Dog fighting

There is a petition trying to stop Channel 4 showing a disgusting program about dog fighting due to be shown this Thursday. Let's pray it's not aired   

Well, I dont know.....Here's the programme description: http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/going-to-the-dogs-cutting-edge.
The programme is described as 'challenging'. What would be the net result of the programme being aired? Would it be to reveal the disgusting practices of the dog-fighting lowlife, leading in turn to more effective legislation and enforcement? Or would it be to provide gratification and entertainment? Difficult to say without seeing the programme, but I would guess/hope that the intention would be closer to the first prediction. In any case, it's good to have it repeated (again and ad nauseum again) that the DDA law is an ass - ignoring, as it does, that the problem is with the owner, not the dog. Whatever, you choose to do about this disturbing programme, dog-fighting isnt going to be resolved by sweeping it under the carpet and not looking. Someone has to look!

I partly agree with it being aired, you can choose not to watch it as I will not watch it. It will bring more awareness to this issue with it being aired.

Take your points, but like Kathy and probably most dog lovers, I won't be watching.
So those that do, what will be achieved? Disgust and horror yes, but there will be a sick minority that maybe encouraged to participate in this so called 'sport'.
No legislation will stop these evil B&^"*"d's

I'm not watching it and in my opinion it should not be aired for reasons Silver says above but more importantly the people that filmed it have stood there and watched and done nothing rather than film it they should have spent that money on shutting it down absolutely disgusted with channel 4

Debs01 wrote:....but more importantly the people that filmed it have stood there and watched and done nothing rather than film it they should have spent that money on shutting it down ....

Firstly, there may be film of actual dogs fighting included in the programme, but there is nothing in the blurb to indicate that's the case or that the programme-makers were present when any fighting took place. It reads as being more about the people and attitudes of those who engage in this so-called 'recreation'. There is no way of being sure about this without watching the programme, but either way, you're right that it will be harrowing. The best way to get a good night's sleep is not to watch it, not to look, not to be aware. And yet, if you can manage it (and it's everyone's personal choice), maybe this issue is worth losing a little sleep over?

Secondly, we dont normally take the law into our own hands in this country. If I was aware of dog-fighting in my neighbourhood, for example, I certainly wouldnt wade in myself. I would tell the police and expect them to act. So to broadcast your information so that the law enforcement agencies can act, that is the best way. If you have the opportunity to broadcast what you know via a national TV channel, as this programme-maker is doing, then go for it - that can be a very powerful message and it may lead to change.

I welcome the idea of examining this country's conflicted relationship not just with dogs, but with other animals as well - as the programme promises. The experiments that the University of Cambridge has been carrying out on sheep, for example, is absolutely disgusting in my personal view (here and elsewhere on the web: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2653095/Sheep-used-Cambridge-University-animal-testing-labs-suffered-distressing-mistreatment.html). Road kill is also hardly talked about (except as a joke) but it is NOT ok to charge about in cars crushing and injuring millions of birds and animals every year. So, yes, if it's responsibly done, let there be a strong disinfecting light shone on the subject of dogfighting and on the hypocritical, unthinking, ignorant attitude that (some) British people show toward animals in general.

Great points and I thought they were actually at dog fights filming so that's a bit better but I still think showing programmes like this is wrong. They still interview scum that hold these fights and that scum walks back out onto the streets after the interview free to torture more dogs. In doing this programme the film crew have access to the people running dog fights they should, and I hope they will, hand them over to the police but I doubt they did. Also these programmes will no doubt reinforce people's negative opinions about bull breeds because it will show bull breeds at their very worst. It's another negative light we just don't need.

