There is a case reported in the Daily Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9238291/Man-who-beat-dog-with-plank-spared-jail.html

This poor dog was a rescue dog, and is one of two owned by this ****** and his girlfriend. Lee Dyer, of ***** New Addington was not banned from keeping animals amazingly. The RSPCA seized the dog as evidence was provided (filmed) by a neighbour. The staggering part about it is that there is another staff in the home which the RSPCA have allowed to remain there as there was no evidence (!) of cruelty to that particular dog.  Is it not in their power to remove an animal if it is considered to be in danger? I certainly would have said that the poor remaining dog was definitely in danger from this 'creature', who boasted about beating his dog on facebook.

I am horrified, and feel sick.  And the do gooders wonder why people take the law into their own hands. 

Lee Dyer will get his come uppance.

ChinaBlue I read the article, I didn't want to look at the video though, but why would you post this mans address?

I include his address so that people who may live locally can be aware of it, and hopefully keep an eye on the poor dog that has been left in great danger (IMO). 

Why shouldn't people know where he lives? It is a matter of public record anyway.  I just don't see why we believe that we should *hide* and protect people that carry out horrible crimes, no, let their community know *what* it is they are living with.  They are more likely to respond and be shamed by the people closest to them knowing what they have done than by a fine and community service IMO.  Hopefully when it is reported in our local paper it will appear exactly as I have written it, that is usually their reporting protocol.

I really don't know what to say, that man is seriously disturbed, he's so methodical about it. How do you know there's another dog ? I can't see any mention of it in the article.
If there is another dog still in the house, then whoever decided it should stay is a fool, couldn't give a monkey's what the excuse would be, violence like that doesn't just come out of the blue, i'd bet my life it wouldn't have been the first time he's abused that dog, or the other one.

I don't know him but have heard his name and He lives not too far away! Will ask my daughters if they know him. What a complete and utter scumbag....he should have had the other dog taken away, the only reason there is no 'evidence' against him abusing the other dog, is that he hasn't been caught!

>he should have had the other dog taken away,

Exactly!  What bozo would leave ANY dog behind?  The way that he just carried on, and on, and on, was frightening.  This is most definitely not something that he has done to just the one dog.  He was enjoying it far too much.

I can't believe they left the other dog there!! :-(

The rescue that rehomed the dog to him have of course been involved with the case.  I cannot say more. Possibly the info comes the adoption details of the dog that was abused (rescue). It is normal procedure when vetting for other animals in the home to be divulged and to meet any new dog. The other dog 'belongs' to the girlfriend allegedly.

The dog was not from our centre, but of course they share information. You feel so bad when any homing goes wrong, but this..........

Killickchick - this is exactly why I put his location here. Let's keep some eyes on this scum if we can, because I guarantee the RSPCA won't. Tell your friends what he's done too. Tell all the dog community in the area if you get a chance! Good on the neighbour and I hope he keeps a good lookout, though I doubt he will ever do it where it can be seen again.

You have to wonder why, with such sytematic deliberate abuse, that a ban on keeping animals wasn't imposed. Of course he could go out tomorrow and buy a puppy...........or he might already have done. Sickening thought.  He certainly won't get another rescue dog now, but nothing to stop him buying a pup.

That video made my blood boil, I could feel the anger towards that piece of scum building in my stomach it made me feel sick. I just hope the saying 'what goes around, come around' is true and I hope he gets a beaten and see how it feels.

Even if the other dog belongs to his girlfriend, it should have still been taken away as it is still at risk while he is in the same house, if this were a child, both would have been taken away. If I were his girlfriend I would no longer be. Very very sad there are people in the world like this. :( :( :(

> You have to wonder why, with such sytematic deliberate abuse, that a ban on keeping animals wasn't imposed.

I expect it was as a result of what was said and heard in court rather than hearsay posted on the internet. 
We don't need kangaroo courts in this country. I am very pleased to see Admin have removed the details.

Are people applying for adoption of animals made aware that their personal details are passed on in this way?  It is not even the mans personal details but his girlfriends by your account.  Are they not protected by the Data Protection Act?

