BBC watchdog tonight
Alison
http://www.bbc.co.uk/watchdog/reports/miscellaneous/index.shtml?subcat=vet
--
Alison
Kaz
"Alison" <alis...@xxxbtinternet.com> wrote in message
news:b3ghet$p9h$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
: I saw the last two minutes of this . I'm lucky to have good vet surgery that I trust.
: http://www.bbc.co.uk/watchdog/reports/miscellaneous/index.shtml?subcat=vet
: --
: Alison
:
:
:
:
I saw the whole thing, I was amazed when they took a healthy dog in there (secretly
filming) and he said the dog had a enlarged prostrate, and would need unnecessary
medication.
Same here I have a brilliant vet, who I trust totally, even my previous vet before moving
up here 4 months ago.
Kaz
Bob Brenchley.
Yes, I watched it as well.
I think they handled the report very well, the clear message being: if
you are not sure your vet is doing a good job then get a second
opinion.
--
Bob.
Anything on the ground is a cat toy. Anything not there yet, will be.
Bevluvsrats
will stand by him as I don't believe a word of what's been said at all. He
saved the life of more than one of my animals, does not over charge at all, I
changed from my previous vet after they misdiagnosed an abscess as an
inoperable tumour, they were willing to let my animal die. Lyndon found out
what it was and saved his life. I don't know of another vet who is so good with
animals, something about these accusations just isn't right to me. I know the
background story about the prectise he was 'dismissed' from, and that's untrue
also. I'm not the only one who would fight tooth and nail to make sure he keeps
on practising veterinary medicine.
Please don't believe everything you're told by the BBC, especially when ther
'source' has to remain anonymous.
Bev x
Come and see my rats and sign my guestbook at:
http://www.freewebs.com/bevluvsrats/index.htm
oldmolly
"Bevluvsrats" <bevlu...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20030226123924...@mb-cu.aol.com...
Blind faith in anyone is foolish.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.456 / Virus Database: 256 - Release Date: 18/02/03
bowmanzoo
things about a certain service out of how many that use it. Prehaps the vet
just mis diagnosed which was an accident, it happens.
"oldmolly" <oldm...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:b3jg90$1menb1$1...@ID-165698.news.dfncis.de...
Bob Brenchley.
Moronic posting style corrected. You have not been charged for this
service but I reserve the right to charge in the future if you make
the same mistake again.
>what annoes me about programes like this is you get one person shouting bad
>things about a certain service out of how many that use it. Prehaps the vet
>just mis diagnosed which was an accident, it happens.
>
Care to explain the mis-diagnosis of the dog Watchdog took in as a
test. Perfectly healthy, fit, well fed, 100% A1 condition.
He finds a fever which he claims is caused by an enlarged prostate.
I had to drop some papers in at our vets this afternoon and they were
buzzing with the story - nobody can understand how he could make such
a bad call.
--
Bob.
Cats-V-Dogs
A dog thinks: Hey, these people I live with feed me, love me, provide
me with a nice warm, dry house, pet me, and take good care of me....
They must be Gods!
A cat thinks: Hey, these people I live with feed me, love me, provide
me with a nice warm, dry house, pet me, and take good care of me.... I
must be a God!
Bevluvsrats
excellent vet. He saved the life of a few of my pets when my ex vet had given
up on them, and I'm not the only one. I travel 36 miles to take my animals to
him specifically. To me, the people who are trusting the Watchdog team are more
blind because they're not getting any evidence for themselves, they're trusting
the BBC just because they're the BBC.
Bevluvsrats
just mis diagnosed which was an accident, it happens.
That is possible, but I very much doubt it.
A friend of mine has recently been back to Lyndon this week, and has been told
that the report was edited and didn't show any of Lyndon's insistance that
there was nothing wrong with the dog.
Bevluvsrats
heard of him. I'm afraid as soon as I heard about this story, I was much more
likely to trust the vet that I have been going to rather than one that the BBC
has decided is good enough for them to use for a second opinion. I don't know
this other vet, but I know Lyndon very well. If I thought for one second that
his treatment was incompetent, my animals would no longer be going to him, but
as it happens, I'll be seeing him on Saturday with 3 rats and a cat. Why do you
think this person who originally started this is too chicken to come forward?
Because she knows that Lyndon is very well loved and well respected by his
clients, and with very good reason.
If you have never taken an animal to Lyndon, you really cannot comment.
Kaz
"Bevluvsrats" <bevlu...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
: Prehaps the vet
That doesn't make any sense at all, seeing as he said the dog had an enlarged prostrate,
and was prescribing unnecessary medication to a healthy dog.
He would say it was edited to save his arse.
Jeanette
Bevluvsrats <bevlu...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
> Who exactly is this vet that Watchdog dug up anyway? Who is Joe Inglis?
Never
> heard of him.
LOL, they got Joe Inglis in for an expert opinion? He's one of the original
graduates from the Vets in Practise TV programme, famed for not really
wanting to be a vet, and spending most of his time building 'grass boards'
to skateboard on grass with. I didn't realise he was still in practise. Now
if they'd got his ex-wife in, I would be more impressed, she always struck
me as an OK person, despite her bad taste in men.
Jeanette
Bob Brenchley.
wrote:
>If you have never taken an animal to Lyndon, you really cannot comment.
That is a stupid comment.
--
Bob.
You have not been charged for this lesson. Please pass it to all your
friends so they may learn as well.
Bob Brenchley.
He also took the dogs temperature and said it had a fever. Now that is
not just a matter of opinion - you look at the thermometer and it
either has or it hasn't.
--
Bob.
Cat's motto: No matter what you've done wrong, always try to make it
look like the dog did it.
Bob Brenchley.
wrote:
>This is not blind faith, Lyndon has proved to me that he is trustworthy and an
>excellent vet. He saved the life of a few of my pets when my ex vet had given
>up on them, and I'm not the only one. I travel 36 miles to take my animals to
>him specifically. To me, the people who are trusting the Watchdog team are more
>blind because they're not getting any evidence for themselves, they're trusting
>the BBC just because they're the BBC.
>
Far from it. What I'm trusting is my own knowledge of veterinarian
medicine, the far greater knowledge of my local team of vets, and the
facts presented by the programme.
Yes vets can have an off day. He may indeed have misdiagnosed an
enlarged prostate. But claiming the dog had a fever???
What you have to do is look at the facts. The dog was presented as
being with a "new owner" and being a bit lethargic and off its food.
