The Mad Witch of Preston




‘A Preston woman live streamed a sickening video of her pet cat screaming in agony as she bit and rough handled the suffering animal. Misty, a black and grey feline, was tragically found dead at Angela Roe’s Ribbleton home by police after the incident – screened on Twitter’s live-streaming video app Periscope – was reported by a sickened friend.’

(Full story here)



This is part of the footage here.




A diligent member of the public ‘befriended’ this women online and called the police.

Did the police show? Indeed they did. Something to keep in mind the next time you get the notion that its pointless reporting things to the police. Its not. Its important that you do.




What did she have to say for herself upon their arrival?



” There is a video dating back to August this year. The cat bit me and I bit her back. I was ******** out of my head.”



And what did magistrates see fit to do?



She was given 12 weeks in prison, suspended for a year, with a rehabilitation activity and alcohol treatment requirement, and must pay a £115 victim surcharge and £375 costs.






When all’s said and done what can you really do with a clearly mental bitch like that?




In all honesty she probably is yet another of this country’s many alkies and going by that video there are some horrible genetics going on there as well.




These tiny sums of money in terms of costs etc are pointless. I don’t even understand how a ‘victim surcharge’ would work in relation to a cat. She’ll be allowed to pay these sums at a pittance each week as well – it wont shake her.




She could commit ANY other offence in the next year and it could trigger her suspended sentence of course.




But even if it did, what would it achieve in her case? She would only serve six weeks – barely enough to get her ‘dry’ again.



Women’s prisons are also a totally different vibe from men’s prisons. They are no picnic, but they are compared to a blokes prison.




She’s no spring chicken either, so even the most optimistic person cant say that she has lots of time to turn it around.




Obligating her to get treatment and including for her alcohol abuse isn’t a bad thing – I just have very low expectations of such people even being able to succeed at that one thing.

Your Answers Analysed


Over the past week or so I’ve taken to asking a regular number of short and sharp questions with binary choices.



These have proved popular, prompted lots of engagement and its a worthwhile exercise for me to ask where public opinion may be at.



Its a mistake to assume that your own view must also be public opinion – thus I ask.




Getting a flavour of public perspective will assist me in deciding where the focus could feasibly be placed in 2019.



I will continue to run these short questions on Facebook as a regular feature given their popularity and how much engagement they bring in.


Facebook also seems to be set up in such a way that they will give much more push to one or two lines than they will anything that has too many photos or too much text.




I’ve had a look at the questions asked over this past while and the public reaction to them.



The first one asked;


Press 1 if you think importing dogs from countries like Romania is an overall positive


Press 2 if you think its an overall negative long term




SAC Voluntari 2007


Here the overwhelming majority went for option 1.


I’d estimate that around 85% voted 1.


I was a bit surprised given that its out of step with the Dogs Trust, Battersea and various other animal shelters and even vets.

I expected this vote to be more even, given the burgeoning numbers of unwanted dogs already here. However, I suspect most 1 voters voted emotionally on this one or even from personal emotional attachment in some way.





Next up….



The UK has an estimated 9million dogs.


Press 1 if you’d support a total suspension of all breeding nationwide for a period of up to a decade


Press 2 if you wouldn’t support it and would prefer the status quo




This also got a huge number of 1 votes. I’d estimate in the region of 80% 1’s.



This demonstrates that the public realise there’s a harmful surplus of dogs and they are keen to see action to reduce their number.



While I’d take this outcome as being a positive one, it does seem to then contradict with the public position on the previous thing mentioned.




In other words – if you had a breeding ban in order to get numbers to a more manageable level, then doesn’t it defeat the purpose somewhat to also want to keep shipping dogs in?



Just a thought…







Pet hoarding is a big problem in the UK and an accepted symptom of a mental issue. Would you give your support to a 60 day amnesty during which pet hoarders could give up their animals immune from prosecution?


Press 1 if you’d support the idea of an amnesty

Press 2 if you wouldn’t






This was overwhelming 1’s, in the region of 90%. That’s interesting because this is something that could feasibly be done – even as a trial.



Most who voted 1 added that they’d expect the person to get mental help and also be banned from keeping any more pets. But it would be possible to build those caveats into any one off amnesty.







In a survey 15% of British vets stated they’d treated a dog with injuries they suspected were the result of cruelty or dog fights. Most said they didn’t report their suspicions due to the fear of ‘client confidentiality’ being undermined.



Press 1 if you think British vets should be professionally and lawfully obligated to report their suspicions



Press 2 if you think it could back fire and just lead to less people even taking the animal to a vet




This was about 95% 1’s. I think this is something that could be plausible to aim for. It wouldn’t even take for them to be legally obligated, being professionally obligated would be sufficient for most to fall in line.












Wilful cruelty such as that done by the Frankish’s of this world is overwhelmingly the domain of young males of around 16-21. They are almost always from households that are entirely dysfunctional.


Since it seems that having zero boundaries and too much free time feeds their bad mentality, do you think restoring national service in this country would help?




Press 1 if you think if would help on some level




Press 2 if you don’t think it would help at all




This (slightly surprising to me) got around 90% 1’s. I thought people might see it as too dated an idea, but apparently not. This is one that I think you’d get push back against, this would cause the greatest resistance of all the things mentioned so far.









Given the clear links between extreme animal sadists and hurting vulnerable people, do you think those convicted of very extreme acts (such as an Andrew Frankish or Robert Koch) should automatically have court restrictions placed on them that forbid them from being alone with minors or elderly people?



Press 1 if you’d support this idea being the new norm.



Press 2 if not.


Almost a clean sweep of 1’s here. There’s public appetite for this, I think there is objective merit to it, but this is one that definitely would require legislative change.
Can be done but would require specific lobbying for it to happen.







There’s a perception among some that the police either wont respond to a call in relation to animal cruelty or that their response will be too late in the day.

Here’s a hypothetical. A young guy is seen in the park stabbing a dog to death with a knife. Person A calls 999.


Press 1 if you’re confident the police would show up inside 15mins.



Press 2 if you’re not.



Somewhat depressingly about 85% went for 2’s here.





Even if its not reality it shows there is something gravely amiss in terms of public confidence in the police. After all, if you’re not confident of them getting them in good time under those conditions then the police have an image issue.




Press 1 if you consider pet ownership an inalienable right



Press 2 if you consider it a privilege


A clean sweep of 1’s here. No comment necessary.

Myth or Fact; Did a dog in Scotland really bite off and swallow a mans genitals?