I don't know why you think you can "guarantee" the RSPCA will not be observing other than your blatant prejudice.  They brought the case in the first place didn't they? 
And according to you they had no evidence to indicate another animal was being abused and, indeed, only your word that there is another animal. 

Don't think I could video this horrific abuse, I'd be knocking on the door & challenging, although I realise the neighbour has to live next door to this animal!! Thank goodness the dog is no longer in his possession...

Poor, poor dog!!

Words fail me, that poor poor dog. Such small fines for such awful abuse.

Stooge, I said possibly that is how the information about the other dog came out, I cannot confirm or deny that, I was postulating how it may have done, so there is no need for you to get on your high horse about data protection and animal adoption!  How I know about it I haven't said and don't intend to. The matter of the street (not the house number) of where he lives is a matter of public record, and will appear in the local paper too, so I shouldn't get too excited about it.

You have to wonder why, with such sytematic deliberate abuse, that a ban on keeping animals wasn't imposed

I expect it was as a result of what was said and heard in court rather than hearsay posted on the internet
It is not hearsay, the link will take you to the report in a national newspaper together with a video of him abusing the dog.     You consider a report of a court hearing and video evidence 'hearsay' ?  I cannot see that there is anything he could say that could possibly mitigate his filmed (not hearsay) actions, but you strangely enough, can. 

I go by direct experience of the RSPCA, that they will not monitor this person. That is why I have a prejudice as you call it, one born of experience. I may be wrong, but I doubt it, but that is another issue. I would rather trust local dog people to keep their eyes open and if necessary bring it to the attention of the RSPCA which is what happened initially.

Personally I am disappointed that admin removed the address, no doubt after you brought it to their attention Stooge. This was successfully alerting dog people in the local area to keep an eye out for the wellbeing of the remaining animal, or indeed any unfortunate new puppy he may have bought. So nice job. You are right, you only have my word that there is another dog in the home. As Ripley said - believe it or not. But it's true.

>Killickchick - this is exactly why I put his location here. Let's keep some eyes on this scum if we can, because I guarantee the RSPCA won't. Tell your friends what he's done too. Tell all the dog community in the area if you get a chance!

I do not on any level condone his actions, but neither could I support a 'hate' campaign against another human - however much I abhor his crime. 

> Personally I am disappointed that admin removed the address, no doubt after you brought it to their attention Stooge

Others may have done, but I asked admin to review your post and consider whether it's appropriate for this forum to be party to a topic designed to incite.  There have been recent cases where a mob, formed by internet chat, have descended upon individuals either cleared of wrongdoing OR who have already been prosecuted.  Even when we 'think' there has been a miscarriage of justice I do not believe it is for us to take it upon ourselves to target such people.  People such as this have done little to earn our sympathy or respect but it would be grossly irresponsible to encourage, in any way, direct action which might result in injury to innocent parties.  Neighbours and children are particularly vulnerable in these scenarios.

If you are local to this story then I'm sure you'll get a little more information than the rest of us and, as locals, you may have options unavailable to us.  If you have knowledge that others do not then please consider other legitimate avenues to pursue your complaints or concerns.

>I said possibly that is how the information about the other dog came out, I cannot confirm or deny that

No, but you did say information is shared and that is what I am querying.  I do think even speculating about the girlfriend and her dog is wrong if you do not know that there is any connection at all and we definately know no criminal proceedings involved either.

> I cannot see that there is anything he could say that could possibly mitigate his filmed (not hearsay) actions, but you strangely enough, can.

I think you mean the court did strangely enough.  The newspaper report is just a report not the complete hearing.

> I go by direct experience of the RSPCA, that they will not monitor this person.

I can't see how you can possibly know what they are doing, which by it's very nature may be discrete, unless it leads to proceedings.

> no doubt after you brought it to their attention Stooge.

I can assure you I did not, I am sure they needed no one to point out the error of using the forum to publish such details but I note that, once again, you need no evidence to hold no doubt.

It is in the local paper or at least at the moment on the website together with his and his girlfriends address ( who may have nothing to do with this unfortunately being the address the incident happened at ) He is stated as living elsewhere
I do hope the other dog is kept safe :( as to if those around can help I do hope so but taking care for their own safety.

