Tonight's film was about dog fighting.

About half way through watching it,  no fight scenes yet, but already seen enough abuse.

Since the RSPCA love a prosecution, I'm left wondering why we haven't heard anything about their sterling work stopping this sick pastime and prosecuting the perpetrators?    Or is there nothing to report?

So far, all I can see is another attempt at an award winning film :-(     There's no sense that what they are doing is cruel and sick

Ways to kill a dog. Did we really need to know?
Just gives ideas to the amoeba out there.

The 'amoebae'  have enough ideas, they don't need more :-(

Just watching the last third now.

These people (programme makers)  are as sick as the people they are filming. 

Trying to justify dog fighting by showing/comparing with other sports etc.   What is the aim here, to show that these dog fighters aren't really bad, they're just misguided and have no choice because they aren't posh?  

If it wasn't such a horrific subject, I'd be convinced it was a spoof

So far, I've seen nothing that gives any sense of how truly awful the whole thing is :-(

We really have come to resemble the Romans in the last days of the Empire,  the TV is our version of the Colosseum.    It really hit, the skids with Big Brother (aka 'get the public used to constant surveilance')  and it's been downhill ever since. 

> These people (programme makers)  are as sick as the people they are filming.

I can see now why there was a petition to stop it being shown. Someone in the know must have understood its bias.
And there are partial-celled amoebae out there, I am sure, who have now been given ideas.

I never saw it, didn't even know it was on, but checking google the whole of a P1 google search is full with reviews on the program.

http://bit.ly/SSix1R
.

.....as far as any petition not to show the program goes, that is a clear sign of modern day, dangerous, to both dogs and owners, thinking.

Not only are there thousands (probably) first time owners every week, there are also numerous country dog owners who pay passing visits to UK  cities in an unknown pattern. They know little about individuals & groups in places where these elements are deliberatly looking for other dogs to attack and attack very seriously.

It is plain nonsense, arrogant and dangerous to others thinking (lack of) to try & stop informative, everyday reality being shown. The people described as being highlighted in that program are not an elite isolated group stuck in some isolated barn in the middle of nowhere and who never so much go near other people.

The people described are normal everyday people we see in parks streets and may sit next to on the bus. Get real.

To whom it may concern.
.
.

It did feel like the program was trying to 'normalise' this barbaric practise, and referring to it as a sport, just really got my goat.

couldn't watch it but concerned it will high light the practice in the wrong way. sorry hethspaw didn't really get what you were saying.
The whole thing needs more work to stop it
sorry brainless just noticed what you said a sport ? what the hell? I suppose in its crudest sense it is sport but since sport is seen as positive that was completely the wrong way to show the disgusting act.  
What were channel 4 after? ratings I guess !
ms temairie yes someone knew its bias but unfortunately channel 4 was too strong and as for giving scum ideas , yes I agree

I've not been watching this series, and by the sounds of it, good job.

The whole thing needs more work to stop it

Yes, and where are the RSPCA in this?

With their love of prosecutions, I would have thought that this would be gold dust to them, but they never mention it.

When you think about it, it's how they started out!   What better way to show the public that they are still all about the animals?

Hethspaw

You do seem to have missed the point about this programme.    The WHOLE tone of it was a normalisation of the whole dog fighting scene and how it was no worse than any other animal sport etc.    And how this was a sport for 'deprived' communities (not deprAved) who felt they had no access to legitimate sporting endeavours.

The whole tone of the film was more of an advert FOR dog fighting, than standing up for the plight of the poor dogs being abused by their owners.    By the way, if there was any mention of the pet dogs that get stolen and used for training these animals, then I must have blinked and missed it.

To be honest, I felt it was a film maker trying to copy JH and attain her desired level of notoriety and nothing more.

"Yes, and where are the RSPCA in this?"

The RSPCA did try to get all the footage (also not showed) to investigate and prosecute. They were refused it and have now applied for a court order.

>The RSPCA did try to get all the footage (also not showed) to investigate and prosecute. They were refused it and have now >applied for a court order.

That's good to hear, but it's not really what I was referring to.  Let's face it, by doing this, they are letting others do their work and just jumping in at the end.

It's clear that this is going on in other cities and rural areas, what has the RSPCA done to investigate and prosecute those people?   With the vast amounts of money they have at their disposal,  there is far more they could do if they really wished to.

"Dog fighting cases are some of the most complex

Despite it being banned since 1835, the RSPCA still investigates and prosecutes dog fighting cases and has a specialist unit to investigate organised crime involving animals. Dog fighting cases are some of the most difficult to bring to trial as they are extremely complex. They also involve a large number of organised criminals who are very often linked to other types of crime. RSPCA inspectors have actually died in the past investigating animal fighting. It can take years to gather enough evidence to bring a case to court and the RSPCA leads the way in uncovering this illegal activity and bringing dog fighters to justice.

