tybrax Posted April 9, 2010 Share Posted April 9, 2010 (edited) exactly tybrax, it is more out of spite and revenge for making them look stupid on numerous other occasions.i dont think it has anything to do with Amstaffs. Yep thats it, Sheer Malice!! tybrax Oh FFS! It was a Supreme Court case with huge ramifications which ever way it went and most likely tens of thousands of dollars in cost. I don't think malice has anything to do with it. The council even offered the owners to return Tango to his home on the Gold Coast years ago as a restricted dog but the owners cut their noses off to spite their faces and refused. OFF'S ,The council stated if they could prove tango was and amstafff then he could be returned to the Gold Coast, they proved it years ago, council ignored it. So your facts are wrong!! Nose out of joint what a load of rubbish!! You sound like ACO J.T. The costs are huge and the council have to wear the bill, or should i say the poor tax payer. "During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." --George Orwell. Edited April 9, 2010 by tybrax Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howl Posted April 9, 2010 Share Posted April 9, 2010 exactly tybrax, it is more out of spite and revenge for making them look stupid on numerous other occasions.i dont think it has anything to do with Amstaffs. Yep thats it, Sheer Malice!! tybrax Oh FFS! It was a Supreme Court case with huge ramifications which ever way it went and most likely tens of thousands of dollars in cost. I don't think malice has anything to do with it. The council even offered the owners to return Tango to his home on the Gold Coast years ago as a restricted dog but the owners cut their noses off to spite their faces and refused. OFF'S ,The council stated if they could prove tango was and amstafff then he could be returned to the Gold Coast, they proved it years ago, council ignored it. So your facts are wrong!! Nose out of joint what a load of rubbish!! You sound like ACO J.T. The costs are huge and the council have to wear the bill, or should i say the poor tax payer. "During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." --George Orwell. What facts are wrong? That GCCC didn't offer them to return the dog to the Gold Coast as a restricted dog? In the owners opinion they thought they had proved Tango was an AST. But council wasn't satisfied with the evidence. And that was part of the deal - that the owners provide evidence to the council's satisfaction. Yes, the council/ratepayers have to wear the bill - but remember, it was the owner's that took council to court, not the other way around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tybrax Posted April 9, 2010 Share Posted April 9, 2010 (edited) You should no your the one telling the story? l wont be commenting on your posts anymore, your facts are wrong!! Yes, the council/ratepayers have to wear the bill - but remember, it was the owner's that took council to court, not the other way around. Irrelevant, the Judge ordered the Council to pay why should innocent tax payers pay for a fraudulent law.??...........mmmmmmmmm!! tybrax Edited April 9, 2010 by tybrax Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howl Posted April 9, 2010 Share Posted April 9, 2010 You should no your the one telling the story? l wont be commenting on your posts anymore, your facts are wrong!!Yes, the council/ratepayers have to wear the bill - but remember, it was the owner's that took council to court, not the other way around. Irrelevant, the Judge ordered the Council to pay why should innocent tax payers pay for a fraudulent law.??...........mmmmmmmmm!! tybrax Reminds me of a child with her hands over her head saying "I'm not listening, I'm not listening". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZBC Posted April 10, 2010 Share Posted April 10, 2010 This would be a fair comment, as the GCCC apparently ambushed her team by using the evidence provided ,in a bizarre twist , to the point of damning their own employees and "consultant identifiers" in work they have done for years under the local law,opening themselves to challenges against extant "identifications"!There would have been no surprise had Ms Chivers based her case on "proving the AST and APBT were the same" Why would she do this, and automatically LOSE her dog?? I don't know why the applicant presented evidence that the APBT and AST were the same breed but according to the judgement she did, via two expert witnesses. The council didn't have to twist anything, nor ambush anyone, the evidence and its logical conclusions seems to have been handed to them gift-wrapped. You can't present something to a court as a matter of fact and then expect it only to be taken into account in the way you want it to be. It seems to been a bizarrely ill-advised tactic on the part of the applicant, whatever their intent. Obviously opinions here are closely held. The nuances were that the attack was against the checklist by experts showing the APBT breed was not unique and its perpetrators ie the council did not dispute that, but suddenly used it to claim the two breeds were the same. If you wish to believe that this was planned by Chivers do so,though it was an unfortunate outcome for all to see,but as noted before hindsight blesses us all! Personally I am concentrating on the elephants in the room-- 1 .It would seem only Chivers can appeal the decision IF grounds exist and should she not do so or lose an appeal, the AST breed will be firmly entrenched in the BSL laws in Qld at least. Leave aside which councils WOULD ban them,as a recognised registered breed, there would be the ever present possibilty--one step closer to the banned state for another breed. 2.Having presented the evidence she did, Chivers has to find grounds that do not directly contradict her first testimony--one cannot surely argue one side and when it fails change tack totally. It is arguably a fine line to walk to find an appeal that will take the AST out of the firing line here whilst not denying the original evidence--but in trying to prove her dog is of AST heritage, Chivers was aiming to have it safe from the BSL laws of GCCC. and by extension the AST breed itself--it would be out of character surely for her to not care about the breed now. An interesting though painful dilemma, and one can but wish her good luck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Are You Serious Jo Posted April 10, 2010 Share Posted April 10, 2010 It is arguably a fine line to walk to find an appeal that will take the AST out of the firing line here whilst not denying the original evidence--but in trying to prove her dog is of AST heritage, Chivers was aiming to have it safe from the BSL laws of GCCC. and by extension the AST breed itself--it would be out of character surely for her to not care about the breed now. Can you please explain how you do this by bringing in a experts that claim the AST and APBT are the same? Wouldn't you be better off finding experts that say the opposite? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZBC Posted April 10, 2010 Share Posted April 10, 2010 As I wasn't involved, I have the same information that you do, ie what is placed on the internet and exists in archives here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now