No, but you did say information is shared and that is what I am querying.  I do think even speculating about the girlfriend and her dog is wrong if you do not know that there is any connection at all and we definately know no criminal proceedings involved either.
Some rescues will certainly share information when a person has been convicted of animal cruelty, to try and prevent a person convicted of animal cruelty going to another unsuspecting rescue and getting another animal to abuse.

> no doubt after you brought it to their attention Stooge.
I apologise Stooge, it was dogs a babe.

dogs a babe
It was not a hate campaign. I really don't accept that anyone here would be involved in a 'hate' campaign. It was a keep an eye on this scum campaign. Neither was it encouraging direct action for heavens sake. It was accomplishing getting the local dog community aware of this, and keeping an eye out for the dog that remains and any new dog or puppy he will may very likely buy. (Staff breeders - remember the name).  If I intended to start an internet chat mob designed to descend upon him I certainly wouldn't have chosen CD! I think that your idea of the intent of the post was overly dramatic.

You said: If you are local to this story then I'm sure you'll get a little more information than the rest of us and, as locals, you may have options unavailable to us.
That was the point, some of the rest of you are people who are locals, who are responsible dog people who will follow legitimate avenues IF they were to note potential problems with this individual, knowing where he is and keeping an eye on him. He can sleep easier in his bed, knowing less dog people will be looking over his shoulder now. Thanks.

> Some rescues will certainly share information when a person has been convicted of animal cruelty, to try and prevent a person convicted of animal cruelty going to another unsuspecting rescue and getting another animal to abuse.

I know why they might do it but have they informed the adoptees to avoid breaking the Data Protection Act?

> I really don't accept that anyone here would be involved in a 'hate' campaign.

Do you know how many people read Champdogs?  Only a fraction of them actually post and even with some you do I am not sure how you can conclude how they might act.  We also have a link to Facebook, Twitter etc so even more scope for any incitement to be rapidly spread so, no, I don't think Dogsababe has over dramatised at all.  How do you think these things start?

> He can sleep easier in his bed, knowing less dog people will be looking over his shoulder now. Thanks.

You claimed your reasons were for protecting other dogs so not sure what you mean by this comment.

He can sleep easier in his bed, knowing less dog people will be looking over his shoulder now. Thanks
You claimed your reasons were for protecting other dogs so not sure what you mean by this comment
Pointing out that it is doing this individual a favour by making it easier for him to continue to behave like this, by removing the opportunity for more people to be aware of and watch his activities, and lessening the chances of protecting the dogs. Re facebook and twitter, no I didn't think about those, since I use neither. However, as I said, this is out there anyway - with the address information I stated, and the moron concerned was boasting about it on facebook - that might have been asking for trouble!

For those who thought there may not be another dog, this is from the local paper's report, who as furriefriends pointed out carried exactly the same address details as I posted (including his registered address in Streatham) but he lives for the most part with his girlfriend at the address stated, so it was hardly a secret LOL - and this is on the internet already. It also appears he does own the other dog and it's not his girlfriend's as he previously led people to believe.

Dyer, who also has a two-year-old dog called Angel, was due to stand trial for two counts of failing to ensure the welfare of an animal and causing unnecessary suffering to an animal, but changed his plea to guilty. 

Some rescues will certainly share information when a person has been convicted of animal cruelty, to try and prevent a person convicted of animal cruelty going to another unsuspecting rescue and getting another animal to abuse.

I know why they might do it but have they informed the adoptees to avoid breaking the Data Protection Act?
Since there is an allowance to share information on the basis of prevention or detection of a crime maybe that is covered. Maybe if it is just word of mouth it doesn't apply. Since it is only going to happen when someone is convicted of animal cruelty, I don't think it's the greatest concern to most adopters, who I would like to think will not abuse the animal they adopt.

> Re facebook and twitter, no I didn't think about those, since I use neither.

Maybe you don't but clearly many do and what about the hundreds or maybe thousands that read Champdogs which I pointed out first.