First diagnosis - the dog is a bit upset by the change of owner and
almost certainly the change of food.
Then he takes the temperature, good - standard practice. Bad - he
claims a fever where no existed.
Then he goes for an examination of the prostate - why? Dogs that young
very rarely suffer prostate problems so why even check it? Maybe
because it is hidden inside and therefor easy to hoodwink the owner by
claiming a prostate problem? Dish out a course of antibiotics and get
one or two repeat visits?
Oh, and of course, it could be he took the attitude with the first
complainant, that as it was an insurance company paying it didn't
matter.
--
Bob.
In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, "Let there be
Light." And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better.
Kaz
news:crmr5v86esivlen60...@4ax.com...
: On 27 Feb 2003 06:56:34 GMT, bevlu...@aol.comnojunk (Bevluvsrats)
Totally agree with you on this one Bob
Kaz
James
Unfortunately I missed the programme (was out on cat-sitting rounds) but
read the report.
Sometimes people ask me to take their cat to their vet to be put to
sleep because they can't bear to do it themselves. It's one the sad but
rare duties asked of me. One such cat had metastatic cancer and I was
asked - begged - to take him to the vet for his final jab. The vet kept
this poor suffering animal waiting for 40 minutes before seeing to it
while he called in other people. When I complained to the receptionist,
her response was "Well, they've made appointments, you haven't." BTW
this vet had examined the cat only a week before and said he was fine
and had many months to live.
Another vet always asks me at the start if the cat is insured. If so he
runs tests for just about everything, even if it's obviously an abscess
which just needs lancing and cleaning.
I'm so grateful I can trust my vet. She's *never* let me or my cats
down and at every opportunity I take my customer's cats there too.
Veterinary practice is an unregulated profession, and where there are
innocent fish there are bound to be sharks.
--
James
Bevluvsrats
medicine, the far greater knowledge of my local team of vets, and the
facts presented by the programme.
Then in my opinion, you are trusting the BBC. The 'facts' presented by the
programme aren't facts at all, the actual consultation was edited by the BBC to
make Lyndon look bad. I know what happened in the actual consultation, he
remembers it well, and there was much more to it than was actually broadcast,
including the fact that the owner was insistant that Lyndon finds something
wrong with the dog, even though he had already said that he was stumped!
>Yes vets can have an off day. He may indeed have misdiagnosed an
>enlarged prostate. But claiming the dog had a fever???
The dog did have a slight fever, but Lyndon figured that was because the dog
was nervous about being at the vets as most animals are.
>Then he goes for an examination of the prostate - why?
Because the owner was insisting that he checked everything, even though he'd
checked everything that he thought could be wrong, but could find no cause.
That was just about all that was left to check.
You're forgetting that you're still taking the word of the BBC, and a very well
edited film. I actually have been taking my animals to Lyndon, after being let
down my other vets who misdiagnosed and overcharged me, so out of the two of
us, who should know better?
Bev
Bevluvsrats
>prostrate,
>and was prescribing unnecessary medication to a healthy dog.
>He would say it was edited to save his arse.
The dog had a slightly enlarged prostate, and he didn't prescribe any
medication to the dog even though the owner was insisting that he did all
through the consultation, then refused treatment.
Bev
Bevluvsrats
>not just a matter of opinion - you look at the thermometer and it
>either has or it hasn't.
>
Exactly, and the dog did! A slight fever, which was probably caused by stress.
Bev
Bevluvsrats
>graduates from the Vets in Practise TV programme, famed for not really
>wanting to be a vet, and spending most of his time building 'grass boards'
>to skateboard on grass with. I didn't realise he was still in practise. Now
>if they'd got his ex-wife in, I would be more impressed, she always struck
>me as an OK person, despite her bad taste in men.
>
>Jeanette
>
Ah, that explains it. So you people would rather believe someone who's been
paid by the BBC for many years, than someone who didn't even know he was being
filmed? That goes to show that you are just trusting the BBC because of who
they are.
If you were this Joe Inglis, would you want to do anything to anger your
employer and jeopardise any future TV series?
Bev x
Kaz
"Bevluvsrats" <bevlu...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
: >That doesn't make any sense at all, seeing as he said the dog had an enlarged
: >prostrate,
: >and was prescribing unnecessary medication to a healthy dog.
: >He would say it was edited to save his arse.
:
: The dog had a slightly enlarged prostate, and he didn't prescribe any
: medication to the dog even though the owner was insisting that he did all
: through the consultation, then refused treatment.
:
: Bev
Stop looking through rose-tinted glasses, and see the truth.
Bevluvsrats
from experience, you're speaking from the BBC's point of view!
Bob Brenchley.
wrote:
>>He also took the dogs temperature and said it had a fever. Now that is
>>not just a matter of opinion - you look at the thermometer and it
>>either has or it hasn't.
>>
>
>Exactly, and the dog did! A slight fever, which was probably caused by stress.
>
Funny, it didn't before, and it didn't right after.
Something smells, and I think its your vet.
Bob Brenchley.
wrote:
>>That doesn't make any sense at all, seeing as he said the dog had an enlarged
>>prostrate,
>>and was prescribing unnecessary medication to a healthy dog.
>>He would say it was edited to save his arse.
>
>The dog had a slightly enlarged prostate,
Not what he said. There was no "slightly" in his description.
>and he didn't prescribe any
>medication to the dog even though the owner was insisting that he did all
>through the consultation, then refused treatment.
He wanted to give the dog antibiotic shots, a course of antibiotics
and anti-inflammetories.
--
Bob.
You need to find a quiet corner and have a word with yourself.
Bob Brenchley.
wrote:
>>Far from it. What I'm trusting is my own knowledge of veterinarian
>medicine, the far greater knowledge of my local team of vets, and the
>facts presented by the programme.
>
>
>Then in my opinion, you are trusting the BBC. The 'facts' presented by the
>programme aren't facts at all, the actual consultation was edited by the BBC to
>make Lyndon look bad. I know what happened in the actual consultation, he
>remembers it well, and there was much more to it than was actually broadcast,
>including the fact that the owner was insistant that Lyndon finds something
>wrong with the dog, even though he had already said that he was stumped!
Well of course he would say that. If he thinks he has a case then he
is free to make a complaint to the broadcasting standards authority
(or whatever they call themselves these days). I'm sure you will be a
credible witness for his side...[not].
