Open Show Critiques

Lichfield CS Open 23
Liverpool Terrier 23 Judge
Manchester Sporting Terrier 23 Judge

Lichfield CS Open 22
West Midland Terrier 22 Judge
Northern Cairn & WHWTC Open 22
Wellingborough & District CS 22

Sunderland & District Canine Society Open 21

Lichfield CS Open 20
Sporting Terrier Association Yorkshire February 2020

Isle Of Ely CS Open 19
Birmingham & District Gundog & Terrier Club 19
Pollard Canine Society 19
Lancashire Sporting Terrier 19
Vale Of Clwyd CS 19
Ruthin CS 19
Royal Cheshire County 19
Derbs Agri & Horti Society 19
Alfreton & District CS 19
Oswestry & District KA 19
Upperwald Of Lanarkshire CS 19
Northern Counties Sporting Terrier 19
Boston & District Canine Society 19

Northern Counties Sporting Terrier 18
London Airedale & Fox Terrier 18
Liverpool Terrier 18
Oswestry & District KA 18
Lancaster & District Canine Society 18
Rochdale & District Canine Association 18
Birmingham & Dist. Gundog & Terrie 18
Durham County Canine Society 18
Liverpool Terrier Oct 18 Judge
Sporting Terrier Assc Yorkshire 18 Judge
Huntingdon CS 18 Judge
West Midland Terrier 18 Judge
Magull & Mersyside CS 18 Judge
Sedgley & Gornal CA 18

Lichfield CS Open 17
West Midland Terrier 17 Judge
Rutherglen Canine Society 2017
Great Harwood Agricultural 2017
Royal Cheshire County 17 Judge
Greenock & District KA Open 17
York CA Open 17 Judge
Horley & District CS 17
London & Home Counties Terrier Club 17
Northern Cairn & WHWTC Open 17

Lichfield CS Open 16
Lowerstoft - Oulton Broad DCS 16
Wath West Melton & District CS 16
Mountsorrel & DCS Open 16
Cheshire County Show 16 Judge
Southampton & District Canine Society 16
Bedford & District CS Open 16
Birm & District Gundog & Terrier Club 16
Manchester Sporting Terrier 16 Judge
London & Home Counties Terrier Club 16
The Terrier Club Of Scotland 16
Camberley & District Canine Society 16
Lancashire Sporting Terrier Judge 16

Sporting Terrier Ass Yorkshire Feb 2015
Maidenhead & District CS 2015

Rutherglen Canine Society 2015
Mid Count Scot Terrier & WHWT 15
Newcastle & District CS 15
LKA Of Scotland 15
Northern Counties Sporting Terrier 15
Westmoreland Canine Association Open 15
Bakewell show Open 15
Preston & District CS 15
London & Home Counties Terrier Club 15
West Midland Terrier 2015
Houghton Le Spring CS Open 15
Guilford & Districts Open 15



Boston & District Canine Society
National Terrier
Birmingham Dog Show Society
Scottish Kennel Club
Southern Counties Canine Society
East Of England Agricultural Society
City Of Birmingham Canie Association
Richmond Dog Show Society
Belfast Dog Show Society
Driffield Agricultural Society










THEFT OF MY [Charmaine Khatchikian's] DOG AT BIRMINGHAM DOG SHOW 6 MAY 2022

A dog alleged to have been stolen from the Birmingham National show is believed to be in the Netherlands. Border Terrier Jrasamuyr Sergei Filin was allegedly taken on Friday 6 May at about 11.30am from Charmaine Khatchikian’s car. Charmaine told OUR DOGS, ‘The man was seen dragging Sergei across the field by this lady, Lucy and throwing him in the car. She was in the car behind which had a Netherlands registration. On Friday, I noticed his collar was undone. I thought “Why’s his collar undone”. I know what they have done. ‘He must have been lurking around in the bushes outside the Margaret Everton building. He must have loosened his collar to vocally entice Sergei but what must have happened he must have run off. Run off ‘He had loosened his collar and used voice control to try and trap him but he must have lost him because a dog trainer she said she saw a Border Terrier on the car park and a little girl she said Sergei had come back to the car and ran off. Where the Margaret Everton building is, is the campsite. There are loads of places you can hide. At 11.30am Lucy and her husband are leaving. They are in the car behind the Netherlands car. She sees him wearing a wax jacket and he had a hat on.’ At the hotel in Birmingham the battery in her car had run down and she was told she had to run the engine at the dog show for one hour without driving it. The dogs were inside the car and the doors were not locked. She had to leave the windows open as she could not drain the battery. Shropshire Police have been informed and there is a crime number. She has also told the Dutch Police because she strongly Border Terrier Jrasamuyr Sergei Filin suspects that she knows the identity of the thieves. She has also contacted Raad Van Beheer (The Dutch Kennel Club) and they have referred the matter to their legal team. Charmaine alleges the thieves are a Dutch couple she sold Jrasamuyr Sergei Filin to but then decided they were not appropriate owners of the dog as they had personal and health problems. She returned their money to them. She had been told that the couple did not breed inside the Netherlands breeding regulations and there is a Kennel Club endorsement on the dog stopping him from being exported. The KC has told her that a transfer of ownership application has been made for him to be transferred to another owner. Charmaine has told them he must not be transferred out of her name and that the application is fraudulent. She is concerned because the dog has been removed from her Kennel Club account. ‘They knew I was at that dog show, they knew I was there. They had a calendar of where the dog was entered. ‘They can’t walk in a show ring with him. They can’t breed from him. They can’t put a Dutch microchip in him or put a Dutch passport on him. They can’t do anything. They’ve just lost their heads!’



