View Full Version : Article in Our Dogs

23rd March 2010, 06:48 PM
I have just read the Article in last week's Our Dogs.

What a Warped piece of Journalism,and facts that were Lies.

The Author ,who needless to say, did not have the Courage to put his or her name to the Article, has no idea about the Cavalier Breed.

The Cavalier Breed has NOT been in Existance for over a Centuary.

It was created in the late 1920's early 30's.

The unknown Author also stated about the Cavalier Heads, that no-body knows what a Cavalier Head looks Like.

All I can say about this Statement, to-days' Cavalier Heads are nothing like what they were 20-30 years ago.

Neither are many of the Cavaliers ,with their Long Backs and Short Legs now-a-days.

It was also stated in the Our Dogs Article that the SM Figure is not known in the Cavalier Breed .

Well I have News for the Writer of the Article, it is now known that there were around 60 Cavaliers MRI Scanned in February in Australia, and 50% of those Cavaliers who had no symtoms of SM ,were found to have SM

Those Cavaliers were from a Random Sample .

What a Daming Result.

All I can think that this Rubbish has been written by a Cavalier Breeder who has had Difficulty in selling their Surplus Cavalier Puppies as a Result of the PDE TV Program.

Could this be why there were about 3,000 Cavaliers registered by the KC less than Last year.

Have the Public now realized, that thanks to Jemima Harrison and her PDE TV Program.that at last the Truth can't be covered up any Longer ,that our Cavalier Breed has Two Serious Health Problems , SM and MVD.


24th March 2010, 11:17 AM
Sorry Folks about this , in a Sentence I accidently Printed Dog World instead of OUR DOGS , I think it was because I was really so shocked at the Tone of the Venemous, Vitriolic Article written by some-body who had not the Guts to put their Name to it .

I still wonder if it was written by an Embittered Cavalier Breeder who has difficulty in selling his or her Surplus Cavalier Puppies as a result of the PDE TV Program making the Public aware of the Health Problems in Cavaliers and a Number of Cavalier Breeders are not now Breeding so many Cavaliers

I wiil mention Dog World this time, the Kennel Club even made mention in it when the Registration Figures were Published by them for last year ,about the Dramatic Fall in Registrations for the Cavalier Breed.

From around 11,000 to around 8,000.

I don't think it will ever have been as low as this since maybe the 1970's.

Is this more than just a co-incidence ,or as a Result Jemima Harrison's TV Program.

Time will tell ,in the next few years.

Finally the Anonymous ,Cowardly Writer of the Article in OUR DOGS asked the Question ,has Jemima Harrison achieved any-thing for Dogs.

I can only answer by saying that for the Cavalier Breed ,so much has been Achieved because of Jemima Harrison and her TV Program ,plus Margaret and Carol ,bringing to the attention of the Cavalier Buying Public about the State of the Cavalier Breed because of the SM and MVD Problems Afflicting it,

I did notice in the Our Dogs Article ,no mention was made by who-ever, that 27 years ago Cavalier Breeders were warned by Dr Darke the UK CKCS CLUB Cardiologist at that time about how Serious and Wide-Spread the Health Problem was in our Cavalier Breed ,and that it was mentioned at the Recent UK CKCS Club AGM that 50% of Cavaliers will have a Heart Murmur at 5 years of Age.,that this is no better than it was 18 years ago.

Was this some -thing He or She was too Ashamed to mention ,or was scared to rock the Cavalier Boat any further ,and could'nt Gloss over the Cavalier MVD Problem like was tried to be being done by the Article on the SM Problem in the Cavalier Breed.


24th March 2010, 01:28 PM
I changed the reference in the first post to the correct publication.

The article is quite astonishing -- factually incorrect and anonymous, with direct and personal attacks that would in the eyes of any lawyer that might advise the publication, be seen as defamatory, especially as several of the comments are definitely false.

Or let me put it this way: there's not an editor at any broadsheet paper I have worked for (and I have worked for many of the main national papers in the US, UK and Ireland) that would have allowed such an article into print because of the unsupported claims, the lack of basic fact checking, the personal tone of attack, and the overall legal liability -- which would of course also extend to any websites or diccussion boards or lists that post it or attach it as a scan (hence I will not allow it to be uploaded here for people to read). I am really amazed that anyone running any publication would not be more informed about such things, especially in the UK, which has one of the most costly global locations for a defemation suit. The article clearly violates the editor's code in the UK and hence is very clearly actionable in a libel case. Not least because at least three people could sue, individually, for damages. And could name as codefendants anyone or any site that republishes comments or the article.