Ever read something and thought ‘nope, that cant be true, must be a parody site’?



Well, that was precisely my first reaction when it broke last month that a man in Haddington (small town outside Edinburgh) had (it almost causes ‘phantom’ pain to type this) his penis and balls bitten off and swallowed by a dog called ‘Biggie Smalls’.





If you think I’ve taken leave of my senses here, read on. I know it reads like the script of a Tarantino movie but this was a real event.





You might wonder under what possible set of circumstances any dog would not only bite off but swallow someone’s genitals.




And so did I when the story first broke without much further detail. Dogs do bite sometimes. That’s not the bit I found odd.



The bit I found out is that a dog will tend to bite a leg or arm. Never have I heard of one biting and eating the genitals of a person.




At first I had automatic empathy for the guy because that’s about as horrific as it gets, its life changing and there’s no real coming back from it. It left him in a coma at one point.




I wondered to myself, what could possibly trigger a dog into launching that savage of an attack? This was not a ‘strange’ dog. This happened during a party.






Neighbours reported hearing the Old English bulldog barking at around 4am and again at 8am October 7.


Police were called at about 2.30pm, where they found a blood-spattered scene.





Imagine being the officers who got that short straw? Imagine being the paramedics that day?










All that has emerged since is that the dog appears to have belonged to the person it attacked. He signed it over to be destroyed. I’ll get back to that bit in a second.




Although it says there had been a party, there was apparently only him and two other people in the flat at the time – and they were said to be in another room.




Doesn’t sound like much of a party unless they were simply the stragglers left over from Saturday.




As you might expect rumours soon grew, one of which sounded just terrible. The rumour was that he had been asleep drunk and others in the flat had played a ‘prank’ that had gone badly wrong.




But no. Its even more surreal than that, if that’s possible.



According to the most up to date report, police wont be charging anyone at all since it appears that he did this to himself.




For reasons that only a weird mind can explain , its reported that what triggered this was that he had had smeared peanut butter on his genitals and the rest is history.


Where do you even start to process this in your brain?



I have been to some mad cap parties in my youth but I don’t ever recall anyone putting peanut butter on their dick and balls so the dog could have a go.



I honestly don’t think there can be a level of alcohol or drugs that would be powerful enough to make you think ‘Yup – this sounds an idea’.





This just reads to me like some weirdo pervert did this and it went supremely badly for them. I cant see it any other way than that.



Perversion and not high jinx were at the core of this imo. Karma didn’t just visit that guy, it came along and ate his penis. And balls.





The poor bloody dog probably had zero clue what the f*** it was doing, without wanting to visualise it too long, its not hard to see how those actions could indeed end that way.






On that basis I personally found it very harsh that the dog was destroyed. Early reports suggested the dog had no known aggression issues. Seems fairly obvious that this wasn’t really sparked by aggression as such.





I know his injuries were extensive, but had he not placed the dog in uniquely bizarre circumstances than this clearly would not have happened.




Still tho. Ouch!









The Case of Ferdy




First and foremost I hope that Paulina Asmus and Dariusz Asmus have since had some sort of positive outcome in terms of there being arrests.


If that hasn’t yet happened – it needs to happen.


The link to their situation is here;



And to quote from it;


‘The owner of a Jack Russell is appealing for help after her pet was tossed about “like a rag doll” in a horrifying attack filmed by a gang.

Ferdy was being walked in Hutton Recreation Ground, near Brentwood on 1 November when six men grabbed his lead and set a “pit-bull” type dog on him.

It is thought the attack only stopped because the gang mistakenly thought the dog was dead when it fell unconscious.

Essex Police is asking witnesses to come forward with information.’










If there haven’t yet been arrests and if you’re in that area of Brentwood, then it goes without saying you should try to do all you can to expose those responsible in a way you can prove.



She has apparently had her appeal shared a total of 60,000 times, so you’d really think and believe that from that names would be spat out and evidence to go with. If they are able to positively ID the gang, all the better of course.



In the BBC report it doesn’t say the ages of the men or offer much description. Says six men.

Paulina Asmus asks in the article;


“It’s horrifying. Why should we feel intimidated into not walking our own dogs?”




And my response is that it is horrifying and you shouldn’t be intimidated into not walking your dogs. Its totally unacceptable and you shouldn’t accept those conditions.




I’m personally all about doing things and lobbying for things that would all lead to much tougher times for this type of social misfit.


I want more of them off our streets and for longer. I want them to lose more of their privileges if they are proven to be a blight in this way.




In short and unapologetically – I want to push and cajole the state into using its apparatus to totally crush such people, which they could if they had the guts and will.


Lots of people do animal rescue and they do that brilliantly and I salute them all.




But I have always been about going after the very foundations that have made it such a stroll for scumbags like this to feel emboldened. That’s always been our thing.




So my reaction to Paulina is that everyone should have the right to walk free and in peace, with or without a dog.





However, thanks to years of being far too soft on all manner of freaks, Paulina unfortunately experienced the reality of their existence. And she’s not alone.




Having scanned comments on line, I do empathise with those that they’d fancy carrying a pepper spray, but I’ll give you a cautionary tale about pepper spray.




Firstly, it is not very good at all against multiple people. In fact, if its more than one person its virtually useless.




Secondly, they have a major flaw in that they are influenced by air flow and wind too much.



Get it wrong and you’ll end up with most of it in your own face.




Thirdly, like it or not, they are classed as a firearm in the UK. That doesn’t mean to say they would be seen the same as an AK47, but it does fall under the firearms act and it can carry a penalty of up to 5years. Just for possession.




As tempting as it may sound, I would carry one at your own risk. You also have to remember that pepper spray isn’t even 100% effective against one person. It depends on the person and their state of mind.



In a situation like that which this girl faced, my suggestion from the other night is more viable and has the practical merit of greatly increasing the chances of a positive ID.





It can take 7 days of intense scrubbing to get off which is a great window for people covered in dye to be spotted.



And since its non toxic, you wouldn’t even need worry about it getting on their dog if they are using it as a weapon.







Unlike pepper spray its legal and carrying it wont get you a criminal record. And being more dense its less effected by air flow. Its low cost and easy to carry out. And if its use even raised the odds of positive ID’s by 10% – its worth it.




That’s what Id suggest. Buy two. Use one to practice, carry the other.






This is just a little story for you to read on a Monday.



OF began out in 2016 as you may know, if not, doesn’t matter.


We really only had a couple of aims at the start, we wanted to stir up the press and we wanted to put those two clown shoes on the back foot for as long as possible.




