He could end getting married to Rosie then if they have an arguement where would she send him?

Not to the dog house surely?

But his problems wouldn't stop there. He couldn't exactly use the old "I'm taking the dog for a walk" as an excuse to go down the pub for a quick pint could he?

And imagine him walking the love of his life down the street when he's confronted by a huge horny rottweiller.

Still, she must be relieved that at least he's heterosexual...

Sadly this is not the case, reading the various other sites that are following the story, it would appear that the lad also 'did' the other family dog that was male.

Still, she must be relieved that at least he's heterosexual...

Sadly this is not the case, reading the various other sites that are following the story, it would appear that the lad also 'did' the other family dog that was male.

So he's a non=sexist doggie-lover. British to the core.

Hope they don't feed the dogs any Indian food - my brother-in-law had a boxer that cleared the remains of our take-aways - and reminded us next morning of how much we'd left.

Still, she must be relieved that at least he's heterosexual...

Sadly this is not the case, reading the various other sites that are following the story, it would appear that the lad also 'did' the other family dog that was male.

So he's a non=sexist doggie-lover. British to the core.

Hope they don't feed the dogs any Indian food - my brother-in-law had a boxer that cleared the remains of our take-aways - and reminded us next morning of how much we'd left.

I don't think I want to think about that!

Oh bu66er I just did.

Yep, definitely TMI.

He probably had a big night the day before and was told the best hangover cure is a 'hair of the dog'.

But if he's convicted of this dastardly crime, he's probably going to get a decent lagging. He might be better off to flea.

Is this what's meant by the current British slang term "dogging" ?

^English is a bit of a mongrel language at the best of times...

Still, she must be relieved that at least he's heterosexual...

Sadly this is not the case, reading the various other sites that are following the story, it would appear that the lad also 'did' the other family dog that was male.

So he's a non=sexist doggie-lover. British to the core.

Hope they don't feed the dogs any Indian food - my brother-in-law had a boxer that cleared the remains of our take-aways - and reminded us next morning of how much we'd left.

Boxers are bad enough without encurrydgement

Seems a bit of a strange way for the stepmother to react. I mean, why didn't she just walk in and confront him? Or, if she really wanted evidence, walk in with a video camera that was already rolling. She must hate the boy to actually seek evidence to take to the police. Not that I'm defending him, if he's guilty. I just have the impression that there's a lot more to this story than meets the eye.

Still, she must be relieved that at least he's heterosexual...

Your right, if she really cared and was really concerned about him, you would think her first step would be to seek professional help in the form of a Psychologist, rather than prosecuting and public humiliation.

Seems a bit of a strange way for the stepmother to react. I mean, why didn't she just walk in and confront him? Or, if she really wanted evidence, walk in with a video camera that was already rolling. She must hate the boy to actually seek evidence to take to the police. Not that I'm defending him, if he's guilty. I just have the impression that there's a lot more to this story than meets the eye.

Still, she must be relieved that at least he's heterosexual...

Your right, if she really cared and was really concerned about him, you would think her first step would be to seek professional help in the form of a Psychologist, rather than prosecuting and public humiliation.

Yeah, quite. And what was the boy's father doing in the midst of all this?

Perhaps he's even worse. Maybe he's into sadism/necrophilia/bestiality or flogging a dead horse. Could be...

Your right, if she really cared and was really concerned about him, you would think her first step would be to seek professional help in the form of a Psychologist, rather than prosecuting and public humiliation.

I understand your reasoning - and this is a shocking case, although no more shocking than the other shocking cases that have become public in the last year or so. But the child & family services worker that placed the person in question in their care did not seem bothered enough in the carer's family rights or personal-privicy to warn them of the troubled history of the person left with them.

There is another UK case of an 18 year old 'boy' placed with a foster family for care, that sexually assaulted their 9 year old daughter then raped their 2 year old son, again the foster 'child's' established history of sexual abuse towards others was not mentioned to ensure the 18 year old 'child's' rights to privacy were not affected.