If I were the subject of any of the ridiculous and defamatory comments in the article, I would be 1) demanding a print apology and clarification; 2) asking who the coward was behind the article -- and how an editor could possibly have approved the name remaining off the article unless they suspected it would be defamatory (this fact on its own is rather damning for the publication!); 3) taking the issue to the press complaints commission and 4) hiring a good solicitor. In that order.

24th March 2010, 02:17 PM
It's not a very significant article in world of canine journalism and does nothing to advance the reputation of pedigree dogs or those who breed them.
The writer has simply constructed an opinionated essay and isn't reporting on anything.Granted it will find favour in certain circles for echoing the sentiments that many breeders feel.
The author seems to be stuck in a post pedigree dogs timewarp and obviously still feels very sore about the programme.
So what is he/she actually writing about?
That a little bird(makes a change from the more traditional sources of information) told him that someone had been spotted at the ringside.
Now, this writer didn't see Jemima at all.It was "reported" that she had been seen...which is not quite the same as having seen her videoing or photographing bassett hounds or identifying the people who told her to stop taping.To back this up they put up a pic of Jemima at Crufts.....er ..last years Crufts that is!:rolleyes:
I was fascinated to read that Jemima and her sidekick may have "impeded progress in other breeds,take the cavalier King Charles spaniel for example".
So I anxiously read down to see how Jemima has impeded progress in the cavalier breed and found to my astonishment....
um......nothing at all.
No evidence at all of how the breed has been impeded,in fact the author immediately rambles off on a tangent about people being paid to speak about problems in the breed and then offers some speculation about syringomyelia.
I wonder if the writer has been reading your thoughts Bet as the last few paragraphs seem to be refuting your claims re: head size and changing shape over the decades.
I'm not sure if the article is about Jemima Harrison,Crufts or cavaliers...
Some day someone will write a wonderful piece in a canine publication about cavalier breeding and the progress being made by breeders,cavalier clubs,researchers,neurologists,the BVA/KC etc..
sadly that wasn't it..
Noone will ever enhance the reputation of the breed by slagging off Jemima Harrison or any other individuals,no matter how tempting or therapeutic it may be to do so.
Trying to turn negativity to positivity is a tough job.

24th March 2010, 05:56 PM
Thanks Karlin for your Comments.

I would think that if any-body decides to refer to what was mentioned in the Our Dogs, will be taking a risk.


24th March 2010, 07:50 PM
I've written to the 'Our Dogs' editor on my own behalf as I particularly wanted to correct the suggestion that I was paid to take part in 'Pedigree Dogs Exposed'.

I've received an apology and been assured that the apology and correction will appear in this week's edition of 'Our Dogs'. If it doesn't, I will be taking it to the Press Complaints Commission.

The personal attack on Jemima Harrison is one of the worst examples of gutter journalism I have read. 'Our Dogs' doesn't seem to have the welfare of dogs as part of their purpose at all, and I would never recommend it to anyone who genuinely cares about dogs.


25th March 2010, 10:25 AM
Could I just say that what Carol has done ,is because of her Love of the Cavalier Breed , money has never come into it.

What I will say though , that some of the Comments on another List about this Article, really shows where some Folks Sympathies Are when they have gone to great Lengths to Praise it!!


27th March 2010, 10:01 AM
Help Needed ,I have just noticed in Norma Inglis' Chatterbox Notes this week ,my name being mentioned ,also the Sickening Article, from Somebody too Scared to give their Name in last week's OUR DOGS which she has printed.

I can't Suss out what she is trying to accuse me of.

All I know is I saw the Our Dogs Article Mentioned first of all in the CC List, where a Member of that List Posted where it could be seen, then there were more Comments in other Posts about it on the CC List, And I mentioned it on our List.

Norma Inglis has given my address on Her WEB SITE, is that allowed or Legal without my Permission.

Could some-body tell me?


27th March 2010, 11:15 AM
Incidentally Our Dogs has posted a public apology on its front page to Carol Fowler and Margaret Carter for claims made in that article. As the claims are libellous, and as they are still open to being contested in court, and if others are pointing to the article as in any way containing truthful statements, they too would be open to a libel case. I wonder if Norma Inglis cleared the copyright to repost a full article from another publication? Much less one that could land her in court?

