Loyalty is an admirable quality unless it is totally misplaced.
For instance, anyone who makes excuses for or panders to dog torturers and paedophiles is guilty of ill-advised loyalty. In the context of this case (and the wider picture), I only feel a duty to show loyalty to a few. It goes without saying that the other members of the OF team have my loyalty. If they did not then we simply wouldn’t be working together as we do. Those who have backed us since day one have my loyalty as well.
However, most of my loyalty actually lies with all the children and sentient creatures out there who are placed at risk by the sick government policy of allowing predators to skulk around looking for new victims, unsuspecting victims at that, considering the brothers were also permitted a name change. I may never meet all these children and animals but this is moot. What isn’t moot is that I have a sense of loyalty to their safety that aces all and everything else.
I have no loyalty to the vet though. Nor should any be expected by them. People have watched that disgusting video and absolutely NO ONE accepts that the dog could see a trained vet weeks later and that it would fail to make her sit up and take notice. I have spoken to literally hundreds of people and every single one believes that she should and could have erred on the side of caution and reported it – at the time. She clearly didn’t.
We do not know why not because they hide behind “muh rules”. It’s interesting that on one hand she is “not allowed to comment” and then we get told from a reputable person that the family were offered a scan – but declined. Huh? If she is not ALLOWED to comment then how does this reputable person know they were offered a scan then? Either she is allowed to say such stuff or she isn’t. And she clearly has.
If she offered a scan then she could clearly see that there was something badly amiss otherwise you wouldn’t offer a scan. Only a person that was totally blind wouldn’t have seen the state of the dog as it crawled into the surgery. She must have seen it and apparently offered a scan. The scan was allegedly turned down (no wonder), with the stated reason being “muh costs”. The truth is they obviously would not want a scan at any price. However, if the vet had an INKLING of suspicion then she should have done a scan, for free, anyway. Or she should have kept them waiting and made a call. Or she could have suggested they take the dog to the PDSA (or an equivalent), especially since they are all on benefits.
It has been suggested to us by said reputable source that she did submit some form of evidence to the court. We’re not sure what as you get met with the usual wall of silence, but this conflicts with reports we got that she hadn’t. Again, if the vet is able to tell others then she must be able to tell us this and the public. We didn’t bombard the women with demands and messages, we fairly asked her to get in touch with us and before anyone even had named her.
We couldn’t have been nicer or more benign in our offer to clarify some points, but she chose to say nothing at all and for no reason whatsoever she hid her Facebook profile, the vets disabled their FB page and took down their website. All before we or anyone else had given a name. We asked the surgery for their protocols for identifying abuse in general and they simply ignored us again and again.
In terms of this evidence she now apparently gave, okay, let’s run with that. This would mean that having seen the footage she agreed it was cruel. You could barely say anything else at that stage. But it would still DEFINITELY mean that she DEFINITELY failed to identify and report it at the time. I just don’t think that is remotely good enough. In what sort of condition would a dog need presented to her for her to ring the RSPCA? We don’t know – they refuse to tell anyone.
Here’s the clincher though – if the public want to raise questions and cast doubts then they must do so via the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. However, how are people actually meant to do that one thing when the practice and vet blatantly refuse to even acknowledge it was them, leaving it up to the general public to finally piece it all together? What are people meant to do- write a letter without being able to cite a practice or the vet? Some complaint that would be.
We don’t owe loyalty to a vet or a practice. What we have said consistently and routinely is to ask questions and give a fair chance for them to respond. If everyone was blanked then what are we to do – just forget it?
We didn’t even message the women or speak to her or anything. Why not? Because we knew she would probably ignore it and pretend we were threatening her – and we never have. We were not the ONLY people who knew so she should thank us for being responsible enough to urge people to go about it the right way and raise the matter, the allegations and the doubts with the RCVS.
She has to understand that the public have genuine concerns about her professional judgement if she failed to identify that as abuse from the outset. She needs to understand that people place absolute faith in people like her and that a massive shadow would always be cast in a case like this. She has to accept that this failure to report any suspicions DID permit them to escape justice for two years and probably forever had it not been for the SD card.
She doesn’t deserve abuse and threats; we have issued none and in fact have strongly discouraged it from anyone. But she does deserve to be held to account and since this is a matter of public interest then she should explain why she did not report it at the time.
The landlady has my empathy but not my loyalty. I believe that she was duped into letting out to them and I fully understand that this is now a hassle for her, but she also has to understand that just a few doors away there is a mother and baby and I don’t think it’s a good idea to have sadists there. As much as I empathise with her predicament, I am far more concerned for the vulnerable. We have been good enough to give her the benefit of the doubt that she was fooled, and we have trusted her word that she will sort it. We truly cannot be any more fair but we have to balance that against the public interest and their safety.