With these 'offical' guidelines being used to direct the care of troubled youngsters it is clear that they are not working, the evidence shows that the softly-softly treat everyone with cotton wool and don't breach anyone's 'rights' approach is only providing new victims for abuse rather than treatment for the offender in care.

The foster carer's family, children and dogs have rights too.

To protect the rights of would-be future victims doesn't it make sense to publize the travisty of placing sexual offenders in foster care families without either giving prior warning to the foster family or assessing the risk to that family for placing a child in their care?

Likewise the child & family services worker should (IMHO) have their client's well being in mind when placing the child in care with a foster family, will there be any consideration that placing a child that has a history of drinking alcohol with a foster family that run a bar might expose the child to temptation and risk with the increase of easy access to alcohol? Likewise a person with a track record of sexual offence should not be placed with easy access to younger children.

It might not be good for the young offender in this particular doggie case - but if a public outcry is the only way to re-educate the senior managers of the services involved so be it. Government and private business alike seem only to take action when they have to - and these days having to usually means paying compensation after going through the courts and the press.

In the old days it was called common sense.

Was he a foster child then? Up to now all I knew was that his stepmother resorted to taping his bedroom activities, whatever they were. I had assumed (dangerous, I know) that he was her stepson in the usual sense of "living with dad who's married again". Do we know he's a foster child?

I see your point Cuban and I do agree that in the case of fostering, the foster parents should be made well aware of problems/issues etc a child has. The child should be given to foster parents who not only have full knowledge, but also are aware/educated in how to help facilitate more social behaviour (as well as the child being in a proper psychological program).

In the case of the 18 year old you mentioned, well that just beggars belief. Im at a loss for words and how wrong the foster department were in not informing the foster parents, not establishing a proper program for the 18 year old, and allowing other children to be put at risk. (Although I would personally prefer to read that story from another newspaper report as Im always suspicious of how The Sun newspaper may tend to glorify/shock/expand the truth to create a more 'titillating' read.)

I do however, see quite a difference between a young person having strange relations with animals as apposed to raping another child/person. Rape is a non-consensual act and is usually about power and control. Having sex with animals is usually about sexual perversion. Both need to be addressed, but in different ways.

I still stand by what i said regarding the step-mothers reaction to the situation. She should have sought advice and professional help for her step-son. Her actions may stop her son from performing the act, but is very unlikely to have stopped the urge. It will most likely happen again (although he is likely to be more careful) at some point in his life, if he isnt given an opportunity to work through why he is having those urges. The same can be said for sexual abusers. Prosecution usually just creates a more cautious abuser, rather than stop the urge and desire to abuse.

Medical swabs taken from the defendant immediately after his arrest revealed a 100 per cent match with the DNA of both dogs. Mr Fletcher denies a charge of intercourse with an animal.

Source UK Press.

I believe it was my mistake (confusing cases) the dog-boy incident was within the 'natural' family, although the mother was his step-mother.

Just found something related - watch the new doggie sex thread here.

Britain home of "animal lovers". :-)

That old Northern saying: "There's nowt as queer as folk" keeps going through my head.

There are a lot of unanswered questions here.......

Did the dog/s enjoy it ?

Are there any puppies ?

Is/was he a mason ?

Where is the Sun when you need a copy ?

That old Northern saying: "There's nowt as queer as folk" keeps going through my head.

In this PC age that now goes "There's nowt as strange as folk"!!!

That old Northern saying: "There's nowt as queer as folk" keeps going through my head.

In this PC age that now goes "There's nowt as strange as folk"!!!

Really? Or are you just pulling my leg?

It's just the sort of bloody stupid thing they would do...

Sorry Micky, it's true!!!

ps I went into PC World the other day - you have to be careful what you say in there!

When I hear things like this, I really do wonder about our country, you know? Jeez...

So, if you go into PC World, are we still allowed to call a mouse a mouse? Or is that unfair to rats and other rodents?

And what about motherboards? Are they now carerboards?

Edited for typo.

It's "Manually Operated Utility Selection Equipment". Oh Mickey, don't you know anything!

'Twould appear not, no.