As for listing your address: no that is not generally allowed to repost a private person's contact details without permission, as your personal info is protected by data protection laws in the UK which are fairly strict. Both the website and Norma are violating those provisions and could be subject to fines. You can generally file complaints online with most data protection commissioner offices in the EU.

27th March 2010, 11:45 AM
Help Needed ,

Norma Inglis has given my address on Her WEB SITE, is that allowed or Legal without my Permission.

Could some-body tell me?


Bet I think in view of the size of your village/hamlet you would be instantly recognisable.

Can I advise you that if I were you I would contact Norma Inglis directly by the email address she gives on her site and demand that your village is removed from her statement stating simply that she did not ask your permission to post it publicly and ask that an apology be appended.

27th March 2010, 11:57 AM
I think the main issue on the address is that elsewhere Norma has actually listed her contact details, not just her village in the column.

Very stupid though to have reposted the entire article into a column which I also notice is hosted on a blog owned by one of the owners of another discussion board which makes him legally liable for it as well. If they are smart they will pull that entire item off the website and the blog but I have saved the permalink and also the source for the page. I know there is already a formal complaint in process and I am sure these new sources of republication of the same false information will need to be included in that investigation.

Cathy Moon
27th March 2010, 12:33 PM
Bet, you might want to email webmaster@cavaliers.co.uk to ask them to remove Norma's chatterbox post until she returns from judging a show, which she had posted about on another site yesterday.

This must be most distressing for you to have your personal information on the Web. Sadly, this is not the first time for her to do this; someone else had the same thing happen. Perhaps a stiff fine would set things straight for future postings. :mad:

27th March 2010, 01:30 PM
Thank you for your help in this, it's the first time I have ever been involved in any-thing like this.

I have contacted both the Web Master and Norma Inglis, as was mentioned I live in a wee Village and am well known, so any Letter with only the name of my Village would for sure come to me.

This is also what I wondered as well about the Entire OUR DOGS Article appearing on Chatterbox.

It is good to know that a Formal Complaint is in Process about the Article, and I hope that what has happened to me by Norma Inglis Divulging my Personal Details without my Permission ,will also be being taken into Account.


27th March 2010, 04:50 PM
Could I be allowed to put the Record Straight about what Norma Inglis wrote about me in Big Headlines in her Chatterbox Column on the Cavaliers.co.uk Site to-day.

She had in Big Print ,that Our Thanks to Bet Hargreaves from where I live ,for drawing our attention to the following article which appeared in OUR DOGS.

Mention of this Our Dogs Article first appeared on the CC List , posted by , I will not name the Person , under the heading

SO WHO WROTE THIS IN OUR DOGS , and giving the Link as to where it could be found.

This Posted at 22- 3- 2010

Time 9.51 PM

On the Same list at 23-3-2010,

Time 1-04 am, There was a comment made by another Member of the CC LIST

Then at 23-3-2010

Time 10.9 AM There was another Post from another List Member.

I do have their Names.

MY POST was Put ON the Cavalier Talk List,

and please note this,


TIME 6. 48 PM!!

So how earth was it , my Post about the Our Dogs Article, in Cavalier Talk draw the Attention to this Article ,when it been on the CC LIST for nearly 24 hours before I had mentioned it.

Are the Knives Out again.


27th March 2010, 06:09 PM
Sadly, this is not the first time for her to do this; someone else had the same thing happen. Perhaps a stiff fine would set things straight for future postings. :mad:

Unless there were others I think you are referring to me Cathy. Mrs Inglis for some reason likes to state where people are living when she is unhappy with them, strange but true.
Just remember Bet she did not last long as the correspondent for Dog World after this happened to me.:thmbsup:


Cathy Moon
27th March 2010, 06:22 PM
Unless there were others I think you are referring to me Cathy. Mrs Inglis for some reason likes to state where people are living when she is unhappy with them, strange but true.

Actually, I was thinking of someone else who had to request the removal of personal information from Dog World, but now that you've posted, I remember when it happened to you as well.

Disturbing - there is no defense for this type of behavior.icon_nwunsure

28th March 2010, 10:35 AM
Holly Dolly .

You have sure made my day , to think that N. Inglis is unhappy with me.