>
>
>>Yes vets can have an off day. He may indeed have misdiagnosed an
>>enlarged prostate. But claiming the dog had a fever???
>
>The dog did have a slight fever, but Lyndon figured that was because the dog
>was nervous about being at the vets as most animals are.
Then he would have had a raging fever with a camera crew (4 or 5
people) and under the lights when it came to the later examination.
Yes, dogs do get stressed, but they don't show with a fever like he
claimed.
>
>
>
>>Then he goes for an examination of the prostate - why?
>
>Because the owner was insisting that he checked everything, even though he'd
>checked everything that he thought could be wrong, but could find no cause.
>That was just about all that was left to check.
>
>You're forgetting that you're still taking the word of the BBC, and a very well
>edited film. I actually have been taking my animals to Lyndon, after being let
>down my other vets who misdiagnosed and overcharged me, so out of the two of
>us, who should know better?
Actually, in this sort of case, the BBC I think. All material for
Watchdog is very carefully screened, including a showing to legal
experts to ensure they have acted fairly. He was given the opportunity
to talk - why didn't he?
--
Bob.
When you came to the fountain of knowledge, you merely gargled.
Kaz
"Bevluvsrats" <bevlu...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
: You really are just trying to wind me up aren't you! I'm speaking the truth
: from experience, you're speaking from the BBC's point of view!
:
: Come and see my rats and sign my guestbook at:
: http://www.freewebs.com/bevluvsrats/index.htm
I am not trying to wind you up, just stating the obvious that you cannot or will not see.
Explain then why he was kicked out by Goddard's then, for exactly the same thing, or as
the BBC put unprofessional working practices.
Bevluvsrats
>thing, or as
>the BBC put unprofessional working practices.
That's exactly the point I'm trying to make - he wasn't! Get it now?
Bevluvsrats
>
>Something smells, and I think its your vet.
The fact is that you don't have to believe it if you really don't want to, but
as we recently found out via the Martin Bashir interview with Michael Jackson,
TV companies DO edit things in their favour.
Bevluvsrats
That's what you heard, that's what the BBC allowed you to hear!
>He wanted to give the dog antibiotic shots, a course of antibiotics
>and anti-inflammetories.
>
He wanted to on the 'owner's' insistance that he do something. But at the end
of the day, he didn't prescribe anything.
Bevluvsrats
>is free to make a complaint to the broadcasting standards authority
>(or whatever they call themselves these days). I'm sure you will be a
>credible witness for his side...[not].
Why wouldn't I be? Because you don't believe me and because you're blindly
trusting the BBC because they are the God of all TV shows, doesn't mean that
they're correct. Explain the Bashir interview recently. I have a great deal of
evidence in his favour that you don't know about.
>Then he would have had a raging fever with a camera crew (4 or 5
>people) and under the lights when it came to the later examination.
>
If you are a dog owner, then how come you don't seem to realise that dogs and
cats, any animal, can sense fear from other animals, and when at the vets they
know where they are and what's likely to happen to them? This dog could have
been used to people, could have been filmed before, could be a regular stunt
dog, but animals in general don't like vets!
>Actually, in this sort of case, the BBC I think. All material for
>Watchdog is very carefully screened, including a showing to legal
>experts to ensure they have acted fairly. He was given the opportunity
>to talk - why didn't he?
Where is the evidence that Watchdog is always squeaky clean? Who's to say that
they can't make mistakes or do things that aren't completelt correct? My
animals are being treated by this man, you obviously don't know me, or you
would know that I have a great deal of veterinary knowledge myself and the
treatment and care of my pets is paramount. If this man was in any way
suspected by me of being guilty of these accusations, my animals wouldn't be
going to him.
You don't know him, you haven't seen the whole picture, you haven't seen the
whole unedited hidden camera footage, you can't comment. It looks bad to the
public who haven't taken an animal to him, but his clients are still supporting
him because they know that it is all impossible.
oldmolly
"Bevluvsrats" <bevlu...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
> Who exactly is this vet that Watchdog dug up anyway? Who is Joe Inglis?
Never
> heard of him.
Joe Inglis is a well known vet.
I'm afraid as soon as I heard about this story, I was much more
> likely to trust the vet that I have been going to rather than one that the
BBC
> has decided is good enough for them to use for a second opinion. I don't
know
> this other vet, but I know Lyndon very well. If I thought for one second
that
> his treatment was incompetent, my animals would no longer be going to him,
but
> as it happens, I'll be seeing him on Saturday with 3 rats and a cat. Why
do you
> think this person who originally started this is too chicken to come
forward?
> Because she knows that Lyndon is very well loved and well respected by his
> clients, and with very good reason.
>
> If you have never taken an animal to Lyndon, you really cannot comment.
Yet you see fit to comment on a vet you admit you have never heard of? So
because you like your vet, and don't want to beleive he could be a con
merchant, even though he was exposed as such in the past (allegedly), you
are happy to make blanket statements that he is wonderful and nice, and
ethicall etc etc . You don't know the full story.
The nice kind friendly postmaster in my village,whom I like and respect and
who opened the shop on xmas eve evening for me to buy a bottle of gas, and
who is polite and kind to kids and is a chirchgoing christian, is in jail
for fraud and embezzlement.
Just because I like him, don't make it that he didn't commit the crimes he
did.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.456 / Virus Database: 256 - Release Date: 18/02/03
oldmolly
"Bevluvsrats" <bevlu...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
>
been
> paid by the BBC for many years, than someone who didn't even know he was
being
> filmed?
didn't *buy* him a certificate, nor have they paid his wages since he
qualified. If it were Trude Mostu would you still doubt it because she
qualified at the same time as Joe? Or because she is blonde or because any
reason at all so t hat you don't have to accept that the vet you use, might
be dishonest??
That goes to show that you are just trusting the BBC because of who
> they are.
And you are trusting your vet because you perhaps have a crush on him??
Your blind adoration of him in the face of contrary evidence is puzzling.
>
> If you were this Joe Inglis, would you want to do anything to anger your
> employer and jeopardise any future TV series?
The BBC don't employ him. He has his own veterinary practise. You are so
vehement I am starting to beleive that you are this vets missus or mistress.
oldmolly
"Bevluvsrats" <bevlu...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
> >Far from it. What I'm trusting is my own knowledge of veterinarian
> medicine, the far greater knowledge of my local team of vets, and the
> facts presented by the programme.
