Britain’s Most Deplorable Pet Abusers

Most of you will by now know that the two inbred lemmings were on the news again last night. Its only a brief clip and was used as part of a wider story.
If you’ve not yet seen it you can find it here (at around 1.48)
This got me thinking. There are over 100,000 reported abuse and neglect cases every year and according to RSPCA figures. Dogs make up the biggest % of victims. I was curious to know if any offender had ever gotten the level of exposure that they have AND that has endured this long. After about an hours worth of research the answer appears to be negative.
It would seem that no other pet abusers in modern history have had this much press coverage, in so many different media outlets, over and over. There are some whose actions maybe got them into the press as a one off thing. There were even those that would get checked again on rare occasions. But there was simply no other pet abuser who the media have covered so much and for so long. There have even been cases of abuse which (believe it or not) were worse than this, but not even they felt this level of relentless exposure time and again.


This is very good. All the biggest historical legal gains used one or two lead examples to lever in the changes. That’s is precisely what I wanted. I deliberately set out to make them into the most abhorrent pet abusers on public record. While their initial actions were enough to court a first wave of press I knew that their names and this case needed to be pushed into the media narrative as much as possible.


Almost everything we do has been geared toward that. We can put any message up at all and any press that cover it woud still need to brief their readers on why we are called OF. It has immortalised the case and the story.
This case has now been perfectly shaped to be used as THE case which changes legal history. Its all there. The ball is literally sitting on the line and just needs someone to sidefoot it into the net.


I only hope that enough of the public are able to see that and that they do not simply rely on professional politicians. We’ve relied on them to do the right thing for far too long. Look where it has gotten us. We should certainly be sympathetic to any that are talking the talk but lets never rely on professional politicians from any party. Lets instead rely on ourselves for a change. We’re just ordinary people funded by ordinary people and who want to effect change that will make life better for all ordinary people for decades to come.
We want to achieve that by changing the balance of power. At this moment they abusers have too much of it and good people do not have enough. This must change.



We want to alter that balance of power by taking the liberty and freedom away from abusers so that at least society is rid of the convicted one’s for a good long while. We want to send out a clear message that this is no country for such people. I want Britain to be THE most intolerant society in the World in two specific areas – and this is one of them. And I want that absolute intolerance to be reflected by the actions of Government. I want us to be totally and absolutely intolerant of those who commit actions like this. I want a society that ostracises them. I want businesses that refuse to serve them, I want landlords that refuse to house them, I want people to turn their backs on this kind of ‘person’. I most of all want a Government that will finally and at long last start caging these beasts as they deserve.

I want a Government minister to watch that infamous footage then look me in the eye and tell me they deserve to be at large.

But I most of all definitely want Britain to be a right bastard of a country … if you happen to be such a twisted little freak that you would do such things.

I’ve had enough of ‘do gooders’ who will wring their hands and assure us how they are good boys really and that how such types can be ‘reformed’. This is utopian lies. By the time they do what they did at the age they were – it is already too late. All you can do after that is reject them as a society while the state can throw them in a cage for a few years. Then they’d need monitored after release.
That is what must happen with cases like this and there must also be an expectation of a custodial sentence when found guilty.
Watch out for those political and legal tricks that Government will try, such as making a change that looks not bad in theory but in practice it is under used. If (when) that happens you must be prepared to then hold their feet to the fire until it is used to its fullest.

That video was truly sickening. No words can ever do it justice. Yet rather than being abused, dead and forgotten that little bulldog may well end up as being the symbol behind the force that changed pet abuse laws radically in this country.
What a legacy that would be for ‘Baby’ to have left for her suffering. Taking something evil that cannot be undone and making it into a catalyst for good.

Furthermore, any time OF are covered in the press the mood is upbeat and defiant. One day when people think back to that little dog it will not be with sadness but with pride. Pride in the fact that it was her suffering that was to serve as the catalyst for long over due change on a national scale. I ultimately want her to be a positive icon for the future.

Incidentally, going back to those two Orcs specifically what I also discovered last night is that if you add up all the different press coverage they have had from May 2016 to Jan 2017 it was greater than the vast majority of men whose convictions got them sent to a maximum security prison.

Doesn’t happen by accident. Doesn’t happen on its own and keep happening on its own. It has been engineered to be that way. If you want to make one example THE lead case then it needs unswerving media attention. That can only be engineered externally since the press themselves would not consciously think to give more sustained coverage to a pet abuse incident with a dog that died in 2014 than to someone imprisoned under terrorism charges. That is how the media and press work and that is why PR agencies determine what is news to a degree.

Its good. But we need more of it to be honest. We especially need more of it in the here and now because this is really starting to become a mainstream talking point now with MP’s of different parties suddenly calling for five years.

Its like I said yesterday for those that watch cheesy horror films. At some point the victims always get a chance to kill off the enemy. Shoot him in the arm and assume him dead only for him to inevitably rise again and make them regret not going all the way.

This is the same. Politicians and abusers are reeling at the level of pressure this past year especially.

This is not a time to let them recover.
This is the time for knock out blows.
We can fight this with one hand tied behind our back but not two. Give us at least one hand to fight this.



Q) If it is true that Britain is a nation of animal lovers why is the maximum sentence for even the most extreme animal cruelty still only 26 weeks after all these generations?

A) Because its just an expression with no true meaning. The reason why this nation allows the most serious offenders to walk free and have a free pass is simply that its been low priority for the general public all of this time. If its low priority for the general public then there was never the incentive for it to be high priority for any Government or opposition party.

(Let’s face it.  Probably not someone that is going to take the lead)


Q) Do you think its possible to make it into an issue of high priority among the public and politicians?

A) Anything is possible. You’d have to first make it an issue of higher priority among the public before you could expect political parties to fall in line. I am uncertain as to whether or not it can be made a high enough priority among the public. When we live in an age in which this country permits a convicted murderer to come live here (having slit a girls throat in the Netherlands) and when we live in an age where the public generally just accept that – to then get our issues higher up their priority list is a big task.
Q) Do you think its plausible to turn Britain into the toughest nation in Europe when it comes to dealing with and sentencing such abusers?

A) Yes but its going to take a huge amount of effort and a great deal of public will to get there. Its definitely plausible and then Britain would be an example to every other nation. But without that public will and desire? Then Britain will not achieve that status.

Q) What’s the toughest thing you’ve found getting people to do?

A) Quit being all angry, start getting organised and make a change. The public stay stuck on rage. Funding has also been a very hard thing to get them to do. And having any interest or understanding as to the bigger picture. Generally speaking people look at each symptom of a diseased society in isolation. What then happens is people become stuck in a bubble. Those whose stated interest is child weflare do not pay nearly enough attention to pet abuse and they should. Those whose stated interest is animal welfare don’t pay enough attention to child abuse – and they should. Rather than being separate things that exist independently of one another they are all inter linked.

