5 comments to “A surge of support gives Frankston Council multiple options for Charlie and Sharni”

  1. wendy priest | July 7, 2014 | Permalink

    Shameful, just shameful, no words can explain how disgusting Frankston Council is. People offered to help with these two babies, how could you??? Your ratepayers should refuse to pay you, until those responsible for this abhorrent killing resign.

  2. Michele Bowes | July 8, 2014 | Permalink

    Shame Shame With all those options available and it still chose to take their lives Humans I struggle to understand sometimes

  3. Joe Jeremiejczyk | July 8, 2014 | Permalink

    Council has been justifying their actions because the dogs have a ‘History’, The facts are the only history they have is that Sharni escaped once years ago and no other animal was injured, Charlie has never escaped before. They are suggesting that there have been other incidences, which is totally untrue. The council have deliberately manipulated the owners into pleading guilty in court on the promise that the dogs would be returned under certain conditions. This was a blatant lie as we see by the result yesterday. I cannot help thinking that the dogs were put down some time ago and the council had to take the hard line to cover up the truth. To use the word euthanize in regard to the dogs demise is another play on words by council – (Euthanasia (from Greek: ?????????; “good death”: ??, eu; “well” or “good” – ???????, thanatos; “death”) refers to the practice of intentionally ending a life in order to relieve pain and suffering), these dogs were not in pain, they were happy, maybe a little boisterous, but family dogs and hopefully not suffered due to the councils protracted delaying tactics throughout the case, refusing to allow the owners to see the dogs (other than on Christmas eve, and suggesting one of the owners didn’t care because she couldn’t be there at the time nominated by council (she just started a new job, for god’s sake!!!!). “Why” I ask the refusal to see them, what was there to hide? Some obscure comment that it was to protect the keepers, maybe it was that the dogs were in such a bad state after being locked up for so long???!! What did they think the owners were going to do? Were they afraid the truth would come out? Nevertheless, I hope over the next coming weeks the actual truth comes out and hopefully the residents of Frankston show the council at the next election what they think of their inhumane, unjustified actions!

  4. Debra Jones | July 8, 2014 | Permalink

    How do you sleep at night.?? What a big fat joke it is, and YOU can publish this and MY words. !!! You cannot even help someone that is being disturbed by a howling dog, BUT you will rush in,take away and kill a dog on the presumption of it “killing”??

  5. Sue | July 10, 2014 | Permalink

    Disgusting, all involved with this behaviour exhibited by Frankston Council should be ashamed… We can only hope you are all replaced at an election so this can never happen again.