bull s**t. THIS IS FROM THE KENNEL CLUB,Owning a pit bull type dog is illegal under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.
•If you live in an ‘amnesty area’ and are willing to hand your dog over to the Police during the amnesty period, you will not be prosecuted for owning an illegal dog but your dog will be put down.
•You do not have to hand your dog over to the Police.
•If you do not hand your dog over to the Police then they could get a warrant to seize your dog. However they cannot enter your premises without a warrant.
•If your dog is seized by the police, they cannot put your dog down unless you consent to this. If you do not consent, then court proceedings will begin. It is unclear whether legal aid would be available to you. This depends on the Section of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 under which the Police seize the dog.
Dangerous Dogs Court Proceedings

If proceedings are taken against you even if you have a pit bull terrier type dog then provided your dog is not a danger to public safety, you have a reasonable chance of avoiding a destruction order being made against your dog.

•If you are a responsible dog owner and your dog is a well trained family dog then it is likely that the court would not order your dog to be destroyed and you may not be prosecuted.
•Your pit bull or pit bull type dog would be placed on a Register called the Index of Exempted Dogs. Your dog would have to be kept on a lead and muzzled in public places; your dog would have to be micro-chipped and neutered. This would allow you to continue to keep the dog and not face prosecution in the future.

Exactly what I was thinking Andy.

We already know most of this but for people that dont, THE KENNEL CLUB SAY . They cannot enter your premises without a warrant.
•If your dog is seized by the police, they cannot put your dog down unless you consent to this. If you do not consent, then court proceedings will begin. It is unclear whether legal aid would be available to you. This depends on the Section of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 under which the Police seize the dog.
Dangerous Dogs Court Proceedings



•If you are a responsible dog owner and your dog is a well trained family dog then it is likely that the court would not order your dog to be destroyed and you may not be prosecuted.
•Your pit bull or pit bull type dog would be placed on a Register called the Index of Exempted Dogs. Your dog would have to be kept on a lead and muzzled in public places; your dog would have to be micro-chipped and neutered. This would allow you to continue to keep the dog and not face prosecution in the future.

THE KENNEL CLUB SAY . They cannot enter your premises without a warrant.
•If your dog is seized by the police. did they have one when they came for Lennox.

Yes unfortunately they did have a warrant Andy. But still wont let that make us give up the fight for Len and others! and if Yolanda thinks for a second that this is all over regardless of outcome then she is very much mistaken, we wont rest until she resigns her position or the law is changed so that Yolanda and her death squad cant abuse the powers given to them any longer.

The law need to be changed, im sure you will get him back but we will not rest till he is home and push for a law change to stop them picking on the wrong people.

The Law is Flawed.

Fabrication
To fake or forge. The process of creating a fake story or document, an untruthful statement.
To identify a pit bull would come under the wording fabrication and fraud as there is no such breed as a pit bull..

Fraud
Deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.

Maladministration
Inefficient, bad or improper administration. Maladministration is defined in the Protected Disclosures Act as 'conduct that involves action or inaction of a serious nature' that is:

Misfeasance in public office
The tort of misfeasance in public office is concerned with an intentional misuse of public power by a public officer. This tort has been referred to in two recent High Court cases.

The Court has found that for this tort to be established the plaintiff must establish that the act is:

invalid or unauthorized;
done maliciously;
done by a public officer;
done in the purported discharge of his or her public duties; and
causes loss to the plaintiff.
The Court has also said that the following actions by a public officer will constitute the tort:

action taken in excess of power with an intention to cause harm;
action taken in knowledge that there is no statutory authority and the damage is foreseeable; or
action done with reckless indifference.

I could not agree more. The more I have delved into this campaign, the more I feel that Yolanda is really not suited to her current job. So many people have locked horns with her it's untrue! I also feel that maybe the anger she is feeling right now, is really masking the guilt she is feeling at not only being incompetent at her job, but also breaking a family's heart and not providing satisfactory evidence that Len is being cared for in an appropriate manner.

Regardless of outcome, I for one have no intention of easing up on this campaign!

I have read a bit about this BSL and there was link put up by a member here, can't find it now of course, and it was a website where you could get help if your dog was taken under BSL. There is a part in it remembering all those dogs that had lost the fight, and it was the saddest thing I ever saw.
I have been thinking recently about if someone came and took my dog Socks, I know for a fact I'd be lost without her, and quite upset. I just hate the idea if it ever happened.
The law should be changed and that Yolanda one should find a new career, she is quite awful at her job. How nasty and mean can one person be?
You can't even visit Lennox, but I have read other cases where this has also happened. She must treat everyone who deals with her with such contempt.

If someone can keep me right here please. Was it not the case when the dog wardens along with police came to the home of Lennox, the original warrant was for a different dog at a different address, but despite this Lennox was taken anyway. It was later that another warrant was issued for Lennox.
Two questions....1. Where is the first warrant and what was the date of the warrant ? 2. Who issued the second warrant, the date and why ?
For me this is the first stumbling block as up until that fateful day when Lennox was taken he was a normal family dog with no history whatsoever of any wrongdoing.
If the dates differed did the court not question this?