We were able to do both of those things and as grim as the subject is, we had fun doing it at times. Its good to flip the script on such people or do works that the press think is news worthy.



Ever since we began out though, all manner of people have effectively tried to convince us of many things.





Example. There are significant number of readers/commentators/call them what you will, and they seem to live under such a cloud of utter despair that they want to convince the World (and us), that only the very worst outcomes will happen.







They’ll want you to believe that this class of offender will ‘never get more prison time’. And if they did? They’ll want you to believe that ‘it wont stop them doing it when they come out’.



In other words, there are a large % of people in pet circles who seem to want you to sort of curl up in a ball and just die.




It seems that no matter what they are so full of doom and gloom that they simply shift the goalposts over and over, so that no one or nothing can ever possibly ‘reach the line’.



Do I think animal loving people that spread that type of message are doing the animals or the cause any favours? No.



I definitely cannot see any benefit at all to pushing a defeatist message or mentality. I do not see any benefit in choosing to remain permanently negative, even when there is something to be happy about.




I have no idea why, but this is a common mentality among pet people and its often coupled with this even more depressing misanthropy.






How many times have you read ‘I hate humanity’? Plenty and its totally stupid since its only a small % of humanity who are responsible for a given thing – blame them.



Hating on all of mankind for the actions of a few inbred sicko’s is just dumb. Its ultimately hating on yourself, your family and every person that tries to do a good deed in the World.





Why spread such cancerous misanthropy when there is plenty of good and plenty of people trying to do good and make a difference? What purpose does spreading that serve? None. It only drags down anyone that happens to read it.



I say this with love – if you’re at a point where something has caused you to hate all people, then you probably need to quit focusing on that thing and focus on some more brighter subjects instead.





Its not healthy or even necessary to get to that stage when you consider that MOST people in this country give their dogs and cats a good and loving home as best they can. If you have stared at the actions of the minority so long it has you collectively blaming everyone on two legs – then you definitely are getting a very skewed view of the reality.




If over exposure to it has caused you to automatically spread doom and gloom no matter what new twist or turn for the good happened – then as much as you may not mean it, spreading that message of Definite Despair No Matter What – its not helping anyone at all. Least of all the animals.







However, I know that some people will go on spreading the doom and implicitly trying to convince me that nothing can ever change or improve.



Ok. Lets just say I and others of my ilk turned around and said ‘Fine, we’re convinced, nothing is worth doing because all is doomed’. What then? What happens after that?



Do we get a special dark cape and a membership to the Club of Doom?


If everything is doomed then should we all just sit on our hands and wait for ‘Armageddon’?


Quite why there are people that seem to want to convince others of doom and gloom and no sunlight – I just don’t know.


If you loved pets and wanted justice, wouldn’t your mantra be to spread positivity while talking up and encouraging those that step up to play some sort of role? I’d have thought so but apparently its not so.



I’d even go as far as to say that in some cases its so bizarre that people in pet circles almost resent any good news or progress, regardless of where it comes from or what it is.


Their first reaction is often to be gloomy over some perceived flaw or nit pick it. Does that help? Does that inspire others to do things? I don’t think so.



Yet I can assure you, there exists an air of near resentment if ever it seems that any sort of positive step is to be made.




This is a sincere question. Do you think pet loving circles maybe draw in a higher than average number of very depressed people that just cannot see the light in anything no matter what?



There’s no right or wrong answer to this, but I’d be interested to know if you think it may indeed draw in a higher than average %.



I’ve done a few different things in my time and I’ve never known a sampling of people so dogmatic and determined to be so utterly depressed and negative. To the point they are inert.


This is why I wonder if it maybe draws in higher numbers of people who are already demoralised on arrival.



I get other kinds of ‘advice’ as well. While this hasn’t happened often, in the last two years I’ve been ‘advised’ by two or three people that (this is nearly a quote) that ‘I am wasting my talents on this when I could be using them on something more important(sic)’.



Yes. There are total strangers that have complimented me on my ability to put a thing together, and then rebuked me for ‘wasting that talent’ on pets.



I guess in their mind I should be doing it for whatever they believe is more pressing or important.



My own view on that is that they should go off and do this very important thing themselves and not complain that I could be doing it instead of this!



That’s not to say that there arent other issues that happen and other injustices that arent deserving of attention. There are.


In fact there are sadly too many and you cant do them all.



I picked this because I considered it to be under represented in the way it should be.



I picked this because the actions of this class of offender actually extend way beyond an animal welfare issue. Everyone knows their mental actions are but a red flag to other things.







I’ve had well intentioned advise as well, family members have advised me to just step back because they can see first hand how much I was putting in for so long and they can also see how little the public at large were putting in.




Its only natural that a family would advise you to step back under those circs, but I’ve mostly waved it away, albeit torn by the fact that they are right yet, on the other hand, once your eyes are opened its hard to unsee.




I want to make a difference so badly to this utter mess and disgrace of a status quo that I have ignored both the advice where people have my well being at heart and those that are only harbingers of doom.



I usually don’t invite this ‘advice’ BTW, it tends to get sort of foisted on me. Well intentioned or doom and gloom, none of it would take us to where we surely need and want to be. That’s why I’ve tended to ignore it or say thanks and keep on keeping on.



Have a good week








The title of this article also happens to be the numbers who were convicted of animal cruelty in England and Wales between 2005 and 2015.

This obviously shakes out at an average of 1,386 convictions each year, for each of those ten years.



I don’t doubt there is a large unknown area of cases that never come to light but if you don’t know of them then you cant factor them into anything. But I obviously don’t think that everyone culpable is caught and convicted.


Thus, this figure of 1,386 convictions per year doesn’t translate to there being 1,386 abusers in the country.


In reality you’d find the actual number of abusers to be ten or twenty times that, in the region of say 26,000 people UK wide.



That’s probably a fair figure of the numbers of people that walk among us who commit acts of animal cruelty – 26,000.



This would fill the stadium of a fair sized football club – just to give it context.



Does having 26,000 or so people of this type walking free among us seem high or not?




I’d say its high, even set against the population being what it is. 26,000 psychotic maniacs can do a lot of damage if they and their actions are left unchecked.



26,000 deranged lunatics of this type become your next rapists, child killers and so on. So, yes, I’d say 26,000 walking freely among us is far too many.




Some of them are so dangerous and so far gone that its an act of utter irresponsibility that they are allowed to have so many freedoms, rights and protections.