(Internet rage doesnt lead to anything positive)

Q) The country wastes £100mill a year on home curfews and tagging which are a proven fail. Since the public loathe seeing public funds wasted why aren’t they more up in arms over this?

A) I don’t think enough of them are fully aware of the cost and the fact that it is a fail. I don’t know of any political parties that often point it out to them. The press have highlighted it on occasion but not nearly enough for it to stick in the minds of the public.

Q) How do you think things will look in five or ten years unless there is dramatic and radical change?

A) Not pretty at all. I think you will witness a nation in which more extreme things will occur even more often. I think it would eventually reach a point of no return situation. In other words the rot would be so bad it would be irretrievable.

(Extreme things always become more extreme)


Q) How do you think Britain compares to other countries in regard to dealing well with these issues?

A) Compared to other nations in Europe I’d say we’re about mid table in terms of the range of sentences we can give to offenders.
Q) Do you plan to keep on going with OF?

A) Not really my call to make in practice. If we have funds there to do the things we need to do to effect the change that is needed then we will do those things. But without resources we obviously cannot do that. Time will tell.

(This is our present.   Hate to think what the future will hold)


Q) What’s your views on the press coverage OF achieved in less than 8 months?

A) I think its been excellent. It has exceeded all of my expectations.

Q) How do issues that really only have direct interest or effect on a tiny % of the public manage to become such a massive talking point for all mainstream media and all political parties. I’m thinking of issues that are relevant to gays, for example?

A) Because there are some very powerful and well funded movements and groups behind them. People who are gay think gay issues matter to them so they fund the organisations that represent said issues. This allowed them to grow into strong and influential movements who are resourced and staffed and who can force their issues into the mainstream in such a way. Also there are obviously a % of MP’s who are going to be homosexuals. Its human nature that their own issues would matter to them.

(How to do it without resources and labour? Who knows!)

Q) Then do you think it is possible for a movement like OF to one day match that type of reach and influence?

A) Anything is possible, but there are differences. It was always logical that homosexuals would put money into organisations and movements that represented homosexual issues. Not only was it in their interests to do so but homosexuals are by no means the poorest overall demographic in the country. Many of them have the disposal income to fund that which represents their issues. OF is different. Its not like the dogs and pets themselves have an income and can fund us for their interests. It then falls on pet owners, but in the largest % of cases they wont do it unless perhaps they’ve been a direct victim of lax pet abuse laws.

Q) Is there any way around that?

A) Maybe. I think to come anywhere close to the sort of success those types of movements had with their issues you’d have to take a movement like this and make it more multi faceted. You’d need to become more than just a rigid single issue movement and take on other positions. The more related those other positions were the better but that’s really the only way you’d broaden it out and make it less of a niche thing and more of a populist movement.

(As you can see here, too much rage never did the Hulk any favours on the animal welfare front)


Q) If left to their own devices what’s the best we can expect from Parliament in regard to tougher sentences?

A) Not very much. Left to their own devices I think they might eventually make some sort of changes here and there. But I’d fully expect them to fall well short of anything truly meaninful. They may give something that looks good on paper.

Q) If it ultimately proved that the resources just weren’t there to carry out the actions that need to be done in the weeks and months ahead, what would you do?
A) I’d accept the situation while always leaving the door open to some positive change arriving out of the blue. I’d also get back to paying some bills and putting myself first a bit more. I’ve put way more time into this than I ever expected or anticipated because that’s the time it demanded to achieve things like commanding that much press etc. I’d easily estimated that I spent 20 hours per week just on doing things for the now and the future for OF. Some weeks it can be as few as ten but there have been many occasions when its been as many as 30 – because that is truly what it takes. I’ve often found myself having to work well into the night or on weekends just to make stuff happen. Christmas 2016 was my most modest ever as an adult because I’d spent so much time in 2016 doing things to drive this forward rather than drive my own persona stuff forward. So I’d definitely be able to improve that situation if I wasn’t actively conceiving of and pushing events for this.

(No use telling these people how much you hate them on Facebook)

Q) Do you think there could be some wealthy backers out there who’d bankroll OF?

A) Maybe but I wouldn’t hold my breath. Rich people didn’t get rich by giving money away.

Q) Do you think the British people should donate more to movements or charities in their own country over and above those outside of their own country?

A) Up to them but I’d say a certain yes. No use worrying about some strangers ‘house’ in a far off land when our own ‘house’ is so very in need of a purge.

(In the end it is insane ‘parenting’ that creates a Frankish)

Q) Do you think that publishing abuse stories motivates people into donating?

A) No. It only motivates them to get angry.

Q) Does paying to boost appeals on FB bring in more donations?

A) Not really. It gets a decent reach, lots of likes and many shares. Doesn’t make a measurable difference to the funding.

Q) Are go fund me type sites any use to you?
A) Not really. You only really share it around your own FB etc anyway so its no more effective than just asking people on FB itself and probably less so.

(And tearing your hair out does no good)

Q) Do easier payment features help?
A) Not really. It is now absolutely easy peasy to donate to us for anyone. Hasn’t made a difference.
Q) Would static fundraising visuals perhaps be more effective than text when looking for funds?

A) Not in practice. In practice it has never really made much of a difference.
Q) There always seems such public rage when an abuse story breaks. Why is it so problematic to turn that rage into anything constructive?

A) Because rage is in of itself useless. And the overwhelming majority of people get stuck on just the rage part and that’s it. You cannot harness it or do anything constructive with that rage since the vast majority do not want to be unstuck from the rage. They seem to take something from their two minutes of hate and that’s it. They aren’t keen to surrender that and they aren’t receptive to anything which is not that.

(For even students its all about how much they get paid these days)


Q) Do you mostly blame Governments or the general public for the fact that Britain is so soft on abusers of all kinds?

A) One follows the other. If these things were enough of an issue to Governments then they would adapt and change. They’d have to or a rival party would come along and beat them. I blame Governments for not taking the initiative as leaders should and I blame the general public for simply tolerating all of this for far too long.

Q) I’d like to start of a movement like this in my own country. What can I expect?

A) Lots of demands on your time, very little hands on help, extreme funding issues on an on going basis and the odds to be stacked very heavily against you.
Q) What do you think ultimately creates an Andrew Frankish?

A) Extremely dysfunctional parenting. Period. There may be some rare cases where someone like this so happens to be born to two loving and well balanced parents. Those would be the exception. In most cases all thugs, sadists, freaks and degenerates are a result of off the scale poor parenting and it will be multi generational as well.