A Border Terrier breeder has got her dog back after it was allegedly ‘stolen’ from Birmingham National Show in May. Charmaine Khatchikian said she was “so happy” to get her dog Sergei, Jrasamuyr Sergei Filin, back following the incident. The dispute with Dutch couple Tonny and Willy Van Heck over the ownership of the dog was finally resolved when Ms Khatchikian agreed to pay them €4,000. The Van Heck’s do not accept any blame or fault and insist they did not steal the dog. They felt they were taking back their property. They had allowed Charmaine to show the dog in Paris and at the Border Terrier Centenary event. On April 28 they received an e-mail from Ms Khatchikian saying that she would not be returning the dog to them because she felt they had too many animals and not enough money. Claims they deny. Ms Khatchikian said she had returned the money they paid for the dog €3,200. This is also denied by the Van Heck’s. As she would not return the dog Willy Van Heck decided to go to the Staffordshire Show Ground and take the dog to The Netherlands. Charmaine had put a “No Export Pedigree” restriction on the dog. WRANGLE A legal wrangle ensued until the Van Heck’s solicitor sent an e-mail which said, ‘Although my clients do not accept any blame or fault, they are prepared to hand over Sergei after the following conditions are met: ‘€4,000 is paid, we have received (i) a written consent to these conditions and (ii) the € 4.000; after that Sergei is handed over at my office; the person that receives Sergei signs for receipt; Mrs. Khatchikian stops all communications to my clients as from today; she stops all communications about my clients as from today.’ Ms Khatchikian agreed to these terms and an agreement was signed by her and Tonny Van Heck as they handed over the dog to Charmaine. Afterwards Charmaine thanked The Kennel Club, the Dutch Kennel Club (Raad Van Beheer) and the four policemen who were there to help as the dog was handed over. She told OUR DOGS she paid the money because, ‘I have been receiving counselling, I have been put on anti-depressants. I paid it; I would have paid €10,000! I had the counsellor with me. The whole point is, the €4,000, the council have an association. They have actually paid half the money because I was suicidal.’ She was pleased to get him back and after giving him a bath she said, ‘He smells lovely. He looks beautiful now. He looks like a Crufts puppy.’ Despite the fact it has cost her over €10,000 in legal and other fees she said, ‘I just feel better, I can get on with the rest of my life.’ Willy Van Heck told OUR DOGS, ‘Her mental coach suggested that Miss Khatchikian give that amount for the dog. That proposal did not come from me. Of course, it cost me a lot of money, but I take that for granted.’ Because of the legal costs Mr Van Heck was forced to sell a horse and the dispute has affected his health. He said, ‘With pain in my heart I said goodbye to Sergei and hope to get some rest now.’


What a complete cock up Best In Show presented to the viewing public. Did the BIS Judge get it wrong?

The Best In show Judge Mrs Anne Macdonald was introduced to the audience and escorted into the Big Ring by The Chairman Of the Kennel Mr Tony Allcock MBE.

Getting the Judging underway Mrs Macdonald examined the winners of the seven groups and looked fairly competent to me up to this point. Then came the announcement that Best In Show would take place with the Reserve (Second Best) picked first ...I know... this is where - in my opinion - it started to all go wrong.

The Judge had no hesitation and chose Miss M Harwood's Miniature Poodle CH MINARETS BEST KEPT SECRET. So far so good.
This lovely Poodle won Reserve Best In Show at Crufts 2017 event too. Just a thought, if one is so sure and does not hesitate when selecting the second best animal, surely one would think that the Judge has also made up her mind which is the best Dog? Then came the Best In Show award. " And Best In Show Is..." said the the announcer over the tannoy...The Judge seemed to be lost, hesitant and indecisive. The Tannoy echoed again "And Best In show Is..." How can you be hesitant and indecisive after being so sure of what dog is second best? My own personal view is she made a mistake due to the ridiculous decision made by the Kennel Club to award the places in the reverse order.

BIS was eventually awarded to Mr DC & Mrs KD McCalmont's Dachshund (Wire-Haired) CH SILVAE TRADEMARK who left a large deposit on the green carpet, perhaps this was the animals explanation on the format of the judging? The Gobshite/s who thought that this reverse judging is a good idea should take the blame for this.

Hesitancy and Indecision can be forgiven when choosing the second best animal but never for the first choice if second place has already been awarded.
Because, where does this leave the other six dogs that have been dismissed for second place if the Judge is unsure which is the best?
Was the Poodle the first place winner initially in the Judge's mind?

My personal opinion is that the hesitation for Best In show, the shrug of the shoulders and all of the rest of it said it all. Could it be because the Dog that the Judge thought is the best was perched on the Reserve place on the podium. She couldn't send it back to the line up ...could she? The mind boggles...

Judging Regulations and Code of Best Practice" Kennel Club press release issued on 24 July 2019. Changes to regulations are noted in bold.

Amended Regulation F10


Judges at Kennel Club licensed shows must judge in accordance with Kennel Club Breed Standards and Show Regulations. In assessing dogs, judges must penalise any features or exaggerations which they consider would be detrimental to the soundness, health or well-being of the dog. Judges are also expected to act impartially, with integrity and to only judge on the merits of the dogs in competition and consider no other factors. Judges must maintain and abide by the highest standards in accordance with Kennel Club Rules and Regulations and appropriate Codes of Best Practice as published from time to time.

Code of Best Practice for Judges – supporting statements – Chapter 1

  1. Judges must reject any opportunity to take personal advantage of positions offered or bestowed upon them. N.B. judges may be paid fees, reimbursed for travel and receive food and accommodation.