Also if I knew of any dog fighting rings near me I would 100% wade in there

It is not too late to voice your concerns for the trailer and the programme here on OFCOM - http://consumers.ofcom.org.uk/tell-us/tv-and-radio/

Thanks Gina

I think this Cutting Edge Channel 4 documentary, made by Penny Woolcock, a 64 year-old woman, is unlikely to be promoting or advocating dog-fighting. It's just possible (or likely) that the effect will be the opposite. If so, its message will be compatible with the position taken by this forum - written in red on the homepage, to not condone any form of dog-fighting. I could be wrong, but the only way to know is to watch it. Take fox-hunting - another so-called sport that I am personally vehemently opposed to. Though it's horrific, I DO want to know what those monsters on horseback do to express their blood lust in the countryside. Expose them. It's only through knowing the facts that effective action can be taken. Closing the eyes doesnt help the fox.

Foxes don't already have a tonne of bad press and a bad reputation that is the driving force for the Dangerous Dogs Act. There's absolutely no good that can come from this programme only more negative press.

Sorry I pressed enter too quick lol. What I meant to add was do you think that people watching this are going to think awww that dog has been starved, beaten, kept in horrendous conditions so the only thing they know is aggression? Not likely, they will see an angry bull breed and think "those dogs should not exist". The general public has been proven to be swayed by papers and tv programmes without thinking for themselves.

Right. So no difficult subjects should be aired on TV or written about in the press because the general public has shown itself incapable of independent thought.... Well, it's a point of view I suppose. It's probably a position more normally associated with regimes like those of Kim Jong Un though, or perhaps Pinochet's Chile. I doubt that Channel 4 would agree - and for that I'm glad. Personally, I DO have a somewhat higher opinion of the abilities of 'the general public' to recognise how abusing a dog, chaining it up, beating it, etc, can result in a violent dog. But we'll see (ie, those who are looking will see) what the programme's message is when it is broadcast.

it just similar to hte program about the farmer boys in irland looks like it

Right. So no difficult subjects should be aired on TV or written about in the press because the general public has shown itself incapable of independent thought.... Well, it's a point of view I suppose. It's probably a position more normally associated with regimes like those of Kim Jong Un though, or perhaps Pinochet's Chile.

I find that a bit insulting to be honest and a little patronising. I am entitled to my opinion just like you are entitled to yours it does not mean I'm in favor brutal cruel dictatorship. That's totally out of line.

I DO have a somewhat higher opinion of the abilities of 'the general public' to recognise how abusing a dog, chaining it up, beating it, etc, can result in a violent dog.

Quite frankly I don't. It's proven in the amount of people that read a story in the newspaper and believe that all staffies are evil.

I'm not saying they shouldn't air difficult subjects. What I'm cautious of is that they will air this programme in the same fashion as newspapers write their stories and cast a negative light over bull breeds, a negative light nobody needs. I hope I am wrong and I hope they show how these dogs are treated and how they become the aggressive fighting dogs seen in the film. I hope that people will rally together and do something after watching this film but I don't hold out much hope. I don't see why anyone would want to watch it to be honest but that's just my opinion. I can't watch it because I would find it too upsetting.

Watching the show now and i cant really see what its trying to get across. Is it just trying to show people what happens to fighting dogs without taking sides????

Hargar wrote:Watching the show now and i cant really see what its trying to get across. Is it just trying to show people what happens to fighting dogs without taking sides????

Pretty clear to me. It's a pro dogfighting propaganda show. Lefty film-producers have joined up with inner-city scum and right-on academics to make out that it's all about culture and repression of the poor working class. The only people allowed to make an anti-dogfighting point was the Asian bloke at the end and the pheasant-shooter. The rest of them need to be stuck in a cellar and gassed. Slowly.

Dogface wrote:
Pretty clear to me. It's a pro dogfighting propaganda show. Lefty film-producers have joined up with inner-city scum and right-on academics to make out that it's all about culture and repression of the poor working class. The only people allowed to make an anti-dogfighting point was the Asian bloke at the end and the pheasant-shooter. The rest of them need to be stuck in a cellar and gassed. Slowly.

