It is not ALLEGED. It is easily verifiable FACT. To go ahead and breed that dog, starting at 9 months, nearly 2 years before the MVD protocol, and continue after being advised by one of the foremost experts on SM in cavaliers, particularly if she did not inform the owners of the bitches, is a direct violation of kennel club ethics. If other breeders took their bitches to him and were told his scan results and Mr Skerritt's statements about his condition, they too are in breach of kennel club ethics. If they weren't told, the owner of that dog is in direct violation of KC ethics. For a breeder to dismiss the complaint against a fellow breeder when she herself accounts for three of the matings to that controversial dog, without identifying she has this very direct personal interest, would in most publications result in a writer being fired for failing to reveal a central conflict of interest. She of course has a financial and personal interest -- there are two litters of puppies sold by her to people who may now wish to know whether she herself was informed about Beauella Radzinksi's status. The bitch owners benefit from having any worrisome health information about the dog suppressed.So, it is alleged that a breeder who has bred the breed for over 30 years has used a stud dog three times, one mating of which produced no puppies. I fail to see a financial or professional conflict as I am sure that a breeder
That Norma Inglis chose to use that dog after the owner had scanned the dog raises the issue of whether she in turn was told about his status and chose to breed him anyway, or whether she wasn't told either of which which would be a direct violation of kennel club ethics and those breeders know it. This particular issue is black and white, as is implying one speaks from a neutral standpoint when in fact a personal issue is at the very heart of this matter. All these matings are a matter of public record (the club's OWN public record in fact!), and they are facts to be openly discussed, with all the implications of the decisions behind those decisions. If Norma Inglis feels the dog is being unjustly maligned, then what better way to prove it than 1) asking for a neutral panel to review the dog's MRI as Dr Ingpen has himself requested in a public post and 2) by declaring that her trust in Beverly Costello and her truthfulness about this dog extends to using him three times herself, twice after the scan.
All of those are very definitely black and white issues. Any editor or publisher will agree there are no shades of grey to declaring personal interest IF you choose to publicly make a statement as a columnist in a widely read publication.
The argument with Dr Ingpen is absolutely valid as he has implied a specialist doesn't know his business. That is potentially defamation, and he needs to be able to prove it -- as his statements have been widely circulated on the internet he could be taken to court in numerous jurisdictions, thanks to the breeders who have forwarded his comments all over the place (really, some list owners need to understand their own liability in even allowing such things to be posted in the first place. Maybe they should read my helpful link on what constitutes defamation). He is entitled to an opinion, of course, but not necessarily to express it publicly:
In addition several breeders have implied his remarks declare that Beauella Radzinski did not have a syrinx. Dr Ingpen himself has stated he did NOT say this -- indeed he will not state whether he thinks the dog has one or not -- just that he couldn't see one. Nonetheless he does call into question Mr Skerritt's professional ability. That may be his opinion but legally you are not allowed to state it in a public forum, much less print it, as Norma Inglis has done in her column, unless you wish to risk defending a lawsuit. Any professional journalist is well aware of this.Material may have the potential to defame someone if:
- The statement made would make an ordinary person modify their opinions of a person as a result of hearing or reading the statement.
Under UK law it is possible to defame corporations as well as individuals.
Defamation actions in relation to the Internet have so far involved libel. Libel must be widely 'published'. You could libel someone using electronic networks by:
- Sending an email, or an email attachment, where that email is widely posted or forwarded;
- Making material available via a web page;
- Posting to an email list or newsgroup; or
- Streaming audio or video via the Net.
Anyone who actively transmits defamatory material is liable as part of any legal action. Most standard contracts for Internet services include conditions relating to defamation.
But there is a very easy way for Beverly Costello to settle these questions. Allow Geoff Skerritt to state what he said to her, and allow a neutral panel of neurologists to examine the MRI. Are the breeders who have become involved in this issue afraid of what either of these steps will reveal? If not, and if they trust that Mr Skerritt never gave such advice, and that the MRI shows no SM, then simply prove it. Just bring forth the MRI and perhaps have the club chairwoman speak directly to Mr Skerritt.
Anyone who has been on this site for a long time knows how strictly I control any potential defamation on this site. I only allow to remain online what I know to be true. If that makes breeders unhappy, I am sorry -- I didn't set up this site for breeders, I set it up for the breed and to promote healthy cavaliers and primarily for pet owners, which suits some breeders. Not all -- but I am not looking for all (indeed I stated a short time ago that I was not allowing further breeder memberships except in limited circumstances). There are many other places to go if this discussion makes people unhappy.
No, the difference is that on the 16th of August, people had no idea how disgusting some approaches to breeding are. On the 18th, a nation that cares about dogs was absolutely outraged. Anyone who thinks otherwise should go have a hard look at how the KC has already radically changed the tune it was singing -- because any idiot could tell them they were damaging themselves and breeders further by pretending that lalalala nothing happened lalalala. I can guarantee you, as a professional journalist who covers both business and a fair bit of politics, that the KC got an earful about that approach from whoever they hired as their media consultants and have changed tack.As for the breed - it was as ill/healthy on the 16th August as it was on the 18th. Nothing has changed except for humans watching a TV program and attacking themselves about it.
And humans aren't attacking themselves about it -- people who care are furious that breeds they love are in this horrendous situation and that many continue to breed regardless of whether they know they are causing potential harm or not. If that makes you uncomfortable, then you definitely would be better off on a breeder list and accordingly I will close your registration here.