However, having watched 'Going to the Dogs' we're left wondering what exactly the point of it was..."

RSPCA BLOG - channel-4s-going-to-the-dogs

sorry hethspaw didn't really get what you were saying.

I meant there needs to be more 'unaware'  pet dog owner awarness that many of these dogs & owners get into ordinary parks, country parks just so their owners can get the dog a 'bit of practice'. Many pet owners are totally unaware of these things, not least, because there are no parallels in their own lifes experience.

Apart from that I find the sentiment of suppressing information by getting exposures of real life situations are nothing less than the polices of dictatorships, facist regimes, communism and so on & countries where freedoms do not exist in the way we would understand the word.
.

Hethspaw, you are ignoring the fact that this film was far more in the vein of 'it's not that bad, it's just the working man's version of riding to hounds and pheasant shooting'  poor people have to have their fun too, sort of thing.  

In fact there was a scene discussing the history of blood sports and the reason given for making dog fighting and bear baiting illegal was that it was an attempt by the gentry to control the poorest in society and stop them drinking and gambling.   NOTHING about how cruel it is to train dogs to try to kill each other!

At the very least it was voyeurism rather than an informative and moving film.   

There was no sense that these people were dangerous, or that their dogs were a liability to innocent dogs just having fun in the park.  So if that was the objective, the film failed dismally.

As I said I didn't watch but form comments I think channel 4 missed an opportunity to do some good and were too busy chasing ratings and entertainment. Shame on you channel 4
I do hope the rspca get the footage and do what they mission statements  say . I am aware its very complicated and dangerous and thank goodness some people are prepared to work in this minefield  and risk their lives in some cases as lurchergirl said  but the scum need to be stopped :(

At the very least it was voyeurism

To write that I think you simply dont understand a critical fundamental to film production - all the pros involved in the production team, author, all other auxileries, including any transport, accomodation & in this case all those who participated the somewhat dangerous/risky infiltration to find willing subjects to take part in the interviews and a whole lot of expensive things, far to long a list to mention, must be in place before any filming can get underway.

Once all the extensive variables have to be paid for in advance of any income from the finished product.Once all those variables are in place only then can production begin and in this case, at that point a contract to pay for and show the film by a TV company is highly unlikely to be paid for by any TV company, they only buy something they can asses as suitable for them to screen it.

So yes to get something like that program from nothing more than someones 'idea' to screen is purposely more dramatised, to a greater or lesser degree, than some would wish but is the ideal for greater audience,ALL man made communicative media is dramatised, L S Lowerys' paintings were dramatic because of the impact of their 'apparent' simplicity, love songs are one of the most widespread dramatisation of what in essence is little more than a few simple words put together in a transmissable form i.e. 'singing'.

The nature of all art is always contraversial to some, hated by some, beloved by others but it also remains 'noticed by many' >> which is exactly what any film production needs to do to 'capture' an audience and make the film >>> pay everones wages<<<
.   

There was no sense that these people were dangerous, or that their dogs were a liability to innocent dogs just having fun in the park.  So if that was the objective, the film failed dismaly

Well reviews on it filled a P1 google search yesterday so it impacted  on those commentators. not only that my neighbour commented on it yesterday evening, she was shocked at what went with some people & their dogs she brought it up & she has no connection to dogs at all, just a normal member of the public.

Your thinking is pure dogma!
.

>The nature of all art is always contraversial to some, hated by some, beloved by others but it also remains 'noticed by many' >> which is exactly >what any film production needs to do to 'capture' an audience and make the film >>> pay everones wages<<<

Oh sorry, in my ignorance of all things 'arty' (not)  I actually thought that this was supposed to be a hard hitting documentary rather than a piece of fluff to get people's attention.

As long as everyone who wants can make some money out of other's suffering it must be ok then.

> The WHOLE tone of it was a normalisation of the whole dog fighting scene and how it was no worse than any other animal sport etc.    And how this was a sport for 'deprived' communities (not deprAved) who felt they had no access to legitimate sporting endeavours.

This is where I found the focus too, in the small bit I watched. They were out on a pheasant shoot, and the tone to me was definitely of the hypocrisy of the 'posh' folk decrying dog fighting, then going out and shooting  pheasants. This was underlined by various prolonged shots of twitching pheasants which obviously hadn't been quite cleanly killed. I have no wish to get in to a debate on whether this point of view may actually have some validity LOL.

Only watched a very small bit though, turned over as soon as they were showing actual fights. Strange programme.

M.

>This is where I found the focus too, in the small bit I watched. They were out on a pheasant shoot, and the tone to me was definitely of the hypocrisy of the 'posh' folk decrying dog fighting, then going out and shooting 

>Only watched a very small bit though, turned over as soon as they were showing actual fights. Strange programme

Ditto.