The only plus is that this approximation of 26,000 aren’t obviously organised in any way whatsoever, rather they are thousands of totally unconnected individuals who are only linked by virtue of their crimes and their psyche being the same.




Thank God they are too stupid and incapable to get organised in any sense and that they remain more of a disorganised blight scattered across the country.


However, even as a loose and disorganised presence they are an extremer danger.




In fact, in some ways it might be useful if they did all organise since it would then be a lot easier just to aim your artillery at that one large target.



What they are though is very committed. They are committed to carrying out these actions, they are committed to not taking responsibility and they are totally devoted to retaining their liberty.






They are scumbags, but in terms of their warped commitment, I’d give them five stars.



There are not 26,000 people that are sincerely and earnestly up for addressing them though.



The numbers of people prepared to plan, plot and be aritchects of their downfall are very much smaller and more rare than 26,000.



Lets put it this way, if I had 26,000 committed and smart people – this whole deal would be over by ‘tea time’.





In very short order you’d shift the UK from being a nation where morons like that get it easy to one where they don’t.




Why cant we get 26,000 people when psychotic clowns can muster that many lunatics? Easy. It takes no effort to be a psychotic lunatic and a destroyer of the innocent.



All it takes is for the person to be a truly horrible loser.




To push back against their actions and to reshape a nation along the lines of it being tough on such people – that takes real effort and brains.





That’s why there is a far smaller number of people that meaningfully square up to this problem than there are those creating the problem. It takes effort and most don’t want to make it.




It involves boring bits and most cant be doing with those. It takes having goals, which means thinking, and most people cant really be bothered thinking of ideas. It takes personal sacrifice and perhaps a level of risk, and most people don’t want to take it.





It takes a financial commitment to build things that are functional and most people prefer a free lunch.



And its for all those reasons that this loose spread of maybe 26,000 freaks run total rings around your emotions, the Government, the local council, the benefit system, the housing system, you name it.




And that emboldens them further because as ignorant and dim as they are, they have huge ego’s. They think they are extremely wily, and any system or public that’s soft and/or apathetic to their presence is as good as raising a white flag to them.




These are people that are wired up like hyena’s who will attack any weakness in the culture or system.





As mentioned, they are not a monolithic block who all live together in one place and who self identy as one. Its not like they’ve occupied a city and raised a flag. They exist, but not in a sense that a hypothetical ‘army’ could march in and ‘take by the town’.






The only thing they respond to or that is fitting is a strong and tough culture. These people hate anything weak. That’s why they prey on the weak. But they have a fearful respect of a culture that is strong, robust, but still just.



We have a culture that’s too soft. We have a societal response that’s insufficient.




We certainly have a political and legal response that’s not fit for purpose. So you can see why even 26,000 such people would be able to cause such ripples of evil across the country.




Its not that they are efficient at it or brilliant. Its that they have lacked sufficient genuine push back and counter reaction. A snail would beat a hare in a race if the hare was dead. These offenders are the ‘snail’. And societal reaction to it is the hare.




As criminal sub sets go, this approx of 26,000 nationwide is quite small when compared to say burglary and theft.




While it would be quite the task to neutralise all the thieves and burglars, a criminal sub set that comprises of around 26,000 can be plausibly surrounded as a problem – and greatly neutralised.




Convince the state to perceive and treat them as a serious threat culpable of heinous actions and deserving of being punished in accordance – and you suddenly have the foundations for a totally different culture.





Fail to convince the state and you’ll forever be reduced to being extremely limited in what you can do and nothing will change for the good. Its that simple when it comes down to it.




And convincing the state means presenting them with specific goals or demands that are at least rooted in reality. No use asking them to ‘end animal abuse’.




The cathphrase has no practical meaning to them. Instead ask for very specific things, if that’s greater jail time or whatever. Its more workable to push for one or two very clear and specific aims than it is to merely shout ‘end this or that’ at them.



For the record, less than 8% of those convicted get any kind of custodial sentence at all – short or otherwise.



When you understand and see the level of violence involved and when you understand how there is a consensus among criminal psychologists as to how dangerous they are, there’s something far wrong when a mere 8% see the inside of a prison.


Wouldn’t it be a noble and worthy goal to shift that 8% to EIGHTY?



Could that be done? Sure. What would it take? The political will. Where does the political will come from? From the level of coherent and rational demands seen and heard by the public.



See it like making a cake, you need all these ingredients and you need to mix them the correct way – then you have a cake. Miss out some ingredients and fail to mix the right measures in – you get a bowl of gloop that’s not a cake.





You don’t need to match their numbers person for person to beat them. If there are 26,000 or so lunatics surfing on the fact that present conditions give them a giant free pass, it really doesn’t take 26,000 full on and all in people to push for the conditions that would mess them right up.



I’d go as far as to say you could achieve this with a co-ordinated effort with a mere 1% of their number. Maybe even as low as half a % if they were top class people.





This may not sound many, but you know we live in a somewhat apathetic era in which folks want to do and give the least but expect the most back. So while it may seem a very small number of people that you’d need, this is not an era for easily finding good and righteous people.





This class of offender aren’t getting it easy because they are sophisticated criminals with a battery of top lawyers behind them.



They are low life and if they get a lawyer its only some bored state appointed one.




They are getting it easy because those who are not them have and still are tolerating them and tolerating their actions. Spewing tons of venom about them on the Internet isn’t creating viable conditions in which there is zero tolerance.




Only clear and concise goals that shape things so that by law society is zero tolerance toward them will you wipe the smile off their faces and deal with this class of offender once and for all.




I keep saying this though. Truth is that most people aren’t interested in setting goals and achieving them. If they were we would know.




Most folk just want to read a headline and cry about ‘injustice’. That’s the unfortunate yet harsh status quo.




People don’t want to read these days, unless its Twitter bite sized.



Because they don’t read they don’t learn or understand. Rather than read, people are reactionary and prefer to launch onto social media to tell the world how emotional they are over the latest cruelty case.



And that’s about as far as it goes most times.




There is less of an inclination toward logical and rational answers and far more of a leaning toward the emotional nothingness.








You could create two videos, one with a wee dog and some sad music and that would get more views than if you make a video that actually had the fixes so that said dog need not be sad!




Like I said – the tendency is toward being emotionally driven and not logically driven (which is what it must be).







You don’t merely have very sound moral argument’s you can make here, you also have extremely solid rational and logical arguments that can be made as to why Government must treat this as a crime of great magnitude.