Q) What is the danger in having to write off entire months due to a lack of resources?

A) Simple. We concede the momentum, esp in the media. Coverage is pressure and pressure leads to change. The other obvious danger is that with a loss of momentum we’re not obviously going to sit around playing the banjo until the day things might change. We’ll naturally just go back to what we did before we began out at all. There’s a risk we’d lose the momentum as well. Life doesn’t stand still.

Q) How has running this differed from anything else you’ve ever done?

A) The main difference I have noticed is that the entire matter of pet abuse seems to draw in a depressingly high number of people with violent fantasy issues themselves. Not all. Maybe not even most. But certainly far more than anything else I have seen or experienced and that would include subjects where you might expect a lot of rage. I have never seen anything that draws it in quite as much as this type of thing does. Its almost near resistant to change as well. They don’t seem to seek solutions and rational fixes, they seem to be all about the foaming at the mouth violent fantasy. Its extremely weird and not at all good.

Q) Would you say your expectations have changed over time?

A) Probably. I think I’ve gradually lowered them. After I got over watching that evil video I decided that we had a real national problem here and that anger and tears weren’t cutting it. Solutions and deterrents were clearly what were needed. Rational and logical one’s. The press coverage has totally exceeded all of my expectations but I now have totally different expectations of the public. I still think that far too many are stuck on read & rage. They aren’t interested in a plan or series of plans. They aren’t interested in anything with a plan. The abuse stories are often then reduced to no more than an atrocity fix.

Q) What are the challenges of getting the right kind of hands on help?

A) Huge challenges. Mainly because you are asking them to be prepared to give up fairly large chunks of time. And you obviously aren’t paying them. Its not easy to find the right people who are prepared to give up time and lose money to give us time and get no money. You can get lucky and pick up a Jane type along the way, but those tend to be something of a fluke.

Q) But since you’ve been all over the papers and are very public wouldn’t doing work for you be a good way for may students in certain fields to get their work known?

A) Yes it would but times have changed. There was a time when they’d have seen that for themselves and be prepared to work for free to elevate their CV. That was true 10-20yrs ago. Now with all the narcissim that’s around many more students believe that they are The Man when it comes to (insert field). They only see things in the short term – how much will they get. They do not think to elevate their portfolio for the long term since these days everything is all about how much money people can grab.
Q) Do you think we might get a pet abuse register?

A) Probably. I can see the Government eventually going with that. They know it wouldn’t be very hard and would appease a lot of people. I think it would be a decent feature to have, but I do not see it as a solution.
Q) Do you think more education at schools would help?

A) Depends what you were educating them in and for why. I guess if you raise the status of pets as sentient creatures in the eyes of very young children then that can only be a good thing. There are very likely one or two past examples of it being done at a given school. The issue with it (again) is that even if you had a good model it still needs funding. And it still needs people who will do the work (and for free). If you wanted the state to sanction it as some part of the national curriculum then you’re going to need a lever to put pressure on the state to do just that. If you wanted someone other than the state do to do it (even as pilot projects) then the resources to make it happen would need to come directly from the people. And that just takes us back to our old friend – a lack of funding.

We’ve tried to sow the seeds by at least setting up a juniors page with the idea of education in mind. Its a slow grow though despite Jane’s best efforts. To grow it we’d need to invest in it and to invest in it we’d need resources – and we don’t have them.
Q) You’ve written about how this country needs to raise the quality of pet owner while driving down the casual availability of pets. How do you think this could be done in a reasonable time frame?

A) I have no easy answer but I did have an idea that I was going to pursue this year as I believe it would have value. With that very thing in mind asked I was seriously considering trying to bring some of the most respected minds in various fields together to come up with what would be an actual working model to achieve both aims. Again though you still need some sort of working resources to do those types of things. The idea and principles are sound but if you need to go off and meet people or a bunch of other things, then you need some kind of resource in order to aid you make it a reality. A good idea is just an idea gathering dust unless you breathe life into it.


There was a case a few months back in which a guy went to prison for not getting his dog veterinary treatment for a massive tumour. You may even remember it. His reason for not doing seemed to be born out of a fear that the vet would advise that the dog be PTS.

I’d have to dig back on the case to fully remind myself but I remember thinking at the time how strange it was that he should go to prison when so many like Frankish do not. Surely we must try to make a distinction here between what is abuse, what is neglect and what is sadism?

I think intentions are extremely important. When person A does thing B -what was their intention, what was their motive? In the case of the guy whose dog had that tumour it could be said that while his actions were certainly neglectful that his intentions were not cruelty or sadism.
I’ve heard of cases where someone attached to an elderly relative has been unable to altert authorities right away as they psychologically cannot let go of the body.

Someone who is neglectful is not always sadistic and they may not even always be all bad. They may just be lazy, a bit stupid, they may never have been shown the right way or a better way. Not to mention the fact that neglect itself is a very broad church.
There is a vast difference between person A) Their dog has a good life but they neglect to walk it as much as they could and person B) The person goes off partying for a week and neglects to make provisions of food, water and care for their pets.

B is pretty much bordering on sadism in that example since there is a foreknowledge that staying out for a week and not feeding pets is going to cause direct and immediate suffering.

I would imagine that a large % of cases the RSPCA deal with relate to something in the range of B.
However, even that is in itself distinct from what I can only describe as zoosadism. I have spent months looking around for the thing that best fits the sort of actions carried out by Frankish and the only thing that really ticked the boxes was this thing called zoosadism.

There is actually a dearth of information and data about this particular and specific pathology but it does exist – it is a real thing. There are probably those who to this day never witnessed the video evidence. If you did then you will realise why I place what they did into this distinct category.
I would like to see a great deal more study and time put into this phenomenon. You can greatly slow something down with a good range of punishments and preventions, but to defeat the problem you must  comprehend it.
Place different levels of neglect to one side for a second. Neglect can always be dealt with by a combination of measures. If you raise the quality of owner you will get less neglect. If you educate society into seeing having a dog as a privilege that they have to show they are able to safely own, then you get less neglect.

Most cases of neglect happen when people buy pets on a whim, imo. The results and outcomes of it can be devastating but for now lets leave conventional neglect to one side and agree its a problem.
Because there aren’t really fine distinctions in ‘pet abuse’ it is very hard to determine what % of them fall into what we could fairly agree as a definite examples of zoosadism. However, I would conservatively estimate that perhaps 2-3% of all cases that the RSPCA deal with might fall into that bracket.