>
>
> Then in my opinion, you are trusting the BBC. The 'facts' presented by the
> programme aren't facts at all, the actual consultation was edited by the
BBC to
> make Lyndon look bad.
>I know what happened in the actual consultation,
Were you there??
/index.htm
Bevluvsrats
>because you like your vet, and don't want to beleive he could be a con
>merchant, even though he was exposed as such in the past (allegedly), you
>are happy to make blanket statements that he is wonderful and nice, and
>ethicall etc etc . You don't know the full story.
>The nice kind friendly postmaster in my village,whom I like and respect and
>who opened the shop on xmas eve evening for me to buy a bottle of gas, and
>who is polite and kind to kids and is a chirchgoing christian, is in jail
>for fraud and embezzlement.
>Just because I like him, don't make it that he didn't commit the crimes he
>did.
>
Actually I have heard of him, he's not exactly perfect himself, plus he's not
going to say anything to the contrary of what they want him to say when he's
getting paid for it, don't forget that the BBC have paid him before, would you
bite the hand that feeds you?
I do know the full story, for legal reasons I cannot post most of it here.
I'm not saying any of this because I like Lyndon, that is incidental, the fact
is that he treats my animals well, he has saved my animals' life before, and
likewise, many other people can say the same about him. I would gladly fight
tooth and nail in his corner, not for any other reason than it's taken me years
to find a competent, trustworthy, knowledgeable vet who charges miniscule
prices as well, now that I've found him, I'm not letting lies push him down. if
you were in my situation, you'd do the same, but as you don't know him and
haven't had any animals treated by him, you canot comment.
Kaz
: >Explain then why he was kicked out by Goddard's then, for exactly the same
: >thing, or as
: >the BBC put unprofessional working practices.
:
: That's exactly the point I'm trying to make - he wasn't! Get it now?
so why did he leave Goddard's then, if he wasn't sacked.
I am asking you a question please answer, don't fob off with BBC excuses.
Bevluvsrats
>
Were you in the editing room when they made the programme?
Bevluvsrats
>didn't *buy* him a certificate, nor have they paid his wages since he
>qualified. If it were Trude Mostu would you still doubt it because she
>qualified at the same time as Joe? Or because she is blonde or because any
>reason at all so t hat you don't have to accept that the vet you use, might
>be dishonest??
>
>
Excuse me, but there's no need for you to call me dense, I'm the one going on
facts, not on an edited TV show!
As a matter of fact, I don't like Trude Mostue either, there have been many
occasions where I've been watching her and found that she has misdiagnosed
something that was obvious to me.
If I felt that the vet I use was dishonest, I wouldn't use him. How many times
do I have to say that? None of you here know me, I accept that, but the fact is
that I am speaking from experience, not hearsay.
Bevluvsrats
>I am asking you a question please answer, don't fob off with BBC excuses.
>
As I've said before, there's more to this than meets the eye, and that is
something that I can't answer because you don't need to know, plus I can't
really give it out because it's not my place to say.
Kaz
: >Were you there??
: >
:
: Were you in the editing room when they made the programme?
: Come and see my rats and sign my guestbook at:
: http://www.freewebs.com/bevluvsrats/index.htm
Answer the question "were you there", were you in the consulting room when the secret
filming was done.
If you wasn't then you are just taking his word that its been edited.
Kaz
: >so why did he leave Goddard's then, if he wasn't sacked.
Well I will take that as you don't know, why he left/sacked from Goddard's.
I used to take my pets to Goddard's, before moving , for years, and they do not like a
dishonest vet.
Alison
Jeanette <ver...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:mbk7a.8337$vc5.66...@news-text.cableinet.net...
>
>
> LOL, they got Joe Inglis in for an expert opinion? He's one of the original
> graduates from the Vets in Practise TV programme, famed for not really
> wanting to be a vet, and spending most of his time building 'grass boards'
> to skateboard on grass with. I didn't realise he was still in practise. Now
> if they'd got his ex-wife in, I would be more impressed, she always struck
> me as an OK person, despite her bad taste in men.
>
> Jeanette
>
Hi Jeanette,
I think Emma is great too. She has a web site at http://www.emmathevet.co.uk/
and she is campaigning with Dogs Today to stop tail docking . There is an on-line
petition at her site. I feel you've been to harsh on Joe. Joe said
"I've examined the case notes and the only thing in there to confirm the diagnosis of
crystals or stones in the bladder would be the urine test sent to the laboratory for
examination."
"From what I've read in the case notes the dog was on antibiotics off and on for
months. This I would not think is ideal because it can tend to promote resistance
amongst the bacteria in the bladder and can damage the dog's health."
"Yeah the prostate feels symmetrical. It's not grossly enlarged at all it feels
within the normal boundaries of the size of a prostate of this dog. So it feels
absolutely normal to me so I think give him a clean bill of health."
Joe Inglis went on to explain that prostate problems are very uncommon in male dog's
like Frankie. Lethargy and being a bit off his food, the symptoms Frankie was
displaying are not specific to a prostate problem"
(these are two seperate cases)
I'm not a vet but I can't see anything wrong with what he's said. Also the woaman
who made the complaint said she took her dog to
"The last time that I took my dog to see him he had diagnosed her with canine herpes
virus. A month later I took her to a specialist hospital to get her checked out and
they gave her a clean bill of health. They said there was nothing wrong with her. "
This second opinion had nothing to do with Joe.
Alison
Kaz
: "Bevluvsrats" <bevlu...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
:
also how is it he was taking blood tests and not sending them off for testing, and then
saying that the dog has canine herpes virus.
Now how did he know that when he has charged for a blood test that was never tested.
Alison
Bevluvsrats <bevlu...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20030227123756...@mb-fv.aol.com...
> > >
>
> Excuse me, but there's no need for you to call me dense, I'm the one going on
> facts, not on an edited TV show!
>
> As a matter of fact, I don't like Trude Mostue either, there have been many
> occasions where I've been watching her and found that she has misdiagnosed
> something that was obvious to me.
>
> If I felt that the vet I use was dishonest, I wouldn't use him. How many times
> do I have to say that? None of you here know me, I accept that, but the fact is
> that I am speaking from experience, not hearsay.
> Come and see my rats and sign my guestbook at:
> http://www.freewebs.com/bevluvsrats/index.htm
Hi ,
If your vet feels the BBC has been unfair he can complain to an ombudsman and
they can investigate the case . That's great that you are happy with him . The BBC
took a dog to the vet which fake symptoms and the vet said he had an enlarged
prostrate . That was their experience first hand, not heresay. I didn't see the whole
of the programme but having something on film is a pretty good record of what was
said .