Grey areas

  1. There will always be ‘grey areas’ that may confuse judges. When faced with a dilemma ask yourself whether the situation, however innocent, projects an outward appearance of impropriety. A good rule of thumb is ‘if you have concerns about whether something is inappropriate, you probably should avoid the situation.’
  1. Judges are often singled out for critical observation by others. Therefore, always keep in mind that perfectly innocent actions or statements can be misconstrued. This includes but is not restricted to participation in public forums and on social media.
  1. Actions that bring embarrassment to the Kennel Club, fellow judges or the canine world in general could be subject to disciplinary action which could affect future judging privileges.
  1. As a judge you will be invited to attend social functions such as club dinners where exhibitors will be present. Take care to avoid even the appearance of impropriety with anyone who might appear in your ring. You may occasionally find that you will have to tactfully change the subject or excuse yourself from a conversation that involves breeds or exhibitors whom you are likely to judge.
  1. All these aspects of avoiding the appearance of impropriety include taking part in any social media discussion. Judges must avoid social media discussion about dogs or breeds ahead of or after a judging appointment. Taking part in discussion on a breed or worse a particular dog or dogs ahead of or after a judging appointment is unacceptable and could lead to disciplinary action.
  1. Ahead of an appointment judges should always be circumspect in their interactions with potential exhibitors to avoid the perception of impropriety and/or bias. Exhibitors expect a level playing field and mixing socially with potential exhibitors should be avoided.
  1. Similarly, you must avoid travelling to shows with an exhibitor or accepting invitations to stay overnight with an exhibitor whose dogs you are likely to judge.
  1. With common sense, judges can easily avoid a situation which might raise ethical questions.
  1. Whenever you have a question about a judging procedure or conduct, consult the Kennel Club, which should be the first port of call to discuss questions concerning best practice as a judge.

New and amended Regulations

F(1)20 – Judges and Judging

New sub-paragraphs and amendments to existing regulations

e. A judge must not alter the ownership of a dog in order to allow that dog to be entered for exhibition at a show where that judge is officiating.

f. Judges may not enter, exhibit, prepare a dog for exhibition or handle a dog in the ring at a Show at which they are officiating (vide F(1)29a(9))

p. A judge must request that a dog be withdrawn from competition if the judge has a conflict of interest with the dog and/or its owner.

F(1)29 Disqualification and Forfeit of Awards

a. A dog may be disqualified by the Board from any award, whether an objection has been lodged or not, if proven amongst other things to have been:

(9) Entered or exhibited for competition, or handled in the ring by a Judge of dogs at that Show.

(11) Registered or recorded as owned by the scheduled Judge or any member of his/her immediate household or immediate family within a period of twelve months prior to the Show. This shall not apply to dogs owned by a Judge appointed in an emergency.

(12)Handled at a show, boarded or prepared for exhibition within the previous twelve months by the scheduled Judge or any member of his/her immediate household or immediate family. This shall not apply to a Judge appointed in an emergency.

Code of Best Practice for Judges – supporting statements – Chapter 1

  1. Definition of ‘member of immediate family’ extends to first and second generations.

For example:

  • a dog cannot be exhibited under a judge if it has been registered or recorded as owned by the judge or the judge’s spouse or child or anyone permanently residing with the judge within 12 months of the show.
  • a dog cannot be exhibited if it has been handled at a show, boarded or prepared for exhibition by the scheduled judge or the judge’s spouse or child or any one permanently residing with the judge within 12 months of the show.

F(1)8 Entry for Exhibition

New sub paragraphs

An entry must not be made at any show under a judge of any dog where said judge or any member of his/her immediate household or immediate family has been known to have owned, handled at a show, boarded or prepared such dog for exhibition within 12 months prior to the Show. This regulation shall not apply to judges appointed in an emergency.

j. An entry must not be made at any show under a judge of any dog where said judge has bred the dog. This Regulation shall not apply to judges appointed in an emergency.

k. An exhibitor must not enter or exhibit a dog under a judge which creates a conflict of interest between the dog, exhibitor and/or judge.

Code of Best Practice for Judges – supporting statements Chapter 1

  1. Judges start in the sport as breeders and exhibitors. It is natural to want to continue these activities after becoming a judge. Exhibiting and judging can be combined without a problem if the judge is prudent as to how and when to exhibit. If a judge chooses to exhibit as well as judge he/she should expect to be the subject of scrutiny.
  1. A judge should never transfer a dog to someone for the sole purpose of permitting the dog to be exhibited at shows at which you are officiating.
  1. A conflict of interest exists when a judge could be said to be influenced by any relationship or factor other than the merit or performance of the dog for example – **a family member, immediate household, financial considerations, employer or employee relationships, separate interest in a kennel name, co-owns a dog with the judge. (This is not a definitive list)
  1. In the event of a dog declared Best of Breed and having to be withdrawn from the Group competition due to a conflict of interest, the dog could be invited to do a lap of honour before the group judging starts.
  1. It is as much the responsibility of an exhibitor as it is a judge to as far as possible ensure that dog shows are seen to be competitions which are conducted on a level playing field.
  1. An exhibitor must decline to enter or exhibit under a judge where it might reasonably appear that the judges’ placings could be based on something other than the merits or performance of the dog.
  1. The responsibility for entering a dog rests with the exhibitor who should not enter a dog which is ineligible under KC Show Regulations or that the entry could create a conflict of interest between the judge and the exhibitor. Awards won maybe disqualified and exhibitors with repeat breaches of regulations may receive other disciplinary penalties.