In the murky world of pet abuse the flat out zoosadist is a minority within it. With that being said, if the RSPCA are dealing with 150,000 cases every year and 2-3% of those were indeed zoosadists then it would still be a disturbingly large minority. You’re still looking at two or three thousand individuals each year whose acts are specifically that of a zoosadist. And that is only those who come to light.

When you see how deeply disturbing the zoosadist is by way of seeing the video evidence then a person would have to be brain dead to allow such a person to just walk among normal people.

The pathology of the zoosadist isn’t some one off thing any more than the pathology of a paedophile is a one day deal. In both cases there is something deeply and inherently wrong with how that person was wired up and how they developed. Genetics probably play a part and environment will play a part, but the end result is that it produced these absolute monsters whose actions are so off the scale abhorrent that I did not even realise such actions existed.

The specific and sole aim of the zoosadist is only to cause suffering. Directly. The zoosadist is not neglectful as such. They can be but its not their main motive.
They are also not a victim of circumstance, perhaps taking on too many pets and just getting overwhelmed by it all.

They do not even have the excuse that there is some financial motive. Not that such a thing would be a valid excuse but in the case of dog fighting circles it is clear that vast betting is the main motive for these brutal fights. If you removed the money from dog fights then they’d probably be putting their money on something else, anything else.
Of all the different kinds of animal abuser I would strongly suggest that the most dangerous of all is the zoosadist. It is for that reason I would love to see many more studies done on that specific pathology and it is for that reason that I would even argue for zoosadism being a distinct charge from neglect, bad decision making, etc.
Once you spend a bit of time reading up what studies do exist out there on the subject you soon see why it is a matter of national urgency that general sentences aren’t just increased but that special emphasis is placed on this phenomenon.
Since the numbers of outright zoosadists would make up the smallest % of overall pet abuse it really would be no stretch for them to be treated as a distinct group and at least begin out by giving them the most years and the most post prison monitoring.

There is just something so dangerously insane about these individuals that you cannot possibly just lump it in with general neglect and less serious types of abuse.

I think that when we do so we almost permit future child killers and murderers go free without ever fully understanding that’s what they are.

If it is understood that zoosadists are a distinct and pernicious category of their own then early intervention in cases of it + serious consequences could prevent a greater tragedy further down the line.

As far as I am aware a criminal record does not remain with you for life unless perhaps the crimes fall into certain categories. But if you did a small burglary back in 1998 then I think you are then entitled not to declare it, I believe it is formally a case of the slate being clean.

As things stand the actions of the zoosadist today need not be declared by them if asked by a future employer etc, once a certain period of years passes. Why? Because I do not think you can currently be convicted of zoosadism, even if zoosadism is what has been done. I am certain that the most you’d get charged with is general animal cruelty or weflare violations and that allows the zoosadist to sort of blend in with the general scum.

Law can be really slow to catch up in this way. The crime of rape is a good example. When is rape not a rape? When the victim is male. Scottish and English law are different and things may have changed now, but I am sure that for long enough there was no crime of rape against a man. Even when a man was clearly raped!
Even ‘paedophile’ is a bit misunderstood. You cannot be convicted for ‘being’ a paedophile as such. You can be convicted of sexual offences against children, you can certainly be convicted of rape and molesation but as far as I am aware you cannot be convicted just for having the pathology that a paedophile would have. You need to somehow turn the pathology into some sort of action before it crosses over into a crime.
I actually think ‘paedophile’ is perhaps one of the most over used and misunderstood words of the past ten years.

A true paedophile is someone who has a twisted interest in pre pubescent children. I think I see where confusion comes in because you are technically a child in this country until you are about 17.

A true paedophile tends not to have an interest in targets that ‘old’. A true paedophile is not creeping around trying to win over some 15yr old girl. As a rule a true paedophile is only interested in targets aged 12 or much younger.

I think that when we over use and misuse the term we may somewhat do a disservice to the distinct victims of paeodphilia. When society calls some guy of 25 a “paedo” for trying to get himself a g/f that is 15 I cannot help but to think it detracts somewhat from the toddler being abused that night.
That’s why I say these distinctions should be made clear. A zoosadist is not just a pet abuser. They are something more (or something less, depends how you view it).

An individual whose victims are children (as an example) aged four is clearly and obviously distinct from some chancer trying his luck with a girl of 15.
That is not to excuse the general pet abuser or those guitly of neglect, nor is it to excuse the creep trying it on with girls that are clearly under age.

But there could be some hope for the creep that tries to chat up girls of 15. Its entirely possible that they may end up with a g/f and forget all about chasing such young girls. They may even get a g/f that is 16 and that would be fine for them. They are light years removed from the true paedophile who targets small children that cannot possibly have the cognitive skills to understand what the hell is going on. That latter group are the absolute scum of the earth and it disgusts me that they are EVER allowed to be free. I would give all of them life and they are fortunate to be granted that.

There might be hope for the clueless moron whose neglect wound him or her in court on an animal welfare charge.

Why not just open their eyes and LOOK at the cases. Its not exactly rocket science to determine whether something is zoosadism or neglect. Maybe the latter could gradually and ever so slowly be a more responsible person in time. Maybe in about ten years, once they really sort their life out, they could start off small with a goldfish – see how that goes.
The zoosadist? No. That is a deep part of them that cannot be coached back out. I would challenge any psychiatrist in the UK to show me a zoosadist that they have cured and how they know he is cured.
There is something so uniquely disturbing that motivates them that it is imperative that a responsible Government would reflect this dinstinction in law.

I see no reason why you cannot have generally tougher sentences for neglect and general abuse and then special attention given to anyone convicted of zoosadism.

I see no reason why zoosadists cant be deemed criminally insane and held for longer on those grounds. How are they NOT insane? Their actions and motives by definition are insanity manifest. This means they are walking around with that insanity not far below the surface. And you don’t even know who most of them are. For every Frankish zoosadist that dominated the press for months there have been thousands whose faces and names would be totally unknown to you now. Even if they appeared at the time they soon were forgotten.

Where do they all go, where do all those that didn’t get this focus vanish back to? If there are 3,000 cases of zoosadism each year then precisely where are those 3,000+ offenders going if not to prison?

The answer is very clear and very easy.
They are your neighbours
They are your tenants
They are your postmen and delivery drivers

In fact they can be anywhere, even volunteers at some animal rescue centre. Checks can be done on volunteers on some level, but it is not so hard for them to slip through the net. There is no state database to consult with. The welfare centre may do criminal background checks but some may just be grateful to get what appears to be a willing pair of hands (while really being something else).
These are the people who take on new identities and who date your daughter and who you may let into your home, unbeknown as to what or who they really are.

