Animal Connection

Rosie Trenta

I would like to share my conclusions on the case of the unjustified killing of Lennox.
After listening to what Peter Tallack had to say, it is clear to me that the first thing to understand is how his evaluation of Lennox initiated the series of events leading to the tragic death of this poor dog.
So, Peter Tallack – by his own admission – is not a dog behaviourist; he states that he was accidentally asked by BCC to measure the dog, only because he just happened to be in Northern Ireland at the time. Despite not being a certified dog behaviourist, he does express an opinion on the behaviour of Lennox on the day the dog is seized. Bear in mind, his so-called assessment will eventually be the only one taken into consideration by the Court of Law handling the case. In spite of other assessments being presented by qualified behaviourists, the Court bases the whole case on an unqualified opinion expressed by someone who just happened to be “in the right place, at the right time” and took the job offer.
Victoria Stilwell presented BCC with other options to which their reply was that their hands were tied. Well, this is actually a cop-out. 

Obviously, their hands were not tied had they allowed the case to be fully discussed by including the evaluations of independent experts – such as Jim Crosby – who could have provided a more thorough and complete analysis of the case.
In mathematics, two plus two always equals four. Hence, the conclusion can only be one: for reasons still unknown to the general public, a decision to suppress Lennox had already been made by the BCC members. The court case was just a sham. The Court verdict had been decided in advance, so it was a matter of working towards that particular conclusion. Therefore, the sole assessment deemed as appropriate was Tallack’s, and we know now he actually did not evaluate the dog, but merely expressed an (unrequested and unqualified) opinion. In fact, the Barnes family could have brought in the Albert Einstein of dog behaviourist: it would have been a waste of time.
Now, what sinister motives were there for something like this to take place? I don’t know much about Northern Ireland, or its democratic values, but if I were a citizen of that country and a tax payer, I would demand an inquiry to find out what dirty liaison existed between the Court and the BCC, and why some basic laws were infringed. By definition, laws have “the explicit intention to provide the most complete protection for his, her, or their rights to life, liberty, and property.” 
The backlash of angry reactions from the general public originates from the fact BCC has refused to come clean; its members have declined the opportunity to speak the truth and have avoided any civilised debate between the parties, ignoring repeated requests from respectable professionals to have also their facts taken in to account. Only those hiding something refuse such a dialogue. Could there have been a silent agreement or an exchange of favours between the Court and the BCC? What sordid affair is buried under this abominable abuse of power?