Birmingham National Dog Show entries have been extended until midday on Monday 15th April.
  There will be no further extension. 

The Committee are pleased to introduce the new overseas terrier judges who will be judging some of the terrier breeds for the first time in the UK.  The Officer and Committee very carefully consider judges and we do hope that exhibitors will support them.

Jan-Erik Ek (Sweden)
Jan-Erik Ek will be judging in the UK for only the second time when he judges at Birmingham National in May 2019.

He will be awarding CC's for the first time to Cairn Terriers, Dandie Dinmont Terriers and Skye Terriers.

Jan and his partner breed and show Skye Terriers.  Here in the UK, Ch Silverprint Good Fellow at Esgia won BIS at The Skye Terrier Club Ch Show on two occasions and was also BOB at Cruft´s. He has judged the Finnish Skye Terrier Club Show twice, the Finnish winner show in Helsinki and the Skye Terrier Club Open show here in the UK. 

He has judged Cairn Terriers at the Finnish Winners show and at the French Terrier Club Speciality Show. He has judged the Swedish Dandie Dinmont Terrier Club Speciality show as well as judging the breed at FCI International Shows. 

Veli-Pekka Kumpumaki (Finland)
Mr Veli-Pekka Kumpumaki (Finland) is coming to judge in the UK for the first time at Birmingham National in May 2019.  He is one of Finland’s most highly regarded Terrier Specialist judges as well as being a highly respected FCI all-breeds judge.

He is judging Australian Terriers, Lakeland Terriers, Norwich and Scottish Terriers.

In 1979 he got his first WHWT and she produced his first litter some 3 years later under his ’Perhaps’ kennel name.   From 1980 Veli-Pekka had the opportunity to work as a kennel assistant for Terrier breeders in many countries and became familiar with Airedale, Fox and Norfolk Terriers. In 1991 he brought his first Scottish Terrier and renowned breeder Raija Järvinen became a dear friend and his mentor. He has bred well over 40 Champions worldwide including Top Scotties in Russia, Ukraine and Italy and a Best of Breed Winner at the Scottish Terrier Association of America’s Speciality in Montgomery out of 170 Scotties!

He is an accomplished groomer and has presented over 140 champions of different breeds and handled dogs from all FCI groups. He started judging in 1998 and is now approved to judge all breeds in FCI Groups 3, 6 and 9 as well as many breeds from groups 1, 2, 5 8 and 10.

Maite Gonzalbo (Spain)
The Committee of Birmingham National are very excited to have two of Spain’s most highly regarded Terrier Specialist Judges coming to award CC’s at The National Dog Show . This will be the first time that Maite Gonzalbo and her husband, Jesus Pastor, have judged at a Championship Show in the UK. 

Maite is judging Airedale Terrier, Fox Terrier (Wire), Kerry Blue Terrier and Jack Russell Terrier (non CC). Maite’s first show dog was a Wire Fox Terrier in 1985 and a Lakeland Terrier and Miniature Schnauzer soon followed. She bred successfully under the ‘Del Somni’ kennel name. Maite and her husband Jesus have bred and shown West Highland White Terriers, Scottish Terriers, Fox Terriers, Cairn Terriers, English Cocker Spaniels and Yorkshire Terriers under their joint kennel name ‘Alborada’ since 1990.

In more recent years they have specialised on West Highland White and Scottish Terriers and are highly regarded around the world. They have bred twenty-seven World Champions and their breeding has been awarded over 800 other titles in 67 different countries.
Maite has been a member of the Club Español de Terriers since 1985 and now serves on the Committee.

Jesus Pastor (Spain)
Jesus Pastor will be judging West Highland White Terriers.

He is one of the World’s most renowned Westie specialists as a breeder, handler, groomer and judge. Jesus started breeding and showing Wire Fox Terriers in 1980 under the kennel name ‘de Vallbonica’. In 1983 he bought his first West Highland White Terrier and his first Beagle. Three years later he bought a Scottish and Cairn Terrier.  He made up champions in all of these breeds.

He is a renowned Westie breeder and his dogs have been awarded 27 World Winner titles and over 800 national and international titles in 67 different countries.
He judged his first WHWT Open Show in Hostalric, in 1983. In 1993 he was named as a FCI Specialist Judge for West Highland White Terriers, Scottish Terriers, Fox Terriers (Wire and Smooth) and Cairn Terriers. In 1994 he was approved for the complete Group 3 (Terriers), which includes the Australian Silky Terrier and the Russian Black Terrier, two breeds that he is judging without CC’s at our Show.