Alison
Bevluvsrats
Take it however you want, I know the truth.
Bevluvsrats
>the secret
>: filming was done.
>: If you wasn't then you are just taking his word that its been edited.
You know that I couldn't have been, but then you answer the question whether
you were there when they were filming and do you know for certain that what was
shown is all that was said?
>also how is it he was taking blood tests and not sending them off for
>testing, and then
>saying that the dog has canine herpes virus.
>Now how did he know that when he has charged for a blood test that was never
>tested.
More that I can't comment on for legal reasons, believe what you want, think
what you want, blindly follow whatever you want, the people who know the truth
are the ones who have the upper hand.
I joined this newsgroup to try to get the other side of this argument across,
not to be insulted, slagged off and argued with like this.
Bevluvsrats
> If your vet feels the BBC has been unfair he can complain to an
>ombudsman and
>they can investigate the case . That's great that you are happy with him .
Thanks for saying that, you're the only one here who has reponded to me in a
mature way about this. yes, I am happy with him, and so is everyone else that
I've spoken to. This sounds like sour grapes to me, and I'll continue to fight
his case, but only with mature people who are willing to accept that as much as
Lyndon (in their opinion) could have done something wrong, then so could the
BBC.
Bev x
Kaz
: >Well I will take that as you don't know, why he left/sacked from Goddard's.
:
: Take it however you want, I know the truth.
: Come and see my rats and sign my guestbook at:
: http://www.freewebs.com/bevluvsrats/index.htm
well please tell us "the truth" instead of hiding behind he's a good vet and the BBC
edited the secret filming.
Back up what you say with facts not BS
Kaz
: >: Answer the question "were you there", were you in the consulting room when
Keep hiding behind cant comment for legal reasons, more than likely you know nothing, and
are just a idiot who think the sun shines from his proverbial.
You have not backed up anything you have stated here today with any proper evidence that
the BBC film was wrong and the vet in question is totally innocent of the claims against
him.
Anne Jackson
from "Kaz" <k...@nospam.com> contains these words:
> : I joined this newsgroup to try to get the other side of this
> argument across,
> : not to be insulted, slagged off and argued with like this.
> : Come and see my rats and sign my guestbook at:
> : http://www.freewebs.com/bevluvsrats/index.htm
> Keep hiding behind cant comment for legal reasons, more than likely
> you know nothing,
> and are just a idiot who think the sun shines from his proverbial.
> You have not backed up anything you have stated here today with any
> proper evidence
> that the BBC film was wrong and the vet in question is totally
> innocent of the claims
> against him.
So, you won't even believe that it is _just_ possible that the BBC did a bit
of "creative editing"? It's not unknown, you know.
If Bev has total faith in her vet, then I'm happy for her...I wish I had more
faith in mine!
--
AnneJ
ICQ #:- 119531282
Bevluvsrats
>the BBC
>edited the secret filming.
>Back up what you say with facts not BS
Why should I? You're not treating me particularly well, besides I've given you
facts before, and you choose not to believe me, so it's not worth my time.
Bevluvsrats
>of "creative editing"? It's not unknown, you know.
>
>If Bev has total faith in her vet, then I'm happy for her...I wish I had more
>
>faith in mine!
>
>--
>AnneJ
Many many thanks, at the moment it feels in here like it's me against the
world, so normally people would have given up, but not when I know that he's
innocent, why would I put myself through this crap from these people if I
didn't believe and KNOW it to be true?
Many thanks again.
Bev x
Five Cats
<ver...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>Bevluvsrats <bevlu...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
>> Who exactly is this vet that Watchdog dug up anyway? Who is Joe Inglis?
>Never
>> heard of him.
>
>graduates from the Vets in Practise TV programme, famed for not really
>wanting to be a vet, and spending most of his time building 'grass boards'
>to skateboard on grass with. I didn't realise he was still in practise. Now
>if they'd got his ex-wife in, I would be more impressed, she always struck
>me as an OK person, despite her bad taste in men.
He did qualify and practise though - it's not as if they choose someone
who had dropped out after the first year.
>
>Jeanette
>
>
--
Five Cats
Five Cats
<candl...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
<snip>
>
>Veterinary practice is an unregulated profession, and where there are
>innocent fish there are bound to be sharks.
I doubt the body that licenses vets would agree with you, and remember
that it's illegal to practise as a vet if not licensed.
--
Five Cats
Five Cats
<bevlu...@aol.comnojunk> writes
>>well please tell us "the truth" instead of hiding behind he's a good vet and
>>the BBC
>>edited the secret filming.
>>Back up what you say with facts not BS
>
>Why should I? You're not treating me particularly well, besides I've given you
>facts before, and you choose not to believe me, so it's not worth my time.
They've seen one set of 'facts' from the BBC, and it seems reasonable to
me that if you want to counter the BBC line that you should present your
own 'facts'.
--
Five Cats
oldmolly
"Bevluvsrats" <bevlu...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
> >Were you there??
> >
>
> Were you in the editing room when they made the programme?
did , your exact words are "I know what happened in the actual
consultation".
I want to know *how* you know if you weren't there.
Bob Brenchley.
wrote:
>> Oh don't be so dense. Joe inglis is a qualified practising vet. The BBC
>>didn't *buy* him a certificate, nor have they paid his wages since he
>>qualified. If it were Trude Mostu would you still doubt it because she
>>qualified at the same time as Joe? Or because she is blonde or because any
>>reason at all so t hat you don't have to accept that the vet you use, might
>>be dishonest??
>>
>>
>
>Excuse me, but there's no need for you to call me dense, I'm the one going on
>facts, not on an edited TV show!
No, you are the one telling us something from behind a invented screen
name. The BBC was the one that gave us the facts.
>
> As a matter of fact, I don't like Trude Mostue either, there have been many
>occasions where I've been watching her and found that she has misdiagnosed
>something that was obvious to me.
>
>If I felt that the vet I use was dishonest, I wouldn't use him. How many times
>do I have to say that? None of you here know me, I accept that, but the fact is
>that I am speaking from experience, not hearsay.
And so was the woman on Watchdog, and so was the practice that sacked
him. Now if a rat is smelled, it will take more than someone like you
telling us the smell is in our imagination to make it go away.