> Maybe if it is just word of mouth it doesn't apply.

I'm certain it does.  As far as I am aware the only legitimate reasons for sharing information covered by the Data Protection Act, other than to the police, is where the safety of children is concerned in which circumstance professionals may do so but they will all have received training and the parties involved must be told information is being passed on if at all safe to do so.

>Since there is an allowance to share information on the basis of prevention or detection of a crime maybe that is covered.

The people to tell are the police.

> I don't think it's the greatest concern to most adopters, who I would like to think will not abuse the animal they adopt.

The more innocent they are the greater they may be concerned that individuals, without any reason or training, are making their own minds up about what personal information to pass on to others.  Everyone has a right to have their personal information kept safe.

It's funny isn't it, I purposely did not watch the video and read the thread first and of course much of what Stooge says is correct that naming and shaming can and does cause incitement, this is almost a replica of what happened some months ago and I know where I stood then firmly in the camp of 'I didn't care' what happened to the man as I was so angry.

Stooge/dogs a babe you are right in what you say, but unfortunately I have now watched the video watching that man punching and kicking and hitting with a plank a defenseless animal and it has just turned common sense and what is right and wrong on it's head, that is what happens emotions get in the way, it's why I would make a terrible policewoman. :-)

I want the man stopped, I don't want him near another animal again in his life! And that is what ChinaBlue is trying to do.

He should have got jail time for what he did, I don't know how he got off and as ChinaBlue thinks, if another dog is in the same home how could anyone leave a dog anywhere near him and wouldn't any decent person worry about another dog?

The video is out there the name and area is out there, I doubt that ChinaBlue's references have caused anymore possible incitement to the case than may already be there tbh, it is all public knowledge anyway. The whole thing just upsets me and makes me feel sick.

Trouble is what can other dog owners do? Even with the best intentions, I doubt he would beat the second dog in public (if he does) bullies and (dog trainers) like this do it in their home and garden, there is only a close neighbour who could know and record, so your heart might be in the right place CB but I doubt it would help, although it may well stop someone selling him a puppy, although he is likely to go to a clueless BYB anyway.

I just wish people like this would get a proper sentence.

I would think everyone watching that video would be very upset but we cannot move into a world where individuals decide who is guilty and decide what is appropriate and proportionate punishment. 
Worse still, we cannot lose our ability to safeguard the innocent.

For those such as dogs a babe, who think that this persons address should not have been included in my original post, and that it was in some way revealing 'secret information' here is a link to the local newspaper article, where you will see it lists both addresses http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/search/?search=lee+dyer. Therefore this is VERY PUBLIC information, and gives a more detailed account, including information about the second dog. This is a NEWS item in the public domain, together with the video content. Perhaps those who found this to be 'inciting hatred' would like to contact the newspaper and accuse them of the same?

Stooge he has already pleaded and been found guilty. No-one here has been talking about deciding appropriate punishment, that is only your take on it. Keeping an eye on this man doesn't amount to punishment.

Finally safeguarding the innocent to me means safeguarding the dogs, the only ones who cannot speak, act or defend themselves.

Carrington, dog people can keep a very close eye on what is going on, if they know who he is and where he is. The 'dog' grapevine is a very good one.  He will no doubt be careful for some time as to how he behaves in public, but people like him will always slip up, it's in their nature. I have captured someone hitting their GSD with a stick in a public park on a mobile phone before now. I require no one to take any action other than that if it should happen, or they should see his other dog with injuries, and to report him to the RSPCA.

Stooge
Does sharing reported news stories of convicted animal abusers count as breach of the Data Protection Act? Would disseminating publicly reported news stories be an issue? (I think not).

So let's assume that the rescue take the reported information (already in the public domain) from the news reports, and submit them to each and every other rescue in the locality - are they breaching any *rules*

> So let's assume that the rescue take the reported information (already in the public domain) from the news reports, and submit them to each and every other rescue in the locality - are they breaching any *rules*

Well I would not assume that from what you have said so far but yes, they would be breaching the Data Protection Act by even revealing that they had dealt with him as a customer unless they had his explicit permission to do so.