The Requisitioners Statements

KC Chairman
Vote of No Confidence

We have been asked to summarise the reasons why we are asking the Members of the Kennel Club to support a resolution calling for a vote of no confidence in Mr Simon Luxmoore.
We can do this best by looking at Mr Luxmoore's statements and by contrasting these with the actions he and the Board he leads has taken. He said: • If ever there was a time and need to interact closely with our stakeholders, at every level, then that time is now • It is for the stakeholders, our customers at large, to determine the performance of its governing body • We must recognise that the days of being able to organise and manage any governing body, let alone ours, along autocratic lines are gone • We should be very mindful of what our stakeholders are telling us • Any remaining residue of an autocratic past must quickly disappear if we are to appeal to both our Members and our stakeholder community
Having made these pronouncements, Mr Luxmoore has then presided over changes at the Kennel Club which are strongly opposed, not only by Members, but also by many other 'stakeholders'. These include the introduction of the Judges Competency Framework; the removal of breed clubs' influence over the judge approval process and the forfeiting of their right to maintain breed club judges lists; the imposition of new rules for the approval of FCI Judges (subsequently overturned by KC members). Additionally, the removal of the 'numbers of dogs judged' requirements prior to CC approval is widely thought to be the death-knell of the much-valued UK open show scene.
He seems not to recognise the degree of dissatisfaction that Members and stakeholders have with his leadership of the KC Board. As a prime example, he dismissed the large number of people who criticise the Judges Competency Framework as: "a now isolated corner of the dog world" and further insulted these normally loyal supporters, asking if their concerns were: "that they would not meet the new requirements?".
All of this is inconsistent with his claims about openness, transparency and listening to stakeholders.
He said: • "Personally, I have a very 'open' approach to communication and will talk to anybody about anything."
Having made that statement, he has proceeded to lead a regime in which he and the Board have • stifled discussion of KC matters by marking the pages of almost every document issued to members as 'Private and Confidential'
• organised a World Congress of Kennel Clubs from which all outsiders were barred and from which no statements were allowed to be issued except with the approval of the Kennel Club • issued codes of conduct insisting that no public criticisms of the Kennel Club are to be permitted from members or volunteers
. He said: • today the General Committee - the Board - is where the decisions are made • the Kennel Club now has a modus operandi where the whole Board/General Committee is involved in the decision-making process, and of that I am proud
We are therefore surprised that when we talk to KC Board members they claim that this is not the case. When asked about actions being taken by the Club, several Board Members advise us that many decisions appear either to be made by a small number of specific Board members without their sanction or are delivered to the Board as a fait accompli.
Mr Luxmoore said: • The Board will only support property acquisition/investment where there is an incontrovertible and supportive business case which will stand up to rigorous vetting both by the Board members but also by the membership to whom the proposal must ultimately be put.
Despite that, he and his Board sent the Chepstow Show Centre project to Members for consideration without a recommendation either for or against. This was done despite the project being obviously financially flawed and the KC Finance Advisory Group had said it: 'expressed caution to the Business Plan and financial outlay.". The Members approved it. It was later withdrawn, but not before spending £170,000 of KC money unnecessarily.
Mr Luxmoore announced work to create: • "a 'Code of Ethics' which will be aimed at highlighting the behavioural expectations we have of each other whether we are exhibitors, judges, in a membership position or whatever and that… • "It does therefore have a responsibility to take action against those who apparently abuse the privileges afforded to them by the Kennel Club; • "…on the subject of discipline and Codes of Conduct, the Board believe it is the desire of all stakeholders in our sport to expect and enjoy simple and reasonable standards of integrity and good behaviour. Where complaint is made to the Kennel Club and it is proven that these standards have not been met, then the Kennel Club will act.
These codes (and the lead up to them) have been used to impose sanctions on alleged transgressors, with people being expelled from membership, expelled from committee roles and by bans which appear to be selective and vindictive in their application.
Meantime, the Chairman's own judging appointment record-keeping has been questioned but has not, so far, been rebutted either by him or by the KC.
We recognise that the kennel Club has to be run in a business-like fashion, but we also believe that the majority of Members wish that it should remain as a club with the welfare of dogs at its core, with a business attached; not as a business with a club attached.
Mr Luxmoore appears to forget this when communicating with Members and has lost sight of the canine aspects of the KC's responsibilities.
He and his Board fail to recognise that most people in the world of dogs are involved as volunteers and a hobby.
Under his leadership, his Board has made the Kennel Club increasingly bureaucratic, with complex Codes of Practice and autocratic diktats covering so many aspects of our hobby.