--
Bob.
If brains were taxed, you would get a rebate.
Bob Brenchley.
wrote:
>> Hi ,
>> If your vet feels the BBC has been unfair he can complain to an
>>ombudsman and
>>they can investigate the case . That's great that you are happy with him .
>
>Thanks for saying that, you're the only one here who has reponded to me in a
>mature way about this. yes, I am happy with him, and so is everyone else that
>I've spoken to. This sounds like sour grapes to me, and I'll continue to fight
>his case, but only with mature people who are willing to accept that as much as
>Lyndon (in their opinion) could have done something wrong, then so could the
>BBC.
On the balance of the evidence given, he has a case to answer.
What I hope will happen now is that some of the insurance companies
will start to investigate the cases he has handled.
--
Bob.
In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, "Let there be
Light." And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better.
Bob Brenchley.
wrote:
>>Funny, it didn't before, and it didn't right after.
>>
>>Something smells, and I think its your vet.
>
>The fact is that you don't have to believe it if you really don't want to, but
>as we recently found out via the Martin Bashir interview with Michael Jackson,
>TV companies DO edit things in their favour.
>
Oh dear - don't tell me you fell for the MJ propaganda machine.
--
Bob.
You couldn't get a clue during the clue mating season in a field full
of horny clues if you smeared your body with clue musk and did the
clue mating dance.
Bob Brenchley.
wrote:
>>Not what he said. There was no "slightly" in his description.
>
>That's what you heard, that's what the BBC allowed you to hear!
>
>>He wanted to give the dog antibiotic shots, a course of antibiotics
>>and anti-inflammetories.
>>
>
>He wanted to on the 'owner's' insistance that he do something. But at the end
>of the day, he didn't prescribe anything.
Because the owner refused to allow him to treat the animal. He wanted
to give the dog antibiotic shots, a course of antibiotics and
anti-inflammetories. He wanted. Not the owner. That came over clearly.
And, even if it WAS the owner trying to get him to give the dog
treatment the animal didn't need - no vet worth dealing with would
dish out antibiotic shots, a course of antibiotics and
anti-inflammetories to an animal that DIDN'T need them. Get it now?
Your vet has questions to ask, you are digging ever deeper holes for
him. I think it is time you faced the facts and dropped it.
--
Bob.
You have not been charged for this lesson. Please pass it to all your
friends so they may learn as well.
Bob Brenchley.
wrote:
>>Well of course he would say that. If he thinks he has a case then he
>>is free to make a complaint to the broadcasting standards authority
>>(or whatever they call themselves these days). I'm sure you will be a
>>credible witness for his side...[not].
>
>Why wouldn't I be?
Because you are not a witness.
> Because you don't believe me and because you're blindly
>trusting the BBC because they are the God of all TV shows, doesn't mean that
>they're correct.
Who said they were, ,but so far their side of the argument has
credibility and evidence. What have you got?
>Explain the Bashir interview recently.
A very clever reported managed to get a very sick and possibly evil
person to expose some of the things that are very rotten in his life.
>I have a great deal of
>evidence in his favour that you don't know about.
Who? MJ?
>
>>Then he would have had a raging fever with a camera crew (4 or 5
>>people) and under the lights when it came to the later examination.
>>
>
>If you are a dog owner, then how come you don't seem to realise that dogs and
>cats, any animal, can sense fear from other animals, and when at the vets they
>know where they are and what's likely to happen to them? This dog could have
>been used to people, could have been filmed before, could be a regular stunt
>dog, but animals in general don't like vets!
I would disagree with the last bit. As for the earlier part - if he
was going to run a fever in one vets surgery then he would run a fever
in another's and with all those lights....
>
>
>>Actually, in this sort of case, the BBC I think. All material for
>>Watchdog is very carefully screened, including a showing to legal
>>experts to ensure they have acted fairly. He was given the opportunity
>>to talk - why didn't he?
>
>Where is the evidence that Watchdog is always squeaky clean? Who's to say that
>they can't make mistakes or do things that aren't completelt correct? My
>animals are being treated by this man, you obviously don't know me,
And at the moment I would rather not.
> or you
>would know that I have a great deal of veterinary knowledge myself and the
>treatment and care of my pets is paramount.
And yet you missed the very easy to pick up signs that your vet is
either a) a crook, or b) negligent, or c) ignorant - or any mix of the
three. Not very bright are you. [and no, I did not forget the question
mark.]
>If this man was in any way
>suspected by me of being guilty of these accusations, my animals wouldn't be
>going to him.
>
>You don't know him, you haven't seen the whole picture, you haven't seen the
>whole unedited hidden camera footage, you can't comment.
And neither can you.
>It looks bad to the
>public who haven't taken an animal to him, but his clients are still supporting
>him because they know that it is all impossible.
The why did he get dismissed for exactly the same sort of things at
his last place?
--
Bob.
I think, therefore, I am... not related to you.
Bob Brenchley.
wrote:
>>: Answer the question "were you there", were you in the consulting room when
>>the secret
>>: filming was done.
>>: If you wasn't then you are just taking his word that its been edited.
>
>You know that I couldn't have been, but then you answer the question whether
>you were there when they were filming and do you know for certain that what was
>shown is all that was said?
>
>>also how is it he was taking blood tests and not sending them off for
>>testing, and then
>>saying that the dog has canine herpes virus.
>>Now how did he know that when he has charged for a blood test that was never
>>tested.
>
>More that I can't comment on for legal reasons,
Hohohoho. Good get out that one. Not an iota of truth in it, but a
good get out.
> believe what you want, think
>what you want, blindly follow whatever you want, the people who know the truth
>are the ones who have the upper hand.
>
>I joined this newsgroup to try to get the other side of this argument across,
>not to be insulted, slagged off and argued with like this.
Mmmm. Bigger rat smells wafting over the group.
Bevluvsrats
>telling us the smell is in our imagination to make it go away.
Fine, that's your opinion, you're sticking to it, i'm wasting my time, I
shouldn't bother anymore!
Bevluvsrats
Ah, so you're as small minded about that as well. I'll bet you didn't see the
Maury Povich version of the interview then.
Bevluvsrats
Of course it came over clearly, they didn't wnt it to look any other way did
they!
>I think it is time you faced the facts and dropped it.
I think it;s time I dropped it too, because I'm trying to preach to the
converted, you've all had your minds made up for you by the BBC like zombies,
you're following what they're telling you like sheep. I would personally always
question what the BBC says, even before this, and i will continue to do so now.