There’s no need to resort to losing your shit online because you have so many brilliant argument’s that you could be making. There’s no need for anyone to ever be at a loss as to what they can do. There are literally hundreds of things that can be done, all it takes is to think of one or to take on one of the scores and scores I’ve proposed.







Animal cruelty is a paradox in this country. Their numbers are managably small. Their actions are unquestionably bad and indicative of more bad within them. They have zero public empathy. They are not organised nor do they have any resources as such. They have zero moral high ground while you have all the good arguments and positions that you can use. You even have outlets that you can reach out to, be part of, help grow.





Have a flick through the local press this week. See how many are up in court by Friday and see how many continue to get off far too easily and lightly.




The reason those conditions are our current norm is that too many people tolerate it by way of not fighting back against it.





And fighting back against it isn’t fitting out online. Fighting back is looking at the extent of the problem and going after the core.





Fighting back is having clear and lucid goals and doing that which draws attention and discussion to them as concepts. Fighting back is getting right behind anyone or any grass roots movement that are clearly doing all they can to get real solutions in place.





That’s what fighting back is.



And that’s what there isn’t nearly enough of.


And that’s why by Friday it will be same old, same old.




‘Tis the truth.





Fit For Purpose…?




I  don’t like doing this, but in the name of public interests it must be said – I don’t believe you are getting the gold standard and dynamic organisation with the RSPCA that you SHOULD be getting – considering the fact that they operate more like a corporation, and they have finances that some corporations wouldn’t sniff it.


In just 2017 alone, the RSPCA received legacies totalling a worth of £12million. Just purely from legacies left to them in one single year.




The RSPCA sure seem just like a big corporation to me. Consider this;


‘The charity’s accounts for the year to December 2017 show a payment of between £190,000 and £199,999. But the charity’s salary for its chief executive – the highest paid member of staff  is  £150,000. RSPCA has not said who received the payment’



To put that salary into perspective its substantially more than what is paid to the Prime Minister of the country.



Despite this highly attractive salary, it seems that the RSPCA may as well fit a revolving door at HQ, since their top men and faces don’t seem to last more than a year or so.


I’ve lost count of the times they’ve had some top man suddenly quit on them and they are left leaderless before appointing a new face – who then quits.



People can quit a job if they want of course. But there is absolutely no way any organisation (big or small) will be cohesive and linear if they constantly keep chopping and changing their top people.




Anyone reading this that even runs a medium sized company will agree that constant turnover at the very top is an absolute disaster for continuity.





I am Scottish BTW, so the RSPCA make no direct difference to me since they have no juristifaction here. My observations are as objective as can be, but I also feel I need to say what must be said.



Over and above these literal fortunes left to them in inheritance, they also take in millions via donations, many of which are as a result of ad campaigns that cost them money.




Let me be clear. I would have no issue with them taking it ten zillion quid if they were really giving the public a gold standard and dynamic movement.


But is that what they are giving?





While spending the guts of £200k per year on CEO’s that don’t stick around, the RSPCA can only curiously stretch to these meagre numbers for front line staff;


This from their site;



‘We have approximately 340 RSPCA inspectors, 50 animal welfare officers (AWOs) and 88 animal collection officers (ACOs) working to prevent cruelty to animals in England and Wales. ‘


Its not many is it? Lets put it this way. You don’t look at the fortunes pouring in, then look at those numbers of front line staff and think ‘Yup, looks like that’s worth every bean’.








These sorts of numbers of important bodies are a grain of sand on a shitty beach when you consider its to cover all of England and all of Wales. 24/7.




It would appear to me that the MOST important thing for them to invest in are lots of top class front line staff.


Without that everything else is fluff.



Without that they will only prevent in the most superficial and minor of ways, when set against the wider context.


Is it any wonder so many people tell me they have a clumsy experience any time they have tried to report suspected cruelty to the RSPCA hotline?




If that’s how they are scrimping on boots on the ground staff, their telephone handlers probably number two old grannies, a cat and a talking parrot.



I’ve only ever tried to give them a call once. Jesus wept – it was like trying to give facts to someone that had just landed from another planet. Maybe I was just super unlucky and everyone else that takes the calls is super on point.



There have been other fairly eye brow raising claims against them as well. Not just random claims by some flunky on the Internet, claims such as them killing more healthy animals than necessary.




Last I looked around 4000 are put down for non medical reasons each year. It at least begs a question – why?




I guess the most obvious answer they might offer is that a % are what they consider ‘out of control’ dogs that are too high risk to be rehomed.





Ok. I can see why that might be a real thing in some cases, and they obviously cant be gung ho and take chances since it would come back on them.




But even then it would still invite the question – are they deeming an unrequired % of dogs to be in that category, when they do not need to be? They’d obviously say no. I don’t know. But your experiences are welcome.






Another source declares that the RSPCA put down HALF the animals they rescue. If this is true then its insanely high, and unless there is some sort of absolutely amazing set of reasons, then its inexplicable.




I’ve left the related links and sources at the bottom to everything.






While I don’t doubt there is genuine and sincere welfare woven in among staff and volunteers, what the RSPCA seem to have ballooned into is this not very transparent charity who are more like a corporation, and who can pay their boss more than our Prime Minister yet appear to scrimp on boots on the ground staff.





And that’s before you even take any of these allegation seriously that they euthenise half the pets they rescue.




I don’t want to throw them under the bus, since I’d sooner you had them than not, blah, blah, blah. But that doesn’t take away from the fact that for the massive budgets they are simply gifted they may not be delivering you and the animals a first class service.




Sometimes you’ll find that when something originates in morality (such as when the society were founded), that as it grows and distorts into this corporation like behemoth, it can lose touch with itself, it can forget what its meant to all be about.





Have they rescued some animals domestic and wildlife? Of course they had/do.


Do they have volunteers and paid staff that do a role in good faith? Yes.


Do they come out with the occasional decent if obvious idea such as trying to intro animal welfare into the classrooms? Yes they do.



But even if ALL the allegations and criticisms of them in relation to euthanasia were ignored for a moment, I would still say to you with hand on heart, that you are being short changed in how lacking they are in true leadership and dynamism.







Given that they have been around SO long and given they’ve been bringing in fortunes for many years, you’d maybe think they would be FAR more on top of things by now, no?




With their treasure trove and well meaning givers, I’d expect them to have ten times that front line staff and I’d expect them to be working with the courts to to annual checks on the banned. That would be an example of a gold standard service and money well spent.