Maybe I'm a bit thick, but how you can compare LS Lowry to dog fighting is totally beyond me. The people who engage in dog fighting are mindless morons. I did not watch the program because I did not want to increase the viewing figures and I may have been sick watching it. Yes, people should be aware of the problem, but to show a program like that is totally irresposible

As far as the RSPCA are concerned, they are about as much use as men's boobs, no use whatsoever. This program should never have been aired, steps to prosecute should have been made before it got this far.

Ahhhh but you've all misunderstood !

It was just an arty film, so that the film-makers could make some money and gain some attention.   And of course the subjects of the film were just completely misunderstood.  They were nice guys really, their dogs aren't brutalised and abused, they are happy, you can see their smiling faces!

"And let's face it, we all like to have a peek through the keyhole and be scandalised..."

Not quite quoting, but  it was words to that effect, by a red haired woman to the man who was fronting the film.

An absolute disgrace from start to finish and I'm also wondering why everyone involved hasn't been charged and convicted. 

As for the film makers,  the words aiding and abetting come to mind.

Totally agree by the way Lynneb, but apparently I'm too dogmatic and must take a more liberal view of the film.    First of all,  I have to get my head to button up at the back, it's the only way I'll manage the liberal'view of animal abuse.

Maybe I'm a bit thick, but how you can compare LS Lowry to dog fighting is totally beyond me

Me to, but, I just looked through all the posts and did not find any poster making that comparison, who was it & which post?
.

This program should never have been aired, steps to prosecute should have been made before it got this far.

No one can be prosecuted for anything untill there is evidence, so, who got the evidence, the arts team which produced it or a police or RSPCA undercover team who sat back and made no moves to do anything prior to the arts team going in and getting what people seem to see as evidence.

I never saw it, did not even know it was on.
.

It was just an arty film, so that the film-makers could make some money and gain some attention.

Thats exactly what arts teams do in the film making industrym as dar as I know, its also what everyone else does, they 'work' for income.
.

An absolute disgrace from start to finish and I'm also wondering why everyone involved hasn't been charged and convicted

The implication being that you have contacted the police about your dissatisfaction at their 'apparent' inaction & the police have then contacted you personaly and told you personaly that they are taking no action, is that the case?
.

As for the film makers,  the words aiding and abetting come to mind.

You need to check out the subject your proffesing to know something about before you write about the subject, journalists & publishers are 'protected' by privaledge in law, they can publish things no one else can & cannot be succesfully prosecuted if they get it right or wrong.
.

For those non voyersists who did not bother watching it, you can see it at the link below if you wanna join the rest of the voyarist club here who did
watch it.

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/going-to-the-dogs/4od
.

>Maybe I'm a bit thick, but how you can compare LS Lowry to dog fighting is totally beyond me
>>I just looked through all the posts and did not find any poster making that comparison, who was it & which post?

You did, Denis, when you said "ALL man made communicative media is dramatised, L S Lowerys' paintings were dramatic because of the impact of their 'apparent' simplicity" in your post at 14.06.14 11:04 GMT

Breaking up dog fighting rings isn't easy, it is a nasty sport run by nasty people .
Even the police won't go in unless they have enough officers, they need prior warning
so they can organise sufficient officers for their own safety.
Much as I don't like the RSPCA it's never going to be easy for them to stop it

Heathspaw was quoted as saying
Maybe I'm a bit thick, but how you can compare LS Lowry to dog fighting is totally beyond me

>>I just looked through all the posts and did not find any poster making that comparison, who was it & which post?

Jeanigeni responded
You did, Denis, when you said "ALL man made communicative media is dramatised, L S Lowerys' paintings were dramatic because of the impact of their 'apparent' simplicity" in your post at 14.06.14 11:04 GMT

Yes I wrote that as part of a context which is extremly simple for any average person to understand.

As you are unable to understand the elementary principles of 'context & form', in relation to art forms, here is my full quote in context:

Heathspaw wrote in full:
So yes to get something like that program from nothing more than someones 'idea' to screen is purposely more dramatised, to a greater or lesser degree, than some would wish but is the ideal for greater audience,ALL man made communicative media is dramatised, L S Lowerys' paintings were dramatic because of the impact of their 'apparent' simplicity, love songs are one of the most widespread dramatisation of what in essence is little more than a few simple words put together in a transmissable form i.e. 'singing'.
.

Jeanigeni:
You did, Denis,

HP
Point out in the full quote above where I am comparing Lowerys' work to dog fighting

There is a comparison in Lowerys' work & that program  but I doubt your 'able' enough to see what it is.......
.

HP...what a rude person!!

Breaking up dog fighting rings isn't easy, it is a nasty sport run by nasty people . Even the police won't go in unless they have enough officers, they need prior warning so they can organise sufficient officers for their own safety.

