Hmm - you may be right. But why would someone whose boxer is having a fit be more concerned with switching on the light to actually film it rather than making sure the dog is ok ........... unless they had been asked to do it by the producers, in which case the producers of the program are still guilty of cruelty and so are the owners. I still think the RSPCA should be looking at prosecuting!

Is that a joke, you've got more chance of me going to hospital about my foot! p

ROFLMAO - sadly, I agree with you! They'd much rather prosecute where it's not needed - like the case where they tried to prosecute a woman for treating her dog for fleas before taking him to the vet - the judge laughed them out of court!

What about if the dog missed his medication I suppose the dog could have been filmed prior and edited so to speak.

I missed the programme - glad too.

Provided the medication controls the fits and the dog has a good quality of life then I wouldn't have him pts either.

Sue

Exactly and if that was the owner that jumped on the poor dog it was quite scary, maybe it was a stunt doubleSorry bad taste joke. Anyway I personally do not know why they turned the light on etc... although IMO it was to make it look worse even although it was a bad enough watching that poor boxer suffer

__________________
Handle every stressful situation like a dog. If you can't eat it or hump it. Piss on it and walk away