The following is a verbatim message/series of questions that we have sent to Anna Turley. It may well be that we wholeheartedly disagree that no vet anywhere could possibly have for a moment suspected abuse three months later, but in all truth I only make mention of this since it was something she was really quite adamant about when she contacted us.
We are just going to have to agree to disagree with her on that one. Neither myself, Phil or Nemo are vets – and nor is Anna Turley. The three of us did not see the dog on the day it was taken in – and nor did Anna Turley.
The only difference in our position and her position in respect of the vets is that we think it’s questionable that no vet anywhere would possibly have suspected abuse. In order for us to know that we would literally have to ask every vet. I am fairly confident in saying you’d probably find a % that would have suspected abuse. Anna’s position is that no such vet can possibly exist and that’s really our only point of difference with her.
I do think this is key since it appears that a vet is not legally obligated to report their suspicions at all. That’s something we only found out by way of a letter from the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons to a follower. I was quite amazed to learn this I have to say. It was one of those things you assume they must be obligated to do by law. Nope. It’s all down to whether they wish to or not. Not even professional ethics or morality seemed to be mentioned by the RCVS. I also think it is key because not being legally obligated means permitting two dangerous beasts to have gone unpunished for over two years! It only facilitates the criminal.
Anyway, Anna Turley isn’t really there to advocate for the interests of any one vet to be honest. MPs are really there to lend commentary and ideally support to wider issues and the wider community at large. We don’t mind her having a personal opinion on the vet and we have our personal opinion – just as an intelligent public can do their own thinking and form their own conclusions.
If her personal view so happens to be in the minority then it is what it is. My own personal view is that the vet wasn’t so much part of some giant conspiracy but simply made a poor judgment – could and should have done better. If she just said that from the get-go then people would have respected the admission. I think its only when someone clams up or becomes far too keen not to take any blame that the public lose all respect for that person.
We can all make a mistake but she should have at least fessed up and just admitted she should have done things differently/better. If she had done that and committed herself to a new approach in the future then I honestly think that the public are far more empathetic than they are given credit for.
She could even have gone as far as to tell us what happened that day if she wrote under a pseudonym and changed names and locations.
That’s the last thing I want to say about the vets at least in respect of Anna Turley. Maybe veterinary practices and the RCVS itself needs an overhaul. However that will have to be another battle for another day.
There are a few other matters that we would invite Anna Turley to comment on though, matters that are not related to one vet but that do reflect a great many of the questions that are asked to us.
These are certainly not designed to ‘trip her up’ or anything, we are fairly and candidly seeking her comments and thoughts on a few key matters. We only ask her because she is at least familiar with the case and the wider issues and this gives her a great advantage over the others who are not. We appreciate she may not have neat little answers to each question that appease us all. But she can give her opinion, she can tell us the position from her party perspective and if she doesn’t know the answer to something then she could find out.
I think I can speak for all followers of the case, the wider issues and Operation Frankish when I say we would all be very appreciative of that.
I’ve limited my points and questions to merely six. I think that’s a reasonable number to read and comment on.
Questions to Anna Turley
1) We understand that you have the opportunity to pursue the Ten Minute Rule Bill in February, 2017. We are keen to know what your expectations might be from that, and what sort of time line the public can expect for something to go from a TMRB to that which would be accepted into and enshrined in law?
2) Your previous communications were with Michael Gove. Now that he has been replaced by Liz Truss, do you plan to set up a meeting or communication with her ahead of February?
3) On the front of today’s Gazette it was revealed that a decent member of the public was the subject of what appear punitive and questionable measures by Cleveland police. His ‘crime’? Finding himself behind the ‘family’ car in traffic then taking a photo. No threats, no criminal damage, no words exchanged. The public are angry that a citizen who takes a photo in public in his own country is subjected to what appear to be some very subjective and questionable tactics. We would ask that you stand in support with this individual and the rights of any citizen to take a photo of an inanimate object in public.
4) There is public doubt over the present status of their curfew and tagging order. From what we have read they are strictly meant to remain at the same address for the entire duration. This has failed to happen, having moved from Redcar to Darlington, then a series of hotels and guest houses. We are confused as to how such an order restricts free movement when in fact they both move more freely than a typical person. Can you confirm that they tagging order and curfew stand and that they have adhered to it?
5) We would invite you to comment on the silence from the police every time the public ask them to answer two simple questions. They have been asked many times and by the public not merely us. They were asked the same two questions again last week, in writing, and at a senior level.
6) We have found out during our investigations that it is not uncommon for local authorities to house everyone from paedophiles to rapists (to these brothers) in guest homes – without telling the owner what they are. We believe this to be a nationwide method used by local authorities and the public obviously believe it lays the foundations for tragedy to occur.
Which it has already. See here:
Will you as an MP speak out against these practices?