And surely this is exactly the point.

The film made it sound as if these people were simply misunderstood.   Trying to have a little fun just like their 'posh' counterparts but with none of the advantages.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Hethspaw, you may think that you are better than me but at least I can spell.

but I doubt your 'able' enough to see what it is.......

Ahh  the insult, the last refuge of the person with no real argument.

>Breaking up dog fighting rings isn't easy, it is a nasty sport run by nasty people . Even the police won't go in unless they have >enough officers, they need prior warning so they can organise sufficient officers for their own safety. Much as I don't like the >RSPCA it's never going to be easy for them to stop it

Drugs cartels are run by nasty people too, but that doesn't prevent the police from investigating and building a case

Thank you Dill.

I did watch the program and it was for some very uncomfortable viewing, Chanel 4 are renound for making very close to the cuff program's that the BBC or Granada would never make, their demographic is different. I think the program was trying to convey the normalisation of animal cruelty that surrounds us in everyday life juxtaposed against the backdrop of the dog fighting.

Quite valid points were made about where one draws a line... our government whome rightly banned dog and animal fighting but turn a blind eye to the poor condiditons in which amirals for meat or fur are kept slaughtered and bred. I do think program's highlighting this problem should be shown so people know it still happens and how alwlful it is, but I agree that the program's presenters could have worded what they said better and the editing team should have used a bit more common sense.  

I did not watch the program as I felt it was inappropriate and cruel. I am struggling to see what common sense there  is to dog fighting. Mindless morons comes to mind. There is little comparison  to the conditions that animals bred for consumption. The fighting dogs are allegedly bred for sport, what sport makes animals suffer? I do agree that there should be sanctions in the culling of animals bred for consumption (ie halaal) but where is the sport in watching 2 dogs hurt and ultimately kill each other?

I think the program was trying to convey the normalisation of animal cruelty that surrounds us in everyday life juxtaposed against the backdrop of the dog fighting

EXACTLY - Someone who understood the program, a breath of fresh air.
.

> what sport makes animals suffer?

Pretty much every sport going that involves animals!  Horse racing is rife with injury and death, horses being ridden MUCH too young, before they are skeletally developed, so at much greater risk of the above; greyhound racing is also rife with injury and death, and that's before considering the thousands that are killed each year because they get too "old" around 4yrs old, or sometimes younger, or when they stop winning, or before they even start, if they aren't considered good enough.  Overbreeding of both animals leading to more suffering and death as the 'surplus' are dispatched.

Even the dog sports that should be totally good have plenty of suffering - dogs handled roughly and forced to work in agility.  Seen that myself, and had a trainer boasting about how she taught her collie to weave in 2.5 hours by physically forcing the dog through the weaves, even through her "stubborn patch"; or dogs pinned down and shaked by the neck because they haven't been taught self control, have gotten too wired with it and scrapped with another dog.  Dogs in flyball that aren't taught to calm down so they live their entire lives wired and unable to relax with stress hormones through the roof from it.  Often those dogs become reactive, because they cannot control themselves.  Dogs in working trials, trained with force and harsh corrections.  On and on it goes.  They may not be as extreme an, ahem, "sport" as dog fighting, but suffering still goes on.

The fact is, wherever there is winning to be had, it brings out the worst in a lot of people and it becomes more important than the welfare of the animals involved.  I certainly don't subscribe to that - the day my potential agility champ refused to do a couple of contact obstacles the first time round I pulled her out of agility altogether while she had vet investigations, and she's never gone back (slipped disc) - but a great many do.  Sad, but true.

dogs handled roughly and forced to work in agility

Thats supposed to be rife with injuries, no mandatory testing for hip scores, breeds & individual dogs put in for it which are not skeletely equipped to withstand the rigours & a whole host of other variables I dont even know about. I know one near me which had both cruciates ruptured (or whatever happens to them) & that person was a trainer (APDT).
.

> I know one near me which had both cruciates ruptured

That happens to many dogs that never do agility. Not a useful comparison.

There is no such thing as normalised animal cruelty... cruelty is cruelty end of. I have a pedigree dog with the best pedigree that you would ever want but he hates the shows, does not like being "messed with" so he is now retired at 2 years old ...end of. i would never force my dogs into something they did not enjoy. People who do this are no better then the people who fight dogs.

>> what sport makes animals suffer?
>Pretty much every sport going that involves animals!

The difference is that the sports you mention don't have the intention of causing suffering, unlike dog-fighting where the whole purpose is to cause injury or death.

I really don't think that dogs can be forced to work in agility or flyball, they seem to enjoy the action, correct me if I am wrong but a dog that is so willing to "go for it" is not forced

It would be interesting to see some replies to my posts.