What you do is up to you, but kow this, Lyndon is the most popular vet that I
have ever known, if he's been overcharging, and if everything is so wrong with
him, then I would imagine that more than this one anonymous person would have
come forward, don't you?
Bevluvsrats
>
Experience, personal experience.
>A very clever reported managed to get a very sick and possibly evil
>person to expose some of the things that are very rotten in his life.
Small mindedness will get you nowhere
>And at the moment I would rather not.
>
Fine, I'm out of here after this so you can go back to your small mindedness,
and keep going to your normal vet if you're happy with them, but until you
personally have evidence against Lyndon, people will argue with you.
>And yet you missed the very easy to pick up signs that your vet is
>either a) a crook, or b) negligent, or c) ignorant - or any mix of the
>three. Not very bright are you. [and no, I did not forget the question
>mark.]
Ah, so you're absolutely perfect and squeaky clean are you? (notice that I DID
use the question mark there) Yeah, I'll bet you are, you probably don't do
anything to research your pet's illness yourself, you'd just go along and trust
whatever your vet said.
>The why did he get dismissed for exactly the same sort of things at
>his last place?
I repeat again (as it seems that this is not sinking in with you) that he
didn't, but I cannot comment on why he did leave.
Bevluvsrats
>good get out.
You have no idea.
>Mmmm. Bigger rat smells wafting over the group.
>
Why? Is your own breath blowing back into your face?
Kaz
:
: Fine, I'm out of here after this so you can go back to your small mindedness,
: and keep going to your normal vet if you're happy with them, but until you
: personally have evidence against Lyndon, people will argue with you.
:
bye bye
FiloFox
like to add my comments to this thread.
I also go to Lyndon both with uninsured and insured animals and I have
absolutely no reason to believe that he has overcharged me for any proceedure
or carried out any treatment that wasn't necessary. Compared to my previous
vet, Lyndon has charged less for every procedure and medication. Everything on
the receipts has been done/given, I've been shown the results for all blood
tests, cultures and biopsies, been shown every x-ray and he's talked me through
the results in detail making sure I understood what I was looking at. In most
cases, where my old vets told me my dog and cat (both insured) had chronic
conditions and needed a whole bunch of medications and tests, Lyndon has found
that they were either being given the wrong treatment completely and changed
them (successfully), or he found that their conditions were nowhere near as bad
and he stopped their medication.
I used to go to another vet practise who I will not name publically (slander
and all that). I had a bad tempered female rabbit (who is insured) and I was
at a loss as to what to do for her. The vet there suggested spaying her. I
asked how much it would cost and was told Ł68. Then the vet said to me "she's
insured isn't she". When I said she was, he then said "OK, I'll say she had
pyometra and bung it on the insurance". When the bill from the insurance
company came in it was nearer Ł300. Apparently costs for blood tests and
biopsies on the infected uterus.
The same vet group would also charge for blood tests where I was never shown
any results, just told.
And there has been more than one occasion when I've felt so uncomfortable with
how an animal is being treated that I have refused treatment.
It's important that you always feel 100% comfortable with the vet you are with
and the treatment that your animal is getting. I am neither Lyndon's wife or
mistress, nor do I have a crush on him, he's been the vet for all of my animals
since Feb 2002 and if I had any reason to not be happy with him, he would not
be my vet now.
It is my decision to stay with him. That doesn't make me stupid, dense, blind
or give anybody reason to call me other names.
I sincerely hope that all of you are as happy with your vets as I am with mine.
I have no intention of changing vets.
Bob Brenchley.
wrote:
>>Oh dear - don't tell me you fell for the MJ propaganda machine.
>
>Ah, so you're as small minded about that as well. I'll bet you didn't see the
>Maury Povich version of the interview then.
Would not dream of watching either - MJ makes me sick.
And so do vets that try to con owners out of their hard earned cash
while endangering the health or prolonging the suffering of their
animals.
--
Bob.
A child of five could understand this! Fetch me a child of five!
Bob Brenchley.
wrote:
>>That came over clearly.
>
>Of course it came over clearly, they didn't wnt it to look any other way did
>they!
>
>
>>I think it is time you faced the facts and dropped it.
>
>I think it;s time I dropped it too, because I'm trying to preach to the
>converted, you've all had your minds made up for you by the BBC like zombies,
>you're following what they're telling you like sheep. I would personally always
>question what the BBC says, even before this, and i will continue to do so now.
>What you do is up to you, but kow this, Lyndon is the most popular vet that I
>have ever known, if he's been overcharging, and if everything is so wrong with
>him, then I would imagine that more than this one anonymous person would have
>come forward, don't you?
Why? it is difficult to find two poster on this group in the same town
- let alone with the same vet.
Also, the funny thing is that you have just 27 posts archived on
deja.com, and yet all but 5 are in this thread? Not one single post to
ukrpm before this thread.
You know, the more you go on, the stinkier this smelly rat becomes
(with due deference to rats worldwide, sorry but I can't help the
English language).
--
Bob.
Not the brightest crayon in the box, now are you?
Bob Brenchley.
wrote:
>>Hohohoho. Good get out that one. Not an iota of truth in it, but a
>>good get out.
>
>You have no idea.
Actually, I do.
>
>
>>Mmmm. Bigger rat smells wafting over the group.
>>
>Why? Is your own breath blowing back into your face?
>
No but each time you turn up to troll this subject the smell gets
worse.
--
Bob.
The difference between ordinary stupid and extraordinary stupid can be
summed up in one word -- YOU.
Bob Brenchley.
>I rarely visit newsgroups but this one was brought to my attention and I would
>like to add my comments to this thread.
Rarely? You have never posted to a newsgroup before.
And very strange that you are also posting from AOL the same as this
guys only other supporter.
Anyone else find this just a bit toooooo suspicious for words?
--
Bob.
I shall now ask my colleague to tell you how good I am at delegating.
FiloFox
posting.
I don't know what my being on AOL has anything to do with anything. And why
would it would make you suspicious?
Lora
Bob Brenchley.
Clearly he has two (or one) not very bright owner(s) on his books.
oldmolly
"FiloFox" <fil...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030227182322...@mb-bg.aol.com...
> I have no intention of changing vets.
You may have to if he is found guilty of bringing the profession into
disrepute and is struck off.