Mark Cocozza
Vote of No Confidence

We have been asked to summarise the reasons why we are asking the Members of the Kennel Club to support a resolution calling for a vote of no confidence in Mr Mark Cocozza.
We first remind Members of what the KC's own Code of Conduct says about the duties of a KC Board Director as follows: "A Kennel Club Board member/director is an ambassador and a representative and a custodian of the assets and reputation of the Kennel Club. Inherent within that status is an expectation of a certain standard of conduct and propriety. The privilege carries responsibilities. These responsibilities are in some respects prescriptive (Companies Act requirements) but also ought to be obvious within a bandwidth of reasonable expectation. They include extending respect towards everyone in the canine world - both at home and to those overseas".
We can best summarise our reasons for requesting the vote of no confidence by looking at Mr Cocozza's role as Chairman of both the Finance Committee and the Disciplinary Committees and his behaviour as a Director. As Finance Committee Chairman, Mr Cocozza is believed to have failed to discharge his responsibilities to members through financial mis-management. These include:
• An operating loss of £677,000 was shown in the accounts for the financial year ending 31/12/17. His report to members included a statement showing an "operating surplus before donations and depreciation" of £1.221 million. His previous year's report had included depreciation, as would be expected in normal financial reporting to shareholders. Despite his explanations to members present at the 2018 AGM, this can only be interpreted as a deliberate attempt to obscure in advance the actual losses from the majority of members, by ignoring donations and depreciation. • Costs of £170,000 were incurred as a consequence of aborting the Chepstow venue project due to insufficient prior research, due diligence and attention by the Finance Advisory Group. The financial figures presented to members indicated to those with financial knowledge that there was no viable Business Case, yet the project was submitted for members to vote upon with absolutely no recommendations to approve or reject the proposal and with just a simple, weak, expression of 'caution' by the Finance panel. • The Judges Competency Framework (JCF) was originally announced as an expenditure of £500,000 and this was re-stated at the 2018 AGM. It has subsequently been "merged" into the KC's CRM project and the implementation costs are now totally opaque. At no time have members been asked if they approve this expenditure. The KC's Articles of Association state that the Board shall not have power to act in respect of any transaction involving a value in excess of £100,000 without the prior approval of the Voting Members in general meeting. • It is unclear whether a Business Case was prepared for the Board to approve expenditure on the implementation of the JCF. Without one, they could not have made a fully informed decision, nor understood the risks which have subsequently materialised. • At the 2018 AGM Mr Cocozza announced that a decision had been made for an investment of £1.2M on a CRM system over 2 years, again with no approval by members.
There are financial issues that appear to be surrounded by a veil of secrecy and KC members have the right to have their questions answered. Nevertheless, questions from members at the 2018 AGM about the costs of implementing the online Critique System and other matters were not answered. Weak excuses about "Commercial Confidentiality" were given for the lack of response to these relevant and important questions.
It is apparent that the expenditure that the Kennel Club is making on IT and restructuring is unsustainable and will further add to the losses declared for the year ending 31/12/17. KC members quite rightly insist upon openness and transparency, but it is abundantly clear that they are being kept in the dark on financial matters. This is completely unacceptable.
In his role as Chairman of the Disciplinary Committee he has overseen a regime that has meted out punishments that are widely viewed as inconsistent, disproportionate, spiteful and vindictive. These have resulted in damage to the KC's credibility and reputation among its key stakeholders.
The case of Melanie Raymond, which he chaired, is a case in point. Nobody in the dog world could draw any conclusion other than that the sentence was vindictive and spiteful when it was announced that the bans on Ms Raymond would last until the day after Crufts 2019. This was a ban of 8 calendar months and then a further 11 days, ending 11/3/19. Historically, EVERY other disciplinary decision has been for a defined period such as 12 months, 24 months or 5 years. The sentence is also subject to widespread criticism for being grossly out of step with other sentences given for similar offences.
Mr Cocozza's actions and leadership of the Disciplinary Committee have brought the KC into disrepute and tarnished the organisation's reputation for operating grievance and disciplinary processes which are seen to be fair, transparent and, where cases are proven, result in proportionate sentences.
In summary, Mr Cocozza has shown a lack of competence to chair the Finance Committee, a lack of integrity and good judgement in his role as chair of the Disciplinary Committee and has failed to live up to the high standards of the KC member, let alone a Board Director.

Jeff Horswell
Vote of No Confidence

We have been asked to summarise the reasons why we are asking the Members of the Kennel Club to support a resolution calling for a vote of no confidence in Mr Jeff Horswell.
We can do this best by looking at Mr Horswell's role as Chairman of the Judges Competency Framework Working Party and his behaviour as a Director.
This framework is one of the biggest policy changes the KC has introduced to the world of dog-showing for many years. From the moment of its launch, it was evident to many people that the design of the JCF was fundamentally flawed and grossly over complicated. The press release said it would raise standards of judging, yet there was no proof offered of how the changes would help achieve this objective.
• Instead, what it did change was to remove, even for numerically large breeds, the requirement for judges to gain hands-on experience in the show-ring by judging sufficient numbers of dogs, geographically spread through the UK, over time.
• It also removed from breed clubs, who are the foundation of the British dog scene, the right to maintain their own lists of preferred judges.
• It removed the need in numerically large breeds for judges to gain multiple dog experience judging at open shows, thus knocking one further nail into the coffin of the open show scene which has also been an important aspect of the dog world in the UK.
• It is unclear whether a Business Case was prepared for the Board to approve expenditure on the implementation of the JCF. Without one, they could not have made a fully informed decision, nor understood the risks which have subsequently materialised. Those risks were entirely foreseeable from the start, namely: Existing respected judges being unwilling to sign-up and giving-up judging Time and/or cost over-runs in the design and implementation of the IT required to support the JCF The further damage to Open Show entries resulting from the removal of the "numbers judged" requirement
• A series of "pilot" breeds were required to run Breed Appreciation Days (seminars), offer Multiple Choice written exams and conduct mentoring sessions. These pilots proved nothing that wasn't already known; i.e. breed clubs can run seminars, candidates can pass exams and mentors can help people with their learning.
• Many existing and aspiring judges have found the published information on the JCF to be complicated and confusing. Mr Horswell has therefore committed huge amounts of his personal time to speaking at JCF roadshows which hundreds of people have attended. While this may seem commendable, it is largely an unnecessary cost and gross waste of people's time caused by the flawed and bureaucratic design of the JCF in the first place.
• Several online surveys have led to estimates that between a third and half of judges intend to give up judging as a result of the JCF. This could result in the loss of large numbers of judges which would be a disaster for the dog showing hobby. None of this seems to concern Mr Horswell and it also seems not to have been an issue of concern to his Board colleagues, not least for its impact on the financial viability of the project.
• The Judges Competency Framework (JCF) was originally announced as an expenditure of £500,000 and this was re-stated at the 2018 AGM. It has subsequently been "merged" into the KC's CRM project and the implementation costs are now totally opaque. At no time have members been asked if they approve this expenditure. The KC's Articles of Association state that the Board shall not have power to act in respect of any transaction involving a value in excess of £100,000 without the prior approval of the Voting Members in general meeting.
• Several changes have been made to the JCF since its launch, such as a reduction in KC Academy fee for single breed judges (£10 instead of £26). While this has been described as "listening to stakeholders" it more accurately reflects the original flaws in the JCF's design which should never have been launched as a fait accompli and should have been subject to much more prior consultation. We expect further changes to prove necessary - changes to drawbacks of the Framework which should have been recognised as flawed right from the start.
Since its launch, Mr Horswell has been extremely dismissive of any criticism of the JCF. This has been particularly true on social media where he has described critics as "the usual moaners" who have nothing constructive to contribute. He has failed to recognise that many of these "moaners" are the backbone of the show world today. They are the breed specialist judges, the club committee members and other unsung helpers who give up their time voluntarily for the benefit of their hobby. They don't want or need more bureaucracy, or threats of punishments for non-compliance. The ordinary exhibitors who simply want to enjoy their hobby are also among the "usual moaners". Whilst the new scheme suits the multi-breed 'career' judges, by his actions, he has successfully alienated very many of the less inclined judges, ordinary hard-working people, specialist judges, exhibitors, open show and breed club organisers who hold the key to the future viability of dog showing.
Mr Horswell's actions and leadership of the JCF Working Party have lost the confidence and trust of its major groups of key stakeholders in the show world and tarnished the organisation's reputation for being able to develop the best judges in the world. Hos dismissive approach to those who have tried to offer suggestions and those that have been openly critical of the JCF means he has failed to live up to the high standards expected of a KC member, let alone a Board Director.


