Monday, June 6, 2011

Judge Beatrice Bolton has her dogs taken away after her Alsatian 'attacks member of the public for the 3rd time'; she is unfit to be a dog owner













Dear All

When I was a little boy in Maryhill, I was bitten by a Great Dane as I was out exploring.

It was massive and I was about 5 or 6 years old, and short for my age, it looked like a Shetland pony, anyway a German shepherd appeared and I thought I was going to be savaged.

To my surprise the German shepherd seeing my situation attacked the Great Dane; then the home owner appeared, took me home and from there I was took to hospital.

An experience which I still remember, it made me nervous of being around dogs, bad experiences have a tendency to be imprinted forever.

Judge Beatrice Bolton owns dogs and her dogs bite people.

Not a one off but on three occasions, which is ridiculous, rather than addressing the problem of her dogs, she sailed on her merry way.

And she ended up in court and convicted for owning a dangerous dog, the verdict she described as a 'fucking travesty'.

Now, she has had her pets taken away by police.

Last year she told reporters:

“'ll never set foot in a court again” after being convicted of failing to control her dog.

But it has been revealed that she was questioned and bailed following an alleged incident near her home on the outskirts of Rothbury, Northumberland, last week.

On Wednesday, a 22-year-old man reported being bitten in the leg close to where the judge lives.

Police arrested the judge the same day and took her two German shepherds “to assure public safety”.

A Northumbria Police spokeswoman said:

“At 1.20pm on Wednesday June 1, police received a report that a 22-year-old man had been bitten in the leg by a dog while walking in the Whitton Bank area of Rothbury. Inquiries are ongoing and police have arrested a 57-year-old woman in connection with the incident. She has since been bailed”.

A police source added:

“Beatrice Bolton was taken to Alnwick Police Station for questioning after the report. We will now continue our investigation to see if there will be any charges brought. Due to the history of the dogs accused, the decision was taken to seize her dogs for the protection of the public.”

I think having pets is a great idea for people and families, if my circumstances were different, I would have a dog.

But having Pets means you have to control them and take care of them properly.

So, should Judge Bolton be banned from keeping pets?

I think the answer to this is yes.

By allowing her animals to run wild and attack people they are a danger to the community at large.

The fact she cannot see this shows that she is in my opinion, unfit to keep dogs.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

21 comments:

Anonymous said...

What is mr laird talking about. If he is going to comment then he should at least do sufficient research to ensure that his comments are valid. The dogs in question have not been proven to have bitten anyone. The media seems to do it's best to tell anything except the truth, especially if it's a bit boring and not particularly news worthy. The facts are that Beatrice Bolton was found guilly of owning a dog which caused "reasonable apprehension". This means that the dog did not bite but but caused a perceived danger. This means that all of you out there who have dogs that bark if someone comes to the garden gate or your door could be done fir the same. Now isn't that a f....... Travesty of justice.
The other point to my comment is, don't comment unless you know what you are talking about. A little knowledge is a bad thing.

George Laird said...

Dear Anon

A member of her family claimed the pedigree German Shepherds belonging to Beatrice Bolton, a Crown Court judge, have never been aggressive and the wounds of those injured in the apparently random attacks were exaggerated.

If the dogs never attacked, explain how there are wounds?

Explain why the dogs weren't properly supervised?

And the neighbours said:

We didn’t want a fence because it would have ruined the ancient lawn, which has stood for centuries, and it wouldn’t solve the issue that Georgie was dangerous.

adding:

‘They refused our suggestions of putting the dogs on a long chain or using a muzzle. We were forever being chased into the house and it made our lives absolute hell.’

Research enough for you?

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

animalrights000 said...

Well Mr. Laird, I see you have read an article in the Mail on Sunday. My congratulations. You are clearly spending far too long reading the newspaper and far too little time studying for your degree. I bet you will be the first to complain about funding cuts. Anyway, back to the point...

There are two injuries, both scratches caused by claws. The one happened in the dog's own garden and the other whilst on a lead. No one has been bitten. I am sorry that you have had numerous bad experiences with dogs but it is really not for you to comment when you clearly have little or no idea what you are talking about. Do you think tethering or muzzling a dog is likely to make it safer in the long term? In the words of a Police dog handler its like "locking a child in a dark cupboard under the stairs." Simple enough for you to understand?

Anonymous said...

Try this.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-13665240

Postamn treated for bite.

BBC

Alyson said...

Im with you, animalrights0000. The only wounds that have been evident have been scratches and the initial so called attack was when Beatrice Boltons' dog was a pup of seven months. The scratches are thoses caused by a claw, not teeth by the way.
I really think that a great deal of the adverse comments appearing on here are verging on slander. Those with few brains and even less knowledge of the truth should take care of what garbage comes out of their mouth!

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr Laird,

You have the voice of common sense in this, and the comments against you so far seem to be not unfamiliar to those made by the Judge’s family in their requested interviews in various papers. I wonder why?
On the dog note, I have also read that it was 23 months old at the time of the first attack, so not the cutesy puppy that the Judges family have presumably provided the papers with photographs of (where would the photographs come from otherwise??) Not only that, but if a German Shepherd attacks you what do you expect it to do – any dog will go for you with it’s teeth first – that’s what dogs do, so the scratches rubbish are only a feeble attempt to detract from the seriousness of the fact that not one but three separate incidents have now taken place.
Thank goodness for common sense Mr Laird, keep up the good work.