FiloFox
Anybody with half an IQ would know what they need to do with both addresses to
be able to identify them as coming from different computers in different areas
of the country. I'm in Essex, about 2 miles away from Animal Ark. Bevluvsrats
stated she's over 30 miles away and her AOL profile lists her as living in
Surrey.
Sorry, I didn't realise I needed to show my credentials and proof of ID before
posting. I was told by a friend about the uk.rec.pets newsgroup and thought it
would be a nice place to talk about all of my animals.
I was looking through a few of the threads not just this one. It's not a crime
to have never posted before, I'm sure there was a time when everybody had
placed their first post. I just hope you never got the same sort of "welcome".
I tend to post to email groups and talk in chatrooms. I'll go back there now
and leave you to argue with yourself.
James
especially those they charge for drugs.
The RCVS is the licensing body of vets and they do have a complaints
procedure. I'm surprised the person on Watchdog didn't approach them
first.
--
James
Jackie Skidmore
I've been a member of this newsgroup since about 1998. I was here well
before Bob came along and I remember others, such as Pam, Patch, James
etc., joining too.
Bob, please stop acting like this newsgroup is your own personal domain.
You don't own the ng, you're just one voice out of the many who have
posted here since the group was created.
Just FYI I was the one who told Bev & Lora about the thread here. I've
known Lora for about 4 years and I've known Bev for about 2. I told
them about this thread because I know they both use Lyndon Basha as
their vet for all their pets.
Perhaps Lyndon Basha is already in contact with the Ombudsman about
misrepresentation on Watchdog or with his solicitor about what happened
at Goddards and this is why Bev cannot give more detail.
I don't know why Bev feels she can't comment but I will defend anyone's
rights to privacy and to free speech.
The bottom line is that Watchdog would have edited the film to fit into
the programme's allotted time. What they decided to cut we will never
know because none of us was at the filming and none of us was in the
editing suite.
Anyone who think the film wasn't edited is an idiot.
The person who contacted Watchdog could have contacted quite a few other
bodies before contacting Watchdog, AFAIK they didn't and IMHO this is
suspect.
If Bev, Lora and the rest of Lyndon Basha's patients are happy with his
services that is their choice.
--
Ratty Hugs & Cavy Kisses
Jackie
Ably Hindered by The Buck House Crew: Malachi, Neziah, Luke, Rossi,
Chili, Alzamora, Melandri, Cecchinello, Ui, Foret, Whitham, Xaus and
Nikolas cavy.
Rats At The Bridge: Pubpsy, Rex, Stripe, Hoody, Groucho, Brownie, Harpo,
Zeppo, Chico, Juniper, Ginger, Doyle, Bodie, Ebenezer, Obadiah,
Alexander, Curtis, StuartLittle, Keel, Lysander, Bo & Isaiah.
Cavies At The Bridge: Brock, Heinz, Tudor, Teddy & Joseph.
FiloFox
misrepresentation on Watchdog or with his solicitor about what happened
at Goddards and this is why Bev cannot give more detail.
I don't know why Bev feels she can't comment but I will defend anyone's
rights to privacy and to free speech.>>
The reason why neither Bev or myself can't comment further is for legal
reasons. However, the office manager at Animal Ark has stated that anybody
wishing to ask questions about the show are welcome to do so and should
telephone Animal Ark Veterinary Centre on 020 8599 8544 and ask to speak with
Nathan.....
James
28 Feb 2003:
>
>I've been a member of this newsgroup since about 1998. I was here well
>before Bob came along and I remember others, such as Pam, Patch, James
>etc., joining too.
>Bob, please stop acting like this newsgroup is your own personal domain.
>You don't own the ng, you're just one voice out of the many who have
>posted here since the group was created.
<snip>
>
>Perhaps Lyndon Basha is already in contact with the Ombudsman about
>misrepresentation on Watchdog or with his solicitor about what happened
>at Goddards and this is why Bev cannot give more detail.
>I don't know why Bev feels she can't comment but I will defend anyone's
>rights to privacy and to free speech.
>
>The bottom line is that Watchdog would have edited the film to fit into
>the programme's allotted time. What they decided to cut we will never
>know because none of us was at the filming and none of us was in the
>editing suite.
>Anyone who think the film wasn't edited is an idiot.
>
>The person who contacted Watchdog could have contacted quite a few other
>bodies before contacting Watchdog, AFAIK they didn't and IMHO this is
>suspect.
>
Hi Jackie,
Don't worry too much about Bob. He's incredibly self-opinionated and
judgmental and everyone here knows that. Thankfully I don't get his
posts anymore.
As for the Watchdog programme, why the complainant or Watchdog didn't
take the matter up with the RCVS is beyond me - it has a rigorous
complaints and investigation procedure. Perhaps it's a bit like the
tabloids who often stir things up for a good read/watch. I didn't see
the programme but it was almost certainly edited to make it 9..10..15
minutes in a half hour telly slot.
Hope all the ratties are all doing well. If I didn't have a cat, I'd
have a rat... they're wonderful.
--
James
Bob Brenchley.
<candl...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Don't worry too much about Bob.
Why single me out moron?
--
Bob.
Your IQ score is 2 (it takes 3 to grunt).
interce...@hotmail.com
> "Bevluvsrats" <bevlu...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
> news:20030227120454...@mb-fv.aol.com...
> : >Explain then why he was kicked out by Goddard's then, for exactly the same
> : >thing, or as
> : >the BBC put unprofessional working practices.
> :
> : That's exactly the point I'm trying to make - he wasn't! Get it now?
> :
> so why did he leave Goddard's then, if he wasn't sacked.
> I am asking you a question please answer, don't fob off with BBC excuses.
Hi Kaz,
I know this was wrapped up a long time ago, but i was wondering if anyone had a copy on video of the Watchdog programme that covered the Animal Ark. I have looked in their archives and written to them but have not had a response.
A friend of mine is looking for this.
Many thanks
Stevo
diamondpaws%bl...@gtempaccount.com
joanne....@hotmail.com
hiclaire...@gmail.com
In most people’s lives they will come under scrutiny and misrepresentation and one time or another, or maybe he just made a mistake? He’s human. One of the best vets in my experience and I traveled accross from south London all the way to his practice in Essex to have him and only him neuter my mice as he came highly recommended from countless people and he did the job perfectly, and insisted on keeping them in for observation post op.
Don’t judge someone by media.
Lyndon Basha is a wonderful vet.