I am being extremely conservative when I say that 3,000 cases per year are flat out zoosadism. But even at 3,000 per year that is one hell of a lot of very dangerous and very twisted people presently being allowed to roam free.

I think the real insanity is knowing this and yet accepting it.
You cannot go through your life knowing these figures, their implications and just meekly accept it and hope for the best.
If you do not want to take the chance of letting 3,000 zoosadists melt back into your town every year then take action and avoid tragedy.
Don’t think insanely bad people cant suddenly stain your life – they can and do. By allowing them such freedom we are playing a sick game of Russian roulette each time one is allowed to walk free and vanish into the ether.

If I were to isolate one group within the broad sphere who are most deserving of especially strict treatment it would be those convicted of zoosadism.

I would regard them as they most dangerous of all. They are more dangerous than the neglectful or plain stupid. They are more dangerous than the financially motivated.

Something can be cruel but not necessarily the actions of a zoosadist. DIY euthanasia would be an example of something which is wholly cruel but not always the actions of a zoosadist.

This distinction does make a difference. In any crime or action motive is extremely important. Motive can certainly be used as an obvious measure of whether or not a person is a viable danger.
The actions of Daniel and Andrew Frankish were those of a zoosadist. They are a perfect example of what I believe must be made almost a distinct thing in of itself.

The actions of those four mutants in the ‘Chunky’ case were those of zoosadists. It was staggering to me that when I had a look at their FB pages one time, at least one of them (still using his own name) was in some relationship with a girl.

She cannot claim ignorance, no way. Quite what any girl is doing getting together with a vile specimen like that is beyond me, but its easier to see how you later have tragedies like Peter Connelly.

What are this girls family thinking ALLOWING her to date a creature like that? They must know since photos were openly on FB. S’cuse the language but what the f*** is her dad or brothers doing letting her go out with that?
I wouldn’t give a toss if my daughter was 17, 27, or 107. All of hell would freeze over before I would allow her to see something like that. If I couldn’t get through to her then I would 100% get through to him, by hook or by crook and with no methods off the table.

I wouldn’t even give it weeks or days. On the same day I knew all hell itself would break loose. Phone calls would be getting made, favours would be getting called in, but whatever else happened the end result is that HE definitely would NOT be on her scene.

I have no idea how any man can let their daughter date something like that, it sickens me. They surely cant be all orphan annies with zero family watching over them? You have to nip something like that in the bud on day one and in a way that leaves no possible misunderstanding that maybe there is a way back in.

The reason why a guy should go full on in such a case is what happens if that fruit loop gets her pregnant? What happens if one day he murders her or the baby? Why risk it? I would never ever tolerate it. I almost felt like trying to contact that girls dad to ask him what sort of pussy bitch he was. Shameful.
I have been asked before if I believe a zoosadist is this way with all animals or is it possible for a zoosadist to target some and not others. There’s not a massive amount of specific data out there but I think it is probable that the latter could be true.

There are men who appear to have normal relations with a normal wife and in his secret life he has been out raping strangers. There are paedophiles who only target unknown children and there are those who only target those within a family.

I don’t think that its impossible that a Jack Whiting and co could do what they did while owning a pet of their own that they wouldn’t do that to. I don’t fully understand the science or psychology of why this would be so, but I suspect that in many cases it is so. With that being said, in most cases the pet is likely to be the most common target of the zoosadist. Just not always.
Have a think about my conservative estimate of 3000 or so people like that walking free with a fine and a little ban every single year. Have a think about them in a mundane context, as your next neighbour, as the friendly seeming new person in the community, as the new delivery guy.

Then ask yourself this.

Do you want to leave behind a Britain for your children to inherit in which THAT roams free and easy? Or do you want a Britain that quits behaving like some fussing old Nan and shows some leadership, strength and at least pretend they care about putting you at risk.

(Britain – Like a fussing old Nan)


(This is no use)



When its one of their own who falls victim to some nut then the country stands still. What about ALL the victims of these absolute nutters that are routinely waling in and out of court as if it were a telling off from the teacher?

(Of use)

If the nation can virtually stop when one nut case takes the life of one politician then it sure as hell best stop and think about all the victims who are preyed upon by vermin and all the time, and often without proper punishment when caught.

It is disgusting and weak that we find ourselves in these circumstances as a nation.
The weakness makes me sick to my stomach.
I know I am not alone in feeling disgust at this weakness in the pit of my stomach. It gnaws away at me that this weakness doesn’t even need exist. The powers that be have it within their means to change the dynamic and every hour that passes only further serves illustrate their vile weakness.
So here is what I say. I say we need to reject their weakness and demand they show strength. If they cannot or will not show strength then they have no business being paid by the public purse. Period.

We need to all really kick on this year. It comes down to this.

Are the people in Government on the side of the people or are they on the side of child abusers and zoosadists? Time will tell and there shall be no denial of the outcome. They cannot be in the middle or neutral on this. No one can but they are the Government so they cannot be neutral.
If they are on the side of the victims and the people then we wont have to guess. We’ll see it. It will be reflected in their actions and within an ASAP time frame as well. If they start to make the right noises and do the right things, then fine, that is good. If they do not? Then they’ve have freely chosen their side and they will have formally sided with child abusers and zoosadists. No matter what weasel words they might use to say otherwise, it would be evident that they were on their side.
Get on the right side. Get on the side of the people that want to push this as far as they can and that wont take no for an answer from these pompous ‘public servants’.
If you can endeavour to do that this year then I can assure you that you will eventually be part of the transformation from the current badlands where these freaks run free to a nation that unapologetically puts the people first over these dangerous and demented creatures.

We demand them OFF our streets – period. They can do what they like with them, May and Truss can house them all at their place for all I care.

But we want them all off the streets as the new norm.

This is not too much to ask, but lets not ask anymore.
Lets insist.

February Fundraiser – Raising The Pressure

December and January have been excellent months for our cause and our goals but its vital no one rests on their laurels.
Everything is moving in exactly the right direction so now is the time to redouble our efforts in the month of February. If Anna Turley is having her Bill heard on the 24th of the month then it makes absolute sense to generate a bit of a storm ahead of that.

The first thing I would say here is that its actually been an age since we last did a fundraiser. You might recall that all of Operation Trilogy was actually the funds that were initially raised for the tank. That must be about three months ago.

This proved to be a good move in terms of publicity but it also meant that we did not require to do a fundraiser on the lead up to Christmas. My point is that its actually be a long time since we’ve come to you and required fresh funds. But start delving down the back of that sofa as I’m asking you to step up today.

As mentioned recently, it affords me far greater flexibility if I simply fundraise for a budget rather than fundraise for one operation in isolation.