With their fortunes and paid staff I would expect them to do more direct and robust lobbying on key goals. I would suggest they have some sort of Constitution, or rather a set of definite time dated goals – and go achieve them.




They are in an incredibly privileged and fortunate position in that the British public see them as the go to guys, sometimes without really asking themselves about the other side of the RSPCA.



If we were handed merely 0.01% of their backing and privileges, the first thing I’d do is write down a ten point goal driven manifesto – and pledge to achieve it by X date.




That’s the least people deserve from the RSPCA given how well backed they are. They deserve an organisation that do more than spent time going through the motions, or staffing turmoil at the top or the latest set of distracting allegations – this time about “bullying” in the workplace.





With their fortunes, their legal team, their PR team to name but a few layers, the RSPCA SHOULD have been able to grab these weak sentences by the throat YEARS ago and force the change. This business of a max of 5 yrs is something that should have been the norm back in about 2000.





Did the RSPCA deliver a pet abuse register? Nope. There are now thankfully at least a couple of independently ones now, one of which is ours at




But this is something the RSPCA should have done and had over the line long ago.




I am fairly confident that the people ‘on the ground’ are all well intentioned folk who do a tough ask well.





I am not confident at all that their top tier people especially care about lasting improvements.


They seem the sort who could be at the RSPCA one day and CEO of a Cadbury the next. If the heart of the leadership isn’t in it then this is a virulent attitude that is bound to poison the well.






Any time I read about the RSPCA they seem involved in some drama that’s not a particular help to the rather pressing problem of Britain have a dangerously high number total nutters that are generally running rings around their age old and multi million dollar business.

Links & Sources



Contact info;


E-mail –
Paypal –


Twitter – @OpFrankish
Register –


Know Your Enemy





Which country in Europe has the highest rates of dog ownership according to official figures?
Its Germany, coming in at around 9.2million dogs.



However, the UK is a very close second coming in at 8.6million.


Also worth nothing – we are a much smaller (island )nation with a smaller human population. So in real terms you could make the argument that the UK is really number one.





Surprisingly Poland takes third place with France in 4th. Again, keep in mind that France is bigger than Poland and the UK with a larger human population. In short – dogs are less common in France by some way.




Romania has a small population of people and around 4-5 million dogs. Translated, this means that almost half of Romanians own at least one dog, compared to the UK which sits at around 24% owning a dog.





I think we all know Romania also has a pretty dismal record of ownership standards as well as high levels of cruelty.





And while the UK is nothing like as bad, we do have far too many dogs in relation to the size and human population of the country, and we do commonly see abandonment, neglect and outright cruelty here.



I would suggest that when you have a country with too many dogs and insufficient numbers of good faith owners then you have the fertile breeding ground for wide scale abuse and cruelty.




You see it in Romania. And you see it here in the UK.




Both countries with far too many dogs in relation to people. Consciously or otherwise it feeds a mentality of dispensibile.




You will even see this play out in human populations. Note that in countries that have a vast and burgeoning population of people, human life becomes ‘cheap’. In nations with far smaller and manageable populations, human life becomes more valued. I’d say this is mostly a subconscious process at work.






I would be quite interested in craning my neck over to Germany to see what their reality on the ground is in relation to these matters?




Germany is often very capable and well set up, and I would like to find out what resources they have to deal with the types of offenders.





Do they differ from us in any ways that we can learn from or be inspired by? I don’t know but I will try to find out.



Or maybe you are German or lived there for years and have the inside scoop? Are there problems worst or better there? Do they deal with those problems more robustly than here or about the same? These are the kinds of things I’d like to try to draw out from raw data.


Data is data, useful to have, interesting to read, but you need to try to do something with it.




What I’m taking from this is that too many dogs per head of a population lends itself to a culture of abuse and neglect. What I might also be able to take from it is a learning curve, if I hapen find a nation in Europe that have managed these issues in a such a way that they are rarer compared to here.


You can view the full figures here;





Here’s another factoid. While we in the UK may look across the pond and think the US are on top of their issues – they aren’t.





In fact the The United States has been ranked as the second-worst nation in the world for animal cruelty.




This is according to research done by the The Voiceless Animal Cruelty Index (VACI).




Only one nation scored poorer – Belarus.



It should however be remembered that not all countries and continents measure and keep data on such things as they might do in the US, UK and Europe.





What do you think the UK and US might have high numbers of that are likely exasperating such violent crime?






I don’t think its controversial to say that drink and drug misuse likely play a large part in many cases and on some level.




According to Statista, while cocaine use across Europe is actually very low, its at its highest in the United Kingdom, Spain, the Netherlands and Ireland.




Cocaine is a drug that is among the most likely to induce rage, paranoia, a nation of coke heads is a nation of wasters.




I don’t think there’s much question that alcohol and acts of inexplicable hyper violence and linked as well.




In terms of consumption in Europe, Ireland sits at around 4th.



In the UK? 57.0% of Opinions and Lifestyle Survey respondents aged 16 years and over in 2017 drank alcohol, which equates to 29.2 million people in the population.




Well, England had the highest proportion of adults who said they drank alcohol in the previous week (57.8%), followed by Scotland (53.5%) and then Wales (50.0%); of the English regions, among consumers of alcohol, binge drinking was more common in the North West and least common in the South East.

Note the part underlined.


Binge drinking, ie the utter abuse of alcohol for the sole purpose of getting off their tits as fast as possible, usually as cheaply as possible as well.



This might be someone’s house rather than the city clubs and pubs.





You can start to build up a mental picture of how the most mental and violent stuff hits the press in this country when you begin to map it all out in this way.




I think the more you break things down the less you are just wandering around in a fog.



I like to research such things since they might give me some sort of edge on the enemy, if I can draw one constructive thing or be inspired once by one piece of research – it will be worth the time.




Information is key in any battle for anything. Know your subject. But also know your enemy and be prepared to learn from other countries who have better negated them.




The public themselves being more aware of potential signs is also key.




This is why I bother to look into things, understand them, think of ways they can be adapted here and this is why I bother to share such findings with people that want a bit more than the latest photo of a dead dog and the offender.





I want to do things which raise awareness so that people reported abuse sooner and more often.



I want to engage in endeavours the can bring our dog population down to a much less bloated figure.



I want to do all I can to help educate the public in the signs to look for in an animal potentially ill treated.




And I will never tire of trying to profile these types of offenders from a criminal and psychological perspective, since people can then be better informed about behaviours to be wary of (if the person owns pets).





