the dog was terrifying and the young girl in the video was petrified, so I can understand completely why the dog warden felt the need to bring the issue to court.

Don't get me wrong, the dog seems lovely and the owners but the dog warden can only assess the situation by what he saw when he arrived.

tk123

Ridgerun wrote: »

I don't see why the dog warden should be reprimanded. He done his job and gave Rubys owner an option - to put the dog to sleep as he felt she was dangerous or let a judge decide fairly.

From what I understood the warden told them the dog would be put down either way? Would it have even gone that far if it was a different breed of dog I wonder?

Also do you have a link to the article? The only one I saw was the first one - http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/dublin-family-were-begging-council-4742881

(I've actually unliked the page on FB as it was a bit spammy )

It was written somewhere on the page, I think in the description that the dog warden told her to sign Ruby over to be pts or go to court to let a judge decide. Someone just posted a photo of the article on the page but I cant post images or links because im a new user Ive pm'd you the link

Ashbx

Ridgerun wrote: »

I don't see why the dog warden should be reprimanded. He done his job and gave Rubys owner an option - to put the dog to sleep as he felt she was dangerous or let a judge decide fairly. An article in The Mirror mentioned that the judge said the CCTV footage of the dog was terrifying and the young girl in the video was petrified, so I can understand completely why the dog warden felt the need to bring the issue to court.

Don't get me wrong, the dog seems lovely and the owners but the dog warden can only assess the situation by what he saw when he arrived.

Especially if the little girl ran onto the road because of the dog!

tk123

Ashbx wrote: »

Especially if the little girl ran onto the road because of the dog!

In fairness she could have done the same thing if the dog was on lead - I've had people and kids run across the road on more than one occasion when I'm passing - even when I just had the one dog.

I just think the whole thing was blown out of proportion because it was a staff

There is a video up of the cctv footage on the Save Ruby page on facebook. If you click on "Posts To page" a man named john Wayne uploaded it. At least people can make their own minds about the situation from that. I think the video of the girl being dragged out onto the road is underneath.

Cuddlesworth

Ridgerun wrote: »

There is a video up of the cctv footage on the Save Ruby page on facebook. If you click on "Posts To page" a man named john Wayne uploaded it. At least people can make their own minds about the situation from that. I think the video of the girl being dragged out onto the road is underneath.

The videos show a pretty savage dog attack by the pit and the pug. But the courts report that neither of the two other dogs had any visible damage done to them. I think that's the important point here, if the dog was going to do harm to the other dogs, he would have done it.

Cuddlesworth

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

The videos show a pretty savage dog attack by the pit and the pug. But the courts report that neither of the two other dogs had any visible damage done to them. I think that's the important point here, if the dog was going to do harm to the other dogs, he would have done it.

I think the severity of the attack was played down a lot by Rubys owner but also hyped up by her neighbour. After seeing the cctv footage I can understand the dog wardens point of view. I see why he would want the owner to have some sort of responsibility by bringing the issue to court. I think the judge made the right decision by only issuing fines as no other dog was harmed and accidents happen.

I also am surprised rubys owner is asking for donations towards fines, shouldn't she be taking full responsibility for the accident? Either way I think its been blown out of proportion by both parties and turned into a bit of a bullying and attention seeking campaign on the facebook page.

Also the CCTV footage shows the seperate incidents happened almost two hours apart...I can see how the dog was causing a somewhat dangerous disturbance to other people.

tk123

Ridgerun wrote: »

I also am surprised rubys owner is asking for donations towards fines, shouldn't she be taking full responsibility for the accident? Either way I think its been blown out of proportion by both parties and turned into a bit of a bullying and attention seeking campaign on the facebook page.

+1

Very early on they gave details on where how to donate after people had been asking... Now if my dogs (god forbid) got out and I was fined - I wouldn't be expecting or accepting donations for people - when it was my mistake!??!!? Back to unliking the page after liking again to see the vids to avoid spam :P

tk123

tk123 wrote: »

+1

Very early on they gave details on where how to donate after people had been asking... Now if my dogs (god forbid) got out and I was fined - I wouldn't be expecting or accepting donations for people - when it was my mistake!??!!? Back to unliking the page after liking again to see the vids to avoid spam :P

Exactly! I stopped following the page after I saw the request for donations It became less about the dog and more about hype in the end unfortunately.