In February I wish to take that momentum from the entirety of December-January and do a series of events to take us through to the 24th, when Turley’s Bill is meant to get heard. I think it is better strategy to do two or three things in rapid succession than it is to do one event, then a big gap, then something else.
This is the era of the short attention span. Things can very easily vanish out of the public narrative unless you make the concerted effort to keep them in the public narrative. Politicians can very easily think they’ve ridden the storm and that they can become complacent again.

Make no mistake – those in public office do not like to be so publicly embarrassed and exposed for their weakness in such a non stop way. They hate it and over time it does damage to them. They would do anything to make it go away eventually, especially when it actually gains more momentum as time goes by and not less. They really hate these methods as they are as public as can be and there is not a damned thing they can do to stop it.

Make no mistake about this either – to abusers of all stripes we are poison to them. They are all akin to cockroaches and what do cockroaches most like? Darkness and to be undisturbed. These two legged cockroaches do NOT want something which takes a huge light and relentlessly shines it on their activities.

Every time we manage to push this into the public thought process we deeply unsettle and disturb their world. In short – they know we are relentlessly going after them and they know we will not stop until such a time when the new norm is that they are properly punished for their actions.

Those who are abusers do not generally seek out publicity and notoriety. There are possibly some types of criminal class who do (gangsters), but the psyche of most abusers is to run in the opposite direction from publicity and to operate in the shadows.
When they cannot keep running and when they run out of dark space to hide in then they done for. The two brothers may as well be ‘branded’ because any time OF is name checked it drags up the case and their names all over again.

They can change their names but you cannot get a new face. They have been doomed not merely by their actions but by virtue of their actions never going away in the public eye. There is absolutely nothing they can do to stop it. We operate within the law and if their case keeps getting brought up then that’s just tough cheese.

These kinds of abusers are all weak and cowardly. It would be a challenge enough for a strong person to continually be haunted by an action so publicly let alone those who have the weakest psychology of all. Just try to imagine it.

Its not driven by spite but by my unwavering belief that for far too long abusers have generally been allowed to slither back into the shadows and it gets forgotten again. That’s why we are stuck on this cycle of abuse/victim/light sentence/more abuse/more victims.

My aim is to completely and totally destroy that cycle.


And to do that takes intensity. And it takes financial backing to bring what needs doing into reality.
It is the 4th of January today. If I am to action a sequence of events for February then time is going to be of the essence. It takes time and effort to plan things correctly and pull them all together for maximum effect. The more time I am afforded the better.

From December to January we managed to do three events in a related sequence and all of them were appealing enough for the press to give large space to. The press are now really starting to get it and fully understand what this is all about. Our most recent coverage was not only highly accurate but almost uniformed in nature. The press are not misreporting and getting it all wrong. The press are presenting a narrative to the reader which is accurate and in sync. That is excellent. That is the very best sort of press you can get. The press also now understand that we are a movement with a past history of work. This makes reporting on things even more appealing to them as it becomes an on going story.

I would like to attempt something similar in February. I don’t own the press unfortunately, but with a bit of thought and a lot of work I think we can do a sequence of things in February that any logical media would want to cover.

I’d need a budget of at least the same to have a chance of achieving the same ahead of that Bill being heard. That was £2400.

So that’s the fundraising target for our February budget £2400. We’ve managed to raise similar sums inside of a week before so lets try to get this together for the 11th of January – that is one full week. This would then give me the window that I need to plan stuff out and do the things that need done.

I’m looking into adding new ways people can donate, Google wallet etc, but for now you can just use the same paypal –

I’d like to see a clutch of new people step up and give, this should never be all on the shoulders of the generous few.
This is everyone’s fight. This effects every single person in this country in one way or another.


By now I shouldn’t be needing anything more than a soft sell since the public can see they ae dealing with a legitimate and serious movement that use all donations honestly and for what they are intended for. They can also see that set backs don’t remain set backs for long. We got hit with fog in Wales first time over and it was my call to risk sending the pilot or postponing. We postponed and two weeks later ended up back in Wales and probably with a stronger message – starting the New Year off with a bang. Then on the eve of the new date the normal pilot was sadly taken to hospital with a collapsed lung. He is slowly on the mend but grounded for three months. A back up pilot was found and we ‘stood with Wales’.

There isn’t a political party who is currently going after these things in the way that we are so you may as well throw your weight in behind us.

With your aid I can bring an increasing weight of pressure down upon those who are meant to govern us and protect the vulnerable. Government doesn’t really have a conscience. Only being paid off or relentlessly pressured makes them crack.
So let’s try to get that budget by the 11th of Jan.

Thanks folks

The Day Will Come (sooner than later?)

None of us, not one single upstanding citizen should ever be satisfied with glorious defeat. I do not wish to be here in a few years time saying well done to everyone if we are still stuck on this culture of soft on pet sadists, pandering to paedophiles. No matter how much sweat and toil is put it we cannot be sitting in the present position we are in in a few years.

Freaks have been getting away with abusing animals and children in this country since before we were all born. And every single generation either kept silent about it or failed to attack the twin issues (which are related) aggressively enough to effect change. Like it or not our ancestors have allowed the current set of circumstances to be the reality by way of the accumulative effect of their failures.
This is why you should see no glory in failure and refuse to ever meekly accept it. Failing is okay so long as you learn and keep going at the issue until its cracked, but ultimate failure with pats on the back all round is not acceptable. The stakes are too high and too many generations have waited too long.

I would love to think that in a democratic society that the Government and all of Parliament would be engaging and compliant when it comes to public demands to finally get real and deal with these freaks properly.

Nothing would give me more pleasure if by way of the democratic process we can transform the present culture of pathological leniency to one of righteous punishment. Maybe that is possible. I certainly think it is, they are like a brick wall but I have always believed that the accumulative effect of high profile public actions + a political figure on the inside + a body of academic research can lead to what would be a far better place than where we are at today.

But it would be amiss of me to fail to at least mentally prepare for a situation in which no matter what the Government steadfastly refuse to start locking up these abusers and predators as standard – and for far longer. Or they may make some cosmetic changes that do not tilt the balance back in favour of the people and fail to send a zero tolerance message out.

What if they adjust a few child abuse laws but ignore the pet abuse laws or vice versa? This is no good since there is parallel and overlap between the two. There is no use going after bits and pieces of a disease that has taken hold. You have to go after ALL of it and not relent until every trace is purged. That is logically the only way to transform any nation to one which currently tolerates this evil manifest to one that does not.

The reason why you should have high expectations is that its your life and your family and your community that is being blighted by this disease. Its your country and you do not have another one.