I have again requested that any reference to me is Removed immediately from the Web Site N .Inglis' Chatterbox is on.


29th March 2010, 09:48 AM
Just a wee update about this and my name etc being used on Chatterbox by Norma Inglis on a Web Site on the Internet,

I have just been in touch with a Legal Advisor about what has happened.


Cathy Moon
29th March 2010, 11:47 PM
It's my opinion that this is a form of harrassment, Bet, and I will be an overseas witness for you if needed.

30th March 2010, 04:58 PM
Thanks Cathy, I'll let you know how this developes.


31st March 2010, 05:41 PM
Since Norma Inglis and the Owner of the Chatterbox Web Site, have not removed the mention of my name claiming that I gave the information about the Article which Recently appeared in Our Dogs, I would like to ask them both ,since it appeared approx 24 hours earlier on the CC List, why are they saying I am responsible for giving out that information.

I would love to get the answer from either of them.

Also could I remind Norma Inglis that the Chairman of our UK CKCS CLUB ,had written on the CLUB WEB SITE ,24-3- 2009.

There are many Members who are still not prepared to Health Check their Breeding Stock ,and of those who do ,it would appear that many would not hesitate to Breed from affected Animals.

This is still to be seen on another Web Site.


31st March 2010, 06:12 PM
Karlin I think you may have got this wrong. So far as I know, Norma did not repost the entire article but took note of Carol Fowler's dissatisfaction with the part referring to the suggestion that she was paid to take part in 'Pedigree Dogs Exposed', and so, with Steve Mynott's agreement, excluded the contentious part. If you look at the permalink you will find that this is the case.

31st March 2010, 06:37 PM
Yes I am aware of what was posted. :thmbsup: How did she know that Carol had written to the editor regarding the article? icon_nwunsure And which sentence to remove? There's nothing to indicate either that the publication or author gave permission for it to be reposted in its entirety in her column.

It must have taken a very long time to hand retype it from the printed paper and decide which sentence to exclude. Unless of course she had the author's original digital copy to hand, which would have made it easier to do. :cool:

Also I believe there are several other issues with the article that have been formally raised. Those were only Carol's legitimate issues.

An anonymous article that emotively attacks others, is untrue, and which isn't even fact-checked at the most basic level is truly the sign of the most base of cowards and the laziest of writers.

Margaret C
1st April 2010, 10:01 PM
This week there is a letter from the breed health coordinator of Hungarian Vizlas stating how appalled and dismayed she is that Our Dogs paper allowed such a juvenile piece of journalism to appear in the paper and more so because it was written by quote “an Our Dogs Reporter”, one who cannot put their name to the article.
She wondered about the writer’s experience in either canine health, dogs in general or even journalism as the article was full of sarcasm and quite frankly inane, inaccurate facts.

She finished with the hope that he/she gets their silly journalistic head out of their journalistic waste paper basket before someone comes and gives them a sound kick up the backside, to motivate the person into writing a good piece of journalism.

The Editor of Our Dogs has written "The article in question was intended as a tongue-in-cheek piece"

1st April 2010, 10:13 PM
Maybe someone should tell that to Norma Inglis who along with some close friends, seems to be under the mistaken assumption that it is a serious piece of 'journalism'. :rolleyes:

Someone at that paper also needs to talk to a solicitor for some lessons in how to avoid a costly lawsuit as 'tongue in cheek' is not actually a legally accepted defense for an erroneous, misinformed, unfactchecked attack. Most high school students writing for student newspapers would be aware of this point. :sl*p:

2nd April 2010, 09:35 AM
Since I have just noticed the Post on the CC List from the Web Site Owner which includes Norma Inglis' Chatterbox,.

I have challenged both him and Norma Inglis as to why and to give me a reason ,WHY I was Singled out with Letters in Big Print, in Norma Inglis Chatterbox , that I had brought to their Attention the Our Dogs Article ,when they both know perfectly well that the mention of it had appeared on the CC List approx 24 hours earlier, Posted by one of the the More Vociferous Breeders on that List.

Why can they not give me an Explanation about this. ??

This is the Point I would like Clarified.

All I have ever done ,is mention the Serious Health Problems ,SM and MVD in Our Cavalier Breed,and advise any Cavalier Buyer to ask to see a Health Certificate from the Breeder that their Breeding Stock has been Health Tested .

So what is their Reason?