While I don’t expect the public to go off and spend money on big academic books on these matters, I feel if I can help join dots and lay it out in this way that it may wake people up that were asleep at the wheel.






I’m too long in the tooth to be some teen idealist. I get that messed up and evil people are going to exist no matter what. I get that we are never going to create some sort of utopia in which children can roam free and which animal cruelty is but a thing of the past.





However. That’s not an excuse for folk not to give it all they have to make things a lot bloody better.




A lot better is superior to a lot worst – clearly.








Just because you’ll never entirely eliminate rape is no reason not to come down hard or rapists. Its no excuse not to provide resources and facilities to the victims of rape.





As a country we try to make things better for rape victims and (usually) robust on the offenders. The result is that while rape is a thing in the UK, statistically its far lower than many countries that didn’t place such emphasis and resources at that crime.




While I know there is no utopia, making things vastly better should be plenty enough to inspire people.



Our reputation as a county is one of being absurdly weak on these wasters and morons, which is an insult to the good people and an insult to their actions.




What I really want to do is work toward conditions and circumstances that without doubt and beyond argument would make the UK by far the most ballsy country in the World when it came to going after and punishing these people.




This can be done, its achievable, its plausible, and imagine the pride you’d feel if you’re British knowing that other countries would look to us as the go to country when it came to this?


If that didn’t instil at least some pride, I don’t know what would.





Contact info;


E-mail –
Paypal –

Twitter – @OpFrankish
Register –







‘Passive’ Cruelty…?






I mentioned in an article recently that there are about four or five different categories of person that are culpable of animal cruelty, and how they all differ in actions and even motives.


The category I wrote about last week were hoarders. If anyone wants to go off and read that article then its on this site and its on our FB wall.



What is ‘passive’ animal cruelty though? It sounds like a contradiction in terms, but when you read into it you see that its a real thing in it own right. It is sometimes referred to as ‘acts of omission’.



The following better explains it;



The dictionary definition of the term wilful is “an act that is undertaken that is of your own free will or design; done by choice; not forced or compelled.”


Unless someone has been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s or is suffering from a mental disorder, it is not possible that an individual cannot “literally” have any knowledge or recollection of the act of bringing an animal into their care and custody and consequently just “forgetting “about them.



At some point or another the recollection that there is an animal outside in the yard, tied up in pen, restrained in any manner, or kept in a room in their house, will surface.


Any individual of sound reason knows full well that a sentient being (animal) requires care. Whether that care is minimal, the awareness that the animal requires food water and shelter is intermittently present.


The act of choosing to ignore that awareness is an act of wilfulness and therefore wilful neglect.


The most common situations of wilful neglect are found in the thousands of animals who are bought or adopted out to individuals who take them home and then categorically ignore them and their needs.



This act of passive cruelty is nowhere more evident that the thousands of dogs who are just tied up and left outside.




Frequently they are left with no food or water and relatively little, if any shelter.










Common signs of passive cruelty are listed below:




Embedded collars

Long overgrown claws or nails

Chronic dental and eye infections

Untreated broken bones (in any animal)


Chronic tick, flea and parasite infestations (in any animal)

Severe mange (in any animal)

Untreated and open wounds on the body (in any animal)


Patches of missing hair (in any animal)


Extremely thin, starving animal (in any animal)


Limping (in any animal)


Dogs who are repeatedly left alone without food and water, and often chained in a yard



Dogs, cats or other animals who have been hit by cars or injured in any way and have not been taken to a veterinarian

Dogs or other animals (horses rabbits, etc.) who are kept outside without shelter in extreme weather conditions



Animals who cower in fear or act aggressively when approached by their owners




Other – just as common – acts of passive cruelty are committed by those individuals who have an animal and leave their place of residence, leaving the animal behind locked in a room.



The long drawn out and painful suffering of any animal from wilful neglect (passive cruelty) by omission is just as heinous a crime as a direct action taken to intentionally harm an animal (active cruelty) by commission








I think this ‘passive cruelty’ is probably the most common and frequent version that you see.




For every example of cruelty that can be called an ‘act of commission’ (such as the types of acts by those brothers etc), there are probably 1000 that readily fall into this bracket – wilful neglect (passive cruelty) by omission.







If you’re interested in reading up on these subjects in a more in depth way, I’ve included a list of sources and titles that you can probably download.





Arluke, A., Levin, J., Luke, C., & Ascione, F. (1999). The relationship of animal abuse to violence and other forms of antisocial behaviour. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14(9), 963-975.



Bartmann, C.P. & Wohlsein, P. (2002). Injuries caused by outside violence with forensic importance in horses. Dtsch Tierarztl Wochenschr, 109, 112-115.




Beirne, P. (1999). For a nonspeciesist criminology: Animal abuse as an object of study. Criminology, 37(1), 117-148.


Felthous, A.R. (1980). Aggression against cats, dogs, and people. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 10, 169-177.




Furnham, A., Richards, S. C., & Paulhus, D. L. (2013). The Dark Triad of personality: A 10 year review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7(3), 199-216.


Hickey, E. W. (2013). Serial murderers and their victims. Cengage Learning.


James, S., Kavanagh, P. S., Jonason, P. K., Chonody, J. M., & Scrutton, H. E. (2014). The Dark Triad, schadenfreude, and sensational interests: Dark personalities, dark emotions, and dark behaviours. Personality and Individual Differences, 68, 211-216.




Kavanagh, P. S., Signal, T. D., & Taylor, N. (2013). The Dark Triad and animal cruelty: Dark personalities, dark attitudes, and dark behaviours. Personality and Individual Differences, 55(6), 666-670.

Patterson Kane, E. G., & Piper, H. (2009). Animal abuse as a sentinel for human violence: A critique. Journal of Social Issues, 65(3), 589-614.

Schedel-Stupperich, A. (2002). [Criminal acts against horses  phenomenology and psychosocial construct]. Dtsch Tierarztl Wochenschr, 109, 116-119.


Wochner, M. & Klosinski, G. (1988). Child and adolescent psychiatry aspects of animal abuse (a comparison with aggressive patients in child and adolescent psychiatry). Schweiz Arch Neurol Psychiatry, 139(3), 59-67.

Things people ask – answered

Q) You had a visit from the CID recently, what was the purpose of that and how did it play out?


A) I had always expected to speak to the police at some stage, so it wasn’t an amazing surprise. My only slight surprise was that they chose NOW – when we have been much less active rather than when we were far more active.

It went fine. I was happy to speak to them and reassure them that we are a pressure group that endeavour to function lawfully.