George Laird said...

Dear All

It seems that the truth of the dogs biting people has upset Judge Bolton's supporters.

Multiple sources have published the dogs have bitten.

The PR campaign by them is poor.

Bolton is unfit to keep dogs if she can't keep proper control of them.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Anonymous said...

Anonymous, surely the family of the dog know the age of the dog when the incident took place better than the media or indeed, you.
Secondly, you are right in saying that most people would expect that the dog to use its teeth..so when the COURT found that the injury was not a bite but a scratch, by your line of argument, you have shown yourself that the person was clearly not attacked.
I think it is nasty of you to make comments about the judges family, I mean, surely we all have a right to have a right of reply when negative, inaccurate and at times, malicious comments are made about someone you care about.

Anonymous said...

I find it odd that Mr Laird and is supporters have only based their opinion on what is published in the media. Do you not think that is a little irresponsible? I hardly think that some one who thinks that all the media reports (which by the way, conflict each other) are reliable sources of information...Hardly 'the voice of reason'...

Anonymous said...

You have no idea what an effect such ill-informed blogs/comments and reports have on people. People like you who feel that from their position of complete ignorance, can cast judgement on others is not only completely hypocritical given the points that have been made, but also deeply sad. If you believe that Judge Bolton's family have been on this blog, then to knock their attempts at being heard is shameful.

Anonymous said...

Please every one just be fair, if you all still feel that Judge Bolton is the irresponsible tyrant after you have understood the facts, then fine, but not before. Flippant insults hurt people. She may be a Judge but she is also a human being.

Anonymous said...

Please every one just be fair. If, upon examination of the facts, you all still think she is this irresponsible tyrant, then fine, but not before. Flippant insults and derogatory comments hurt people. She may be a judge, but she is also a human being.

George Laird said...

Dear Anon

"She may be a Judge but she is also a human being".

She is a judge and therefore should be held to a higher standard.

If she continually ignores the problem her animals create she shouldn't be surprised by the actions which followed.

She should reflect on that.

She is a judge.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-13665240

http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/north-east-news/evening-chronicle-news/2011/06/06/judge-beatrice-bolton-in-new-dog-bite-claims-72703-28828556/

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/850493-judge-beatrice-bolton-in-f-word-rant-over-dog-conviction

On the Metro story, it is written that:

"Bolton, who had already been warned by an usher for chewing gum during the two-day hearing".

What kind of contempt is this for the Court?

It appears she has an attitude problem.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

animalrights000 said...

George, giving up on arguments and instead copying links to articles in the Metro about chewing gum that are simply irrelevant is not going to help you. Lets be wholly honest about this, Judge Bolton was convicted of a spurious charge in December that would not have got near a court room less so the newspapers if she was not a judge. She did not help herself by her reaction to the verdict, however what has followed has been nothing more than a succession of greedy, opportunistic liars seeing her as an opportunity to make a quick buck in the media. I may be wrong but I'm fairly sure it will be found that her dog didn't bite anyone. The way the police have treated her is disgusting, I hope they wouldn't behave like that with a normal member of the public.

George Laird said...

Dear animalrights000

Have people given evidence that they were bitten?

I keep reading in different publications the answer being yes.

Different publications and different people.

You trying to place a narrative that it is all a conspiracy into the public domain?

"what has followed has been nothing more than a succession of greedy, opportunistic liars seeing her as an opportunity to make a quick buck in the media".

Can you provide evidence that people have been paid and direct me to a link?

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Anonymous said...

I would just like to say that only one case has so far gone to trial, and Judge Bolton was charge with 'reasonable apprehension that a dog MAY cause injury'. This does not mean there was a bite. If there was, the court would have placed a control order on the dog. There was no control order. What does that say to you? Does it suggest that the dog did or didn't bite?

Anonymous said...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-11331094

Anonymous said...

You started this blog - you find the evidence. Sensational newspaper articles do not count as evidence. You cannot make your mind up before the courts have heard all the evidence and reached a decision as to how they wish to proceed/whether to convict/sentence etc...all of these things are relevant. Just because some one makes an allegation does not make it true, if that were the case, what are all these lawyers employed for? why is there a judicial system? You are being completely unfair and your argument is completely flawed.

animalrights000 said...

Of course I can't provide you with a link to that effect, no one ever publishes how much or even if media sources have been paid. Links however, do not win arguments nor are they evidence. They are merely media reports. What is true, unquestionably so, is that the court found that it was unlikely that the dog bit the neighbour in the first case. That is a matter of public record. There have been two further complaints, the first of which involved a postman and the dog in question did not belong to Judge Bolton. The most recent allegation is as yet unclear. It seems from reading the Mail on Sunday article, a link to which is already on this page, that it does not involve a bite. This is all we know. Based on this, the family have had their pets removed. That is the real story here and it is one of gross police overreaction. No conspiracies George, just facts.

Anonymous said...

http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-news/2011/07/13/sue-sim-asks-for-report-into-handling-of-judge-beatrice-bolton-dog-cases-61634-29041496/#sitelife-commentsWidget-bottom

There you go- you like media links

Anonymous said...

The second dog attack didn't go to court because the postman - who was hospitalized - was attacked on private land - i.e inside the gates whilst he was delivering post. Now for the third time someone has been attacked and this time lo and behold on public land. Let us see if Justice will be done - how many victims are there to be before the Judge is held to be also accountable for the law she is paid so handsomely to administer?