The newspaper may have given details but that is very different to spreading it on the internet and talking about the numbers necessary in order for him not to be able to sleep at night. 
Last years riots were reported in the newspapers but that did not make any difference when people were taken to court for putting the information out in a very different way.

> For those such as dogs a babe, who think that this persons address should not have been included in my original post, and that it was in some way revealing 'secret information' here is a link to the local newspaper article,

ChinaBlue I haven't ever accused you of revealing 'secret information' - please don't put words in my mouth.

Although it wasn't quoted in the original news link you gave I don't doubt that part of his address was already in the public domain, somewhere.  I merely asked that it not be repeated on this forum for reasons I've already given...

Hear hear Carrington

Goes to show one should never assume.

Try this:
If animal rescues circulate any reported information in the public domain between each other about a convicted animal abuser for the purposes of avoiding homing an animal to said abuser (even a clipping from the local paper for example), or a link to a report). Are they breaking any rules???

If they didn't I would certainly want to know why not!

Goodness comparing it to last years riots, and dogs a babe saying 'designed to incite' I do genuinely think you both have an inclination to the overly dramatic. Really.
talking about the numbers necessary in order for him not to be able to sleep at night. 
See what I mean.......you took part of a phrase and made into something quite different.

You really do continually miss the point each and every time. You seem to spend all your time picking little holes and trying to find things like Data Protection issues to blame on the rescue centres, and looking out for the poor criminal, rather than his badly abused dogs. 

> .......you took part of a phrase and made into something quite different.

Which part did I miss?
I don't think I am missing your point at all I just totally disagree with it.

Dogs ababe

Granted, I request the same consideration that you don't judge the intent of my post and make such statements as
a topic designed to incite
_________________________________________________________________

Carrington and others at least understand the purpose of the post.

If I wanted to incite an incident similar to the one referred to I would create an anonymous facebook account and get it out there, not put it here where I am known! 

What part did I miss?Let's see you changed this:
He can sleep easier in his bed, knowing less dog people will be looking over his shoulder now
To this:
talking about the numbers necessary in order for him not to be able to sleep at night.
With your pedantic leanings I feel sure you would allow that this changes it considerably. Makes it sound more 'inciting' than it actually is.

So, you now accept that rescue centres can disseminate reported information between them. Glad we cleared that up, it was such an important issue.

You can disagree with me and anyone else, as I said before that's freedom. But I just don't think you 'get it'. Maybe you are just more interested in facts and figures and rules and regs, than the average person who is interested in the animal and the outcome, and who has feelings about them.  JMO.

>Makes it sound more 'inciting' than it actually is.

I don't think so, I thought the same about the original quote if you remember.
 

I do, and you misquoted it.

It is tiresome rebutting your constant picking at minutaie, which deviates onto meaningless paths. Most appreciate the sentiment of the post, and the seriousness of the situation. It is intended for those who do 'get it', and question and care about the fate of the dog in question, and the one remaining and why it was left there.

Anyone who can keep an eye on Dyer, please do and report anything untoward.

I couldn't watch much of the video. I did get to see the man clamping the dog betwen his knees while he repeadedly punched it with BOTH fists, over and over agaian. My blood boils -how on earth can sickos like that be allowed to walk freely in our society and only get a pathetic sentance when caught????? If that man does that out side - for other people wo witness, what on earth happens behaind closed doors.......

I have a great idea if sick, spineless abusers of innocent victims, like this poor dog, do NOT want people to find out about it and do NOT want it know they are not fit for society they can REFRAIN from acting in such a way that will cause them a back-lash from the rest of society in the first place.

Do-gooders miss the point, when somebdoy has been found guilty BY A COURT OF LAW they damn well should be TREATED like they are guilty of the crime they have been FOUND to have commited, not  be ordered to do "200 hours unpaid work and pay £300 in court costs". The message that sends out to him and others is that the law of this land doesn't really consider his actions to be a very major thing.

> do, and you misquoted it.
>

I cut and pasted it.