Couldn't agree more x

I was following this disgusting programme on twitter as it was being broadcast. As far as I could see, this is one united, unanimous nation against the whole sorry, sick lot of them: the film maker, channel 4, and most of all the thugs who abuse the dogs. Not one of the massive outpourings of tweets blamed the dogs, which were much to be pitied. Heart-breaking. There is a programme about dogfighting that needs to be made - but this was not it. It was naive, reckless and flawed. There is a campaign to bombard Ofcom with complaints - fair enough. But it's the men in balaclavas with disguised voices that are the centre point of all evil here. It's difficult to imagine a fate that can be bad enough for these sickos. Channel 4 can only redeem themselves from accusations of gratuitous pointlessness if they use whatever information they have to get convictions.

I'm glad I didn't watch it I knew it would be heartbreaking and pointless. It was an attempt by Channel 4 to boost ratings. Rather than film those scumbags they should hand them over to the police. No good came out of that programme which was my view from the start.

Agreed. Heartbreaking and utterly pointless. Disgusted they aired it

I complained to OFCOM about it. I suggest that anybody who objects to pro-dogfighting propaganda does the same.

I did too, and yeah I agree let's get the message across by complaining to OFCOM.

Reviews of the film seem to imply that viewers found dog fighting (not the dogs) repugnant.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/tv-and-radio-reviews/10896413/Gone-to-the-Dogs-Channel-4-review-inside-the-world-of-dog-fighting.html

http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/481846/The-brutal-world-of-dog-fighting

Petition:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/going-dogs-over-20000-sign-3681350

Please feel free to complain to channel 4 directly http://www.channel4.com/4viewers/contact-us

Film maker was described somewhere as "brave."

That's always a bad sign. Usually means "out of his/her depth."

Rupertsbooks wrote:Film maker was described somewhere as "brave."

That's always a bad sign. Usually means "out of his/her depth."

True   

Here's my OFCOM complaint

Why was C4 allowed to broadcast what amounted to blatant propaganda for dog fighting? It was the most biased documentary I have ever seen and the producers should be ashamed of themselves. The idiots posing as presenters were clearly given the brief of making dog-fighting as glamorous as possible whilst making excuses for the perpetrators.

A large proportion of the show was given over to scenes of pheasant shooting and animal farming with the clear message - 'Cruelty to animals is widespread so why not allow these poor people their dogfighting?'  They even stated that dog-fighting was banned on the back of bias against the working class! Virtually no voices were heard speaking out against dog-fighting - a quick statement by the game-shooter and the Asian chap at the end, that was the limit of the 'balanced view' that is the hallmark of honest, balanced documentaries. The rest of the time we were treated to the digitally-altered voices of the cowards involved, all masked, putting forward the case for dog-fighting with encouragement and bowel-twisting sycophantism of the presenters.

What can we expect next from this Woolcock character - a celebration of paedophilia perhaps? A slot dedicated to the honourable pursuit of wife-beating?

http://blogs.rspca.org.uk/insights/2014/06/13/channel-4s-going-to-the-dogs/#.U5tk8bE7bMX

That is very strongly worded -from the RSPCA.

I was struck, particularly, by the fact that RSPCA officers have been killed in the process of trying to break up these rings - which are criminal, after all, and in ways that go far beyond dog fighting.

I would say it's not very difficult to infiltrate a gang of dog-fighters as a documentary maker if you do so with the promise of never revealing their identities to the police. This is what I expect is viewed by some as "brave". It must be exciting for a journalist to dip their toe into soem gritty realism. Reminds me of some foreign correspondents who make a career out of having behaved stupidly in some very dangerous place and then stupidly getting kidnapped - but then lauded, again, as "brave".

There are many ways to make documentaries on this practice which - if it is indeed becoming more popular - needs to be cracked down on. There are plenty of journalists who have exposed these kinds of criminals - and named them - with the use of hidden cameras and at a far greater risk to themselves.