Kennel Club has been plunged into further turmoil as 6ft tall Mark Cocoza a Kennel Club Official official is accused of
assaulting a 5ft 3ins pensioner.

Mark Cocozza, 50, allegedly berated and attacked pensioner Steve Hall at South Wales Championship Show.

Judge Mr Hall, 70, has made a complaint to the Kennel Club It is alleged Mr Cocozza poked Mr Hall aggressively last
Sunday in Builth Wells at the South Wales Championship Show.

Cocoza the former head of the Kennel Club’s disciplinary committee has been accused of roughing up the elderly judge [Mr Steve Hall] at the South Wales Championship Show.

Mark Cocozza, 50, who recently relinquished his post amid bitter infighting at the 145-year-old organisation, is alleged to have berated and attacked pensioner Steve Hall last Sunday at an event in Builth Wells, Wales.

Mr Hall, 70, A Championship Show Judge, has complained to the Kennel Club, whose patron is the Queen, and an investigation has been launched. It is understood that two onlookers have provided written evidence.

According to witnesses, 6ft-tall Mr Cocozza allegedly confronted Mr Hall when he saw him walking through the dining room during the South Wales Kennel Association championships.

It is claimed Mr Hall, who is 5ft 3in, was left visibly shaken and upset after an 80-second confrontation in which Mr Cocozza allegedly poked him aggressively three times in the shoulder, causing the pensioner to lose his balance.

The incident, was reported to Dyfed-Powys police, but Mr Hall is understood to be waiting for the outcome of the Kennel Club inquiry before deciding whether to pursue the complaint.

Mr Hall said: ‘The altercation happened but I cannot say any more as I want it to go through the Kennel Club process.’

A spokeswoman for the Kennel Club confirmed that it is investigating the incident.

Mr Cocozza, who until recently chaired the club’s body that oversaw investigations and meted out punishments, said he was unable to comment due to ‘legal process’.

The inquiry is a new twist in a saga that threatens to tear apart the governing body for dog shows. Amid allegations of bullying and mismanagement, hundreds of members recently demanded a no confidence vote in board Chairman Simon Luxmoore, Mr Cocozza and Jeff Horswell, with Cocoza and Horswell both holding important committee roles in the organisation.

That threat appeared to have been lifted when Mr Luxmoore stepped down as chairman and the two others relinquished their roles, although all three retained their seats on the board.

We understand the events in Builth Wells could trigger efforts to oust them from the club board. The issue is due to be discussed at a special meeting on November 6.

The Kennel Club appears to have become Sly, Vindictive and Totalitarian. If Kennel Club officials are attacking people at Dog Shows It is time for an Alternative Dog Club. Terrier world has been calling for this to happen for years.


Members of the Kennel Club sick to their back teeth with what's happening at the KC, have decided call a Special General Meeting to propose votes of no confidence in three of its senior members.

It appears that the three members concerned are: KC Chairman Mr Simon Luxmoore as leader of the KC Board, Mr Mark Cocozza as Chairman of the KC Disciplinary Committee and Mr Jeff Horswell as Chairman of the Kennel Club JCF Working Party.

Five per cent of the present membership is needed to call an SGM, this is around 75. (An SGM can be called at any time)
It is understood that the number of members who have agreed to put their names to the request and it is more than the required 75.

It has been so long that no one can remember when KC members last took such a drastic step and it is a great pity that no other way could have been found to resolve the problems that KC members feel so strongly about.


Some of the KC Chairman's comments in his speech at the Welsh Kennel Club Dinner undoubtedly made things worse. Many felt that they showed an intransigence to widespread public opinion and the Kennel Club under the present incumbents, is being run as a 'Totalitarian' regime. This may have been the straw that broke the camel's back and precipitated the virtually unprecedented action of so many normally very loyal KC members.


We only have to look at the completely over the top punishment that was meted out to Melanie Raymond. She said this:

'In the past, as far as I understand, when suspensions are given out they tend to be for a period of time measured in exact months - six, nine, 12 months or whatever. What I found puzzling was that mine was for eight months and 13 days. Coincidentally the suspension ends just one day after Crufts Dog Show finishes. This means that I am unable to exhibit at or even attend the world's most famous Championship dog show - that just happens to be on my own doorstep!

Who is it that presides over the Kennel Club's Disciplinary Committee? The Priapic Mark Cocozza.

What has angered the members about Jeff Horswell I've yet to find out. I would be grateful if anyone could send the information to
Terrier World.


There Are GOBSHITES Born Every Day - Corish And Coad Are Experts At Finding Them.