High expectations means never accepting any slithering excuse offered out by anyone in public office as to why these freaks cant be locked up as standard. All of their ‘reasons’ are lies and cop outs.
High expectations simply means that you think you and your family have a right to live in a country where feral freaks and sexual predators aren’t given a free pass by the state to destroy your country and put people you love at risk.

Its ridiculous even calling them high expectations but it shows how far we have sunk. It also means simply taking it on that those convicted of abhorrent offences against children and animals MUST be caged. You cannot entertain the idea of any sort of alternative sentence, no home curfews, no tagging, no mere pet bans. Its not good enough.

I have also lost count of the instances in which a convicted child sex offender has been relocated to a house not far from primary schools and public parks. Not to mention the numerous examples of them just upping sticks and moving without bothering to tell anyone.

What we are tolerating and accepting right now are a set of circumstances that are objectively wrong and possible to change dramatically. What we are living in right now is a set of circumstances which are the definition of insane.

This is so much bigger than two guys and one tragic story with a dog. This is bigger than pet abuse taken in isolation.

I don’t think a good enough word really even exists for this but what we are dealing with here is a diseased culture in which (for too long), the most twisted abusers of animals and children have been given an all too easy time of it socially and legally.

This seems to have culminated in this mass of total deviants whose actions are off the scale extreme and disturbing.

Many of these apparently different types of abuser almost seem to have morphed in as one entity, at least to some degree. Here’s what they all have in common – they are routinely set free and you’re placed at risk when it was possible for you not to be.

However, I personally believe there is probably even more cross over between different types of abuser than even the most recent studies show. I think there will come a time when the consensus will be that the the sort of mind who could batter a pensioner could just as easily batter a pet and if he could do those he could just as easily batter or sexually abuse a child.

I think there is going to come a day when I might be faced with no choice but to take this out into the streets but in a meaninfful way. As you can see I have my own style of doing things so it would stand to reason that if I were going to take this out into the public domain that I’d only do so if I felt the components were in place, and a meaningful style could be fashioned.

I see a difference between a protest and a rally. They really amount to the same I guess, but with a rally the emphasis tends to be on a more bolder front. A protest could be ten people outside a church hall. That could never be a rally.

I suppose you could say that a rally is more a stylised protest with the emphasis placed on being on the front foot, as opposed to a protest which starts out on the back foot.

The difference is subtle but there is a difference.

If you are organising a rally then you need a clear idea of what you are rallying against or for. The clearer and simpler it is the better. The more you pigeon hole it or make it too obscure the less of a success it will be in numbers and coverage.

A ‘save the wood pigeon’ rally just isn’t going to speak to the general public as a rally that was themed around a zero tolerance stance against child and pet abusers. I’d definitely fuse the two things together because of that cross over and due to the fact that both are a corrosive phenomenon which weak people in power just aren’t dealing with. I think you could build a fairly sizeable presence around that.

Once you have that determined in your mind you’d then need a location for it. This would require some thought but I think it should be done in such a way that doesn’t default to the tired “What about London” thing. I’d be far more inclined to do some research and find out the towns where those types of abuses are most frequent, per head of the population. I’d ideally bring it down to just one town or city that has unusually high instances of both. That would then be the location.

West Yorkshire and then Greater Manchester recorded the highest % of animal abuse according to polled figures.


Birmingham appears to lead the way when it comes to child abuse.

The next thing you need are people. Lots of people. This is where things often fall down for those who attempt such things. For all their good intentions when they finish up with ten people on a rainy day then my heart goes out to them, but that must be deeply disappointing.

If I thought that was going to be all that could be mustered I just wouldn’t bother. It would seem like far too much effort for no pay off. And in some ways it can look a bit demoralising, because what people may take from it is that ‘no one cares, the world has gone bad’.

I’d only want to run with it if I thought that (through a combination of means), I could get 2,000 people into that town or city. Ten people on that rainy day are easily ignored. Two thousand on a clear summer day are not. The sight of a handful of people does not cause a chill to run up the spine of abusers and get them thinking their easy life days are numbered.

A strong presence of 2,000 absolutely would.

Do I think it would be plausible to generate a presence of that number? Probably. I’d have to put my mind to it and I’d have to develop ways and means to not only promote it but persuade people they have a moral duty to show face. Most if it would be in the promotion though. If promoted properly and creatively then yes, it would be plausible to attract a number in that region. Especially if you have a proper plan and lead in time.

Its a big enough number to create a big splash but not so large that its totally unmanageable. One plus point in this case is that you’d have zero opposition from any political group or movement. Wanting to throw those who burn dogs, sexually abuse kids and beat up old people is not really something that either the left or right tend to turn up to oppose.
These are social and moral issues, they cut across artificial constructs like political parties.
There are some issues that are so clearly and obviously wrong on a human level that left/right is redundant. This is one area where anyone can put that stuff to one side and just be fathers, brothers, sisters etc who definitely want to see a change of direction in which abhorrent and obviously dangerous individuals are properly punished and the public made safe from them.
A paedophile doesn’t ask your politics before he grooms your child. A zoosadist doesn’t ask your politics before he steals your dog.

Most political discourse in this country centres around the economy. While a strong economy is key and worthy of discussion at the right time, far too much discussion is afforded to it and very little to moral issues. A nation is NOT a business and it cannot be run as one. When a nation tries to operate as a corporation it loses all incentive to pursue that which is moral and right in favour of that which is financial.

This is why you’ll see someone hit prison for a tax dodge faster than for child molestation. In a nation run like a corporation the former is effecting their bottom line. The latter becomes an irrelevance to them.

But if a nation were not run as a corporation but as a thriving body of thinking people and to serve their interests, then while a strong economy would still be desirable, these moral matters would be right at the top of the list of priorities.

The fact that there wouldn’t be any sort of counter reaction would work in our favour, as it tends to be those most likely to attract a large counter reaction that the police get their pants in a knot about. They don’t want the risk of fights and injury so with many such things they will slap a public order label on it and ‘shut it down’. Or they will place a huge number of insane restrictions that include making the people walk off the beaten path.

However, all of this is usually done to try to avoid fights with opposition groups. This would not apply here. You are not going to get Dog Abusers United or Child Rapists Lives Matter showing up, lets be honest (these groups aren’t real!). So long as the police didn’t think we’d chimp out and start hanging paediatricians from lampposts in error, then there is really no good reason for them to piss on our freedom to assemble.

You’d need some sort of structure to it. You can have the place, the date, and you can have a strong and appealing rallying call. You can even have your 2,000 people. But something still needs to ‘happen’. You cant just sort of meet up and mill around.