> when somebdoy has been found guilty BY A COURT OF LAW they damn well should be TREATED like they are guilty of the crime they have been FOUND to have commited, not  be ordered to do "200 hours unpaid work and pay £300 in court costs".

Then you should campaign on sentencing not talk about individuals expecting a "back lash from society". 

> Then you should campaign on sentencing not talk about individuals expecting a "back lash from society". 

Ok, I'll ask you to clarify that rather than risk interpreting you wrongly -
Are you actually saying that I, a law-abiding member of society has NO RIGHT to express MY opinion of a person that CHOOSES to abuse an animal and is found guilty of such abuse??????

To clarify, I do not think it is helpful to talk of "back lashes" to an individual.  If the problem is sentencing, as you see it, then that is what you should tackle. 

Just read that link you put up ChinaBlue,

Dyer told the RSPCA he attacked the dog because it had defecated in the house and urinated on his trousers.

Seriously, wow that is where many have gone wrong here folks! You toilet train a dog by knocking the living daylights out of them, **shaking head** I wonder if that is what his parents did to him?

It is even more worrying that the other dog was not removed by the judge with that statement, as this man obviously uses punishment as a training tool from his own mouth and actions, so the other dog is in danger, perhaps he should have been sent on a praise and reward course alongside his punishment as he obviously understands zilch about training dogs, until he does why would a judge allow him to keep one, as if the dog has any idea why it is having a beating.

The girlfriend who may have children by the look of the things in the garden needs to seriously look at her choice of boyfriend, with his idea of justice and punishment it would not be someone I would want anywhere near a child or animal of mine.

Mastifflover

Thank you - another one who 'gets it' and more importantly - feels it. 

Carrington
Yes the whole thing is a nightmare scenario. I think people like this are made even worse by the bleeding heart liberalism that seems so prevalent in society. They get off far too lightly that they really don't learn a hard lesson.

I think the decision to remove the other dog would have been down to the RSPCA, at the time of seizure, since they can remove an animal if they consider it to be in danger.   Don't know whether the judge could also have ordered this. Poor little thing is only 2 yrs old, what's the chances of it making a mistake??  How a ban wasn't handed out either I really can't fathom.

You sure do have to wonder about the girlfriend. My OH would have had to protect himself from ME if he laid a hand on an animal. I certainly wouldn't want him near children either, but then I wouldn't even want to conceive of the idea of that moron actually ever breeding.....

talking about the numbers necessary in order for him not to be able to sleep at night.
That is not a cut and paste, that is your re-write.

As I said, I thought the same about the original quote.

ChinaBlue

I get it.  And feel just as strongly as you. 

Please ALL take a moment to read the TOS, just one section of which I have picked for your perusal.

"Please avoid being judgemental or condescending in your posts.....
Be tolerant of others views and opinions. It is far better to agree to differ, than to continue an argument ad-nauseum, when it is obvious that neither party will change their viewpoint."

Thanks,

Jeff.

I really don't care what you thought about what I said originally. I merely wanted to point out that you lied about cutting and pasting it.

Please do not call me a lier.  Look back through the thread and this is exactly what I posted.

> He can sleep easier in his bed, knowing less dog people will be looking over his shoulder now. Thanks.

>You claimed your reasons were for protecting other dogs so not sure what you mean by this comment.

If that is not a direct cut and paste of your phrase I don't know what is!
I would suggest you read Jeff's recent post also.

JeanSW
Yes, I know you do, and honestly, how can anyone not feel deeply concerned for a 2yr old pup left in the care of this fiend, and sickened by what he did to the other dog which is at least now out of harms way?

We are aware of him, and will try and keep an eye, I was hoping to widen the number of people around the area being alert to him here, but that was not to be. We will do our best with what we have and know.

Stooge
talking about the numbers necessary in order for him not to be able to sleep at night.
That is the phrase referenced, unless you are suffering from amnesia, which I said was your rewrite, which you then insisted was a cut and paste.

I smiled when I read Jeff's post - judgmental and condescending yes, those were the words I was looking for. 

I agree, there are elements in there that I need to take on board too, and that is arguing with you ad nauseum, which I am happy to comply with forthwith LOL.