They’d visited due to our high profile activity across England. They felt that I might be able to somehow make the Internet chill out a bit and avoid getting themselves into trouble.


That’s always been my mantra anyway, and they agreed that in all fairness to me, its impossible to control everything that people write on the Internet.


They left happy that I came over as reasonable and fair and that I wasn’t planning a military coup from my attic!




Television : THE SWEENEY



Q) Did it bug you that they went to the bother of visiting you when they could be using that man power to visit abusers and predators?


A) Not really. We’d created a name for ourselves in different regions of England, so it stands to reason that they were always going to get on the phone to their Scottish colleagues and say ‘Look, go check this guy out, at least speak to the guy’.

I don’t have an issue with that nor how they presented themselves at all. With that being said, it goes without saying that more man power and resources should really be directed toward being visible to the beasts and the bad.




Q) What would you like to see more of from pet lovers and those interested in these issues?

A) I’d love to see them have a far greater and more profound understanding of the absolute gains to be made by advocacy, lobbying, and eye catching campaigns. I’d love to see them being more goal focused, setting simple yet plausible goals – and fighting for them.





Q) What would you like to see less of from them?

A) Pointless and impotent Internet rage, especially from those that don’t do or give anything to improve life one bit.




Q) What would you like to see a campaign on, what campaign would you suggest the public get behind?


A) I’ve suggested one or two of late. I’ve even run straw polls in order to better harness an answer. I think the public should get behind a campaign that calls for mandatory four times yearly checks for those who have life bans.





Q) What feedback have you had for that?


A) Not much because people don’t read things through.





Q) Do you think there would be enough public officials to carry out those duties?



A) Well, the initial party line would be a no, since the police (as well as others) whine about lack of staff. But I don’t accept the lack of bodies argument. The police can gather no shortage of bodies together for some sort of march. In fact, this short discussion on the radio nails it;





Q) Do you think enough people fully understand the irrefutable links between these actions and things such as domestic violence, sociopathy, and the far greater predisposition to gravitate to human targets?



A) I think people do broadly get it since the links aren’t that complex to figure out. I just don’t think they tend to do anything tangible with the knowledge that they hold. I’m not even sure they know what to do with the knowledge other than to give such types a wide berth.




Q) What can they do beyond giving them a wide berth?


A) The problem with giving them a wide berth is that there are so many beasts wandering around these days, that you’ll be wide berthing until there’s no place else to shift.


So I’d suggest taking it to them.


And since the law disallows taking it to them with organised force, then you have to take it to them with pressure, you have to pressure those in power to gradually create the conditions that would make their lives far less comfortable and easy than it is today.









Q) Do you think that individuals such as those two brothers ever ‘grow out’ of these kinds of actions?



A) Research indicates that these sorts of actions are by far most prevalent in young males of about the age range they were at. While this doesn’t mean they hit 30 and become pillars of the community, it does show that these specific kinds of actions tend to spike at 16-25.



Q) What do you think happens as they get a lot older then?



A) They’ll still be evil people but in new and different ways. They’ll be the next generation of child killers, child sex abusers, rapists, and the next generation of people that murder their spouse or partner.





Q) Why do you think the courts tend to give them such a free pass?

A) In part because their powers have been limited. In part because what the UK and Scottish Gov’s really want are to lock up less dangerous and violent offenders – not more.




Q) Why do they want to do that?



A) Because (as that as video above states), politicians and judges have been marinated in this utter fantasy that scum like animal sadists, paedos and other assorted beasts should be treated like naughty children rather than as adults who are sick and dangerous.



They’ve been indoctrinate in a faux liberal mind set which wants to give these beasts a ‘chance’.


At your expense since none of the beasts live among them.



All your curfews, SHPO’s, electronic tags – these are all proof of a Government determined to do anything but deal with the scum and cage them. These things are all evidence how the Government and courts infantalise these offenders.





Q) How sound is the unity among different animal oritented groups?



A) I don’t think its very good if it exists at all. What you have are two or three huge charities that monopolise everything and then you have several smaller organisations, all of whom are fixated on their particular niche, be that foxes or slaughterhouses. There are exceptions here and there but they generally don’t co-ordinate with one another or info share or communicate.






Q) What’s your view on how the press cover abuse stories?



A) They do OK. A bit sensationalist at times but they usually get good facts over. I think they could do more than just print demoralising stories with depressing photos though. The press should use their power for good more often.





Q) What’s the worst case you’ve seen?

A) Probably their (Frankish) one. However, I guess if some of the others had been accompanied with video then my answer might differ.


Q) Do you think a licence would help?

A) Not if its just a piece of paper that costs a tenner and that’s the only commitment – no.







Q) Would greatly reducing the numbers of dogs help?

A) Yes imo. There are ten million in the country. No wonder so many end up in the hands of the whimsical. There are grounds to say that there should be a near cessation of dog breeding for a period of around a decade – or at least until every dog in every shelter is rehomed.





Q) Do you think offenders end up this way due to a lack of violence in their childhood?

A) The opposite, I think (and the data supports it), that ONE of the reasons they end up this way is experiencing and seeing far too much violence.






Q) Do you think an avalanche of threats cut much ice with these offenders?

A) Not really. I think they (like most of us) know that most of it is noise and air. It might force them to put their FB page on private or something. I think that after a while they suss that people aren’t going to make good on their words so they become immune to it. At first it might rattle them. Then they realise its a Paper Tiger.




Q) Do you expect to be doing this in the future?



A) Totally depends on public appetite and public will. I’ve put more than I’d originally legislated for in terms of effort, hours, time, hassle.


It gets a bit boring trying to instil fight and direction into folk that want to spend all their time moaning.
But if the will and appetite are there then it motivates me to take the hassles.





Q) How do you think offences here compare to other countries?

A) Its not much different if you compare it to Canada, the US or other parts of W Europe. These actions are a pathology – like paedophilia. They don’t wear national colours.






Q) Do you think shocking imagery motivates people into action?



A) Maybe a small %. The biggest % will either turn the page or watch it, think its bad, and then forget it.





Q) Aside from campaigns is there anything else you’d like to do?

A) Yeah, FB is a very limiting way to reach people. ‘Tis only words on a screen. I’d like to get together with someone in my city of Edinburgh and do a regular Vlog and host it on You Tube and other platforms.


It would be a far superior and more real way of reaching people and we could speak about these issues and even invite interesting guests on.



Q) Do you have anyone in mind to do it with?


A) Not really, but if anyone in my city is into it – get in touch.