There are several ways to do it that, in their own way, would work very well. I’ll explain two ways here. The first way is to actually have a fixed location within that town. This could be a public park or some other open space. You can then go about building a platform, inviting guest speakers to each talk for half an hour.
Nothing to stop you adding on some other features, so long as you get a location that you have the freedom/permissions to do it on. You then invite the press along to attend (which they would, for at least some of it).

The benefits of this way are that you are doing well to inform and inspire if you get good guest speakers, you get your press write up (on some level), and I suppose it has opportunities for people to network etc. I would probably regard that as the most conventional way to do it.

Then you could choose a way that wasn’t conventional, did away with the need for a fixed location, permissions, guest speakers and over heads.

This unconventional way definitely wouldn’t be a place for dogs or children to be around (just not practical).
An example of an unconventional (but unquestionably visually spectacular) way would be to take your 2,000 people, you have your pre selected town and when you arrive you have to stay split up for a time. Just filter into different pubs across the town centre. You cant have one mass of 2000 people in one pubs so you just filter out across a range of places in the city centre.

Then you wait until its dark and at a pre agreed time everyone spills out of their meeting points to form one spontaneous looking mass. Get some amazing looking banners made up and since its dark (albeit there is always electric lighting), why not go for the really bold visual and make it a torch lit deal.
These can be bought and held entirely legally from here (among other places)
And here

The benefits of this are its unexpected and seemingly sudden nature, together with unlimited photo op’s which can be taken and Tweeted anywhere in real time. It could be filmed, live streamed,you name it, its all pretty easy with equipment that most have.
Even if it lasted much shorter than the conventional approach, there is an argument for saying it would have greater Internet potential, and from that Internet potential the press pick it up anyway. Besides – you can be sending live video to the local press as it happens.


So that’s two very different ways with very different benefits explained. Perhaps with the latter named there is also more of a visual implication that the days of abusers having the easy life are at end.

Let me know in comments…

February Frenzy

There can be no doubt or question that Operation Trilogy was an unparalleled success on every level.
The benefits of keeping this in the media speak for themselves – the media tell people what is news and what is important, they set the narrative that then triggers public discussion. This then naturally forces it into the political narrative.


From December to today we were in the Manchester Evening News, page two of the Sun, the Edinburgh Evening News, the Glasgow Evening Times and now Wales online. That is a phenomenal amount of press coverage in such a short time, by so many different media and in three different countries (technically).

Its not merely that it raises mass awareness in huge numbers and pushes this into the public domain. Don’t think for one second that something can appear so boldly in that many papers and go totally unnoticed by MP’s. Not only do they keep up with what’s in the press so do their interns and personal assistants. It would not surprise me in the least if some very well know political figures had now heard of us and our cause. Those who haven’t will do so.


All of that was done with a grand total of about two grand. Two grand is absolute buttons to secure that much press and the momentum that goes with it, esp when its in a sequence in this way. If you hired a ‘professional’ PR company to try to get you that much press in that short a time, they’d charge you at a rate of £500 per day just to get out of bed and for every day they claimed to have worked on it. Even then there is no guarantee they could deliver you up that much media and across England, Scotland and then Wales.


If you bought one full page in a newspaper for one day it can cost up to £5k depending on the newspaper. If it gets read at all then by the next day that paper is in the bin.

Operation Trilogy wasn’t just a huge success in terms of the media it commanded, it was a huge economic success. I would also consider it a psychological success. Let’s be honest, the entire subject of these abusers and their actions is downright depressing. When I came into this I saw a lot of jaded people, jaded by seeing this cycle of abuse/leniency, jaded by never ending pictures of abuse in the press. They were also jaded by the fact that there didn’t seem to be anything out there that had a clear and definite plan to at least try to shift the balance.

Then in November I said we needed a strong December and an uplifting end to the year. That is precisely what unfolded. In December I said that it was key to get the new year off to the right start. This has also now been achieved.
This is all excellent and reasons to be cheerful but February is perhaps going to be one of the most important dates on the calendar. Why? Because there is a bill being heard in Parliament on the 24th of that month. Its not a do or die Bill but it has value, esp if evidence is being presented that shows that pet abuse and other types of abuse are linked. You can read up on the type of Bill that it is if you Google ‘Ten Minute Rule’ or Standing Order No. 23. As far as I am aware that is the type of Bill that Anna Turley is presenting.
These bills do not in of themselves tend to lead to some immediate legal change. That by no means makes them worthless and there have indeed been exceptions, occasions when such a Bill had directly led to legal change.
From Wiki

‘However, bills introduced under the Ten Minute Rule do sometimes become law, passing through every stage of Parliament right through to Royal Assent. Since 1945, there have been over sixty Acts of Parliament which were initially introduced under the Ten Minute Rule. A recent example was the Divorce (Religious Marriages) Act 2002’.

60 since 1945 is not many but it shows it can take place. The most recent was only 2002.
What I plan to do for all February and on the lead up to the 24th is to generate as much of a storm as I can. Since doing things in quick succession clearly works so well I would look to do three events in February, at least one of which would be explicitly about that date.

Can this be done? Yes. Will it bring what is often seen as a boring Bill to greater public attention and in an interesting way? Yes. Does it keep the focus and pressure on those who will be responsible for looking at the Bill? Absolutely.

Since Malcolm Plant has a body of research that shows the links between pet abuse and other types of abuse, it may even be possible for me to use small pieces of information from that research and weave them into a message. The average person may not think to go and read a detailed set of research papers. But what they will take notice of are facts pulled out of it and presented to them in a way that is high profile.

To create a maximum storm in February can be done. I have options and thoughts on what to do that would achieve the objectives. The objective is to gain as much positive publicity for the cause as possible before the 24th, while factoring in that date and possibly two or three key facts from Malcolm Plants research.

What I am going to need though is a working budget. Obviously nothing can be done without one so we need one. The sooner I can get this working budget the more time I have to plan out what to do and how.

Everything achieved from December to today was done with about £2400. A budget similar to that would probably allow me to do three events in February. I can mix up the message on each one that we do. There can be one that places emphasis on the 24th and lets MP’s know we are all watching. There can be one that draws out some of those aforementioned links. The third one can be a wild card.

There’s no desperate rush to do anything this very second, but as I say, the sooner I have a working budget the sooner I can map out the best direction.

If 100 people donated £24 I’d have that budget and we can move forward with confidence and aim to create a frenzy in February.

In a nation this size that doesn’t seem a big ask. If you want to live to see the day when utter scum are thrown in the tin and not slapped on the wrist and allowed to go free then it’s worth £24 to play an active part.