At Richmond 2018 Geoff Corish Was The Best In Show Judge Which Is A Disgrace In Itself Because He Is
A Proffesional Handler And Is Paid By Results. The Greater The Award The Bigger His Pay Packet.
At This Same Show His Partner Michael Coad Exhibited Their Dogs. Complain To The Kennel Club About This.

Geoff Corish Judged the Hound Group at City Of Birmingham 2018 whilst Michael Coad exhibited their dogs on the same day.
Do not be taken in by their assertions that the Bichons are registered to the Coad and Smith partnership, this just means that they have found a GOBSHITE to pay all of the expenses for their dogs to be exhibited.

When will this pair of strokers stop their unethical shenanigans? I'll tell you when, when you the exhibitors complain to the Kennel club about them instead of complaining to Terrier World to expose them. Does Corish and Coad actually think that nobody will notice, or is it that their knowledge of skeletons in the Kennel Club Closet protecting them and thus allowing them to do as they please?

At Darlington 2017 Geoff Corish Judged The Hound Group, Norfolk And Norwich Terriers, Also He Judged Chows.
Michael Coad (Mr Corish's Partner) Showed Their Bichons - At The Same Show. These Two Charlatons Don't Give A Toss About Ethics; They Think They Can Do As they Please. Do They Think That Exhibitors Will Not Notice?
Terrier World has been exposing these Practices since 2012.

This week in the Dog Press October 7/16 a Mr Geoffrey Davies writes of his concern about these unethical practices. He describes himself as an Exhibitor, Breeder, Championship Show Judge, General Championship Show And Breed Club Official - with 53 years of experience behind him. He is also a member of the Kennel Club. Undeniably he has wealth of experience.

Mr Davies writes: The manipulation of rules and regulations allows individuals to exhibit and judge at the same show, Mr Davies went on.
“I’ve seen judges who stand at the ringside while dogs they have previously owned and exhibited are being shown; this occurs while they are officiating at that same event. “This practice demonstrates their greed and lack of ethics, and understandably creates frustration in other exhibitors competing at the show. This is another reason why people turn away from our sport, and it is a major reason why certain breeds are suffering from significantly reduced entries.”

I have some news for Mr Davies Terrier World has voiced concern about this for years, whilst the members of the Dog Press dine with them and their free luncheon vouchers at shows and quaff wine with these maggots and say nothing. And it has been going on for years with a former Chairman of The Kennel Club brazenly doing it.

Other sharp practices are seen when dogs are not entered in the catalogue and then a handler turns up and gets Best of Breed with one not in the catalogue.

Can we hope that the Kennel Club will do anything about this stench that is overpowering the world of 'Show Dogs'? Sadly I think not. They appointed a Professional Handler to Judge Best In Show at their show, Crufts 2013. If this wasn't a conflict of interests please let us know.
The stench of it all is disgusting.

Click Here To Read What They Did At Crufts


Luxmoore Brings Totalitarian Control For His
So Called Address To The Nation At
The Welsh Kennel Club Dinner

The KC Chairman blocked a livestream of his own speech at the WKC last weekend. Simon Luxmoore angrily blocked the livestream, being filmed as he delivered his 'state of the nation' speech at a dinner on Friday August 17th.

Luxmoore insisted that the live streaming be removed immediately. This was being filmed by the Dog Press, ‘Our Dogs’. What was the Chairman of The Kennel Club so worried about?

Does Mr Luxmoore not remember saying this in his speech 2015: Mr Luxmoore said he had a very open approach to communication.

“I’ll talk to anybody about anything. However, Pauline will tell you I have a 'red' personality, perhaps even dark red, the prime characteristic of which is that I have an aversion to time wasting.” (There wouldn’t have been any time wasting getting his speech to ‘The Nation’ had it been streamed would there?)

What a phoney this clown has turned out to be – even more so than the tooth fairy.

He also said this in 2015:

“However, we must recognise that the days of being able to organise and manage any governing body, let alone ours, along autocratic lines are gone.”  Really?

“Any remaining residue of an autocratic past must quickly disappear if we are to appeal to both our members and our stakeholder community."

“I would only proffer this as a thought,” Mr Luxmoore said. “When a governing body which operates under a historic brand identity, which the majority of stakeholders believe they know and understand, subsequently conveys messages or indeed takes actions that are perceived to be confusing, then quite possibly the organisation has got it wrong.

You see the Kennel Club Hierarchy is steeped in ‘Secrecy’ because they are all Freemasons. I wonder did The Chairman have his apron on - the one with the builders tools embroidered onto it whilst he gave his speech? This may be why he wanted secrecy…

And what about the slimey treatment by Luxmoore and his cohorts against Melanie Raymond?

Melanie Raymond,  part of the world famous Dialynne kennels, along with Mum Dianna and Grandma Marion, has been "warned, censured and disqualified from exhibiting at, taking part in, attending and/or having any connection with any event licensed by the Kennel Club or judging at any event licensed by the Kennel Club."

Terrier World has been banging the drum for years about the need for an alternative Kennel Club. Never has this need been greater. The Freemason Lodge called The Kennel Club is trying to destroy the only canine newspaper left, Our Dogs. We must not let this happen.

The World Of Dogs Has Been Left 'Outraged' And 'Stunned' Over A Kennel Club Disciplinary Committee Decision
To Ban A Popular Beagle Breeder And Exhibitor.

Melanie Raymond,  part of the world famous Dialynne kennels, along with Mum Dianna and Grandma Marion, has been "warned, censured and disqualified from exhibiting at, taking part in, attending and/or having any connection with any event licensed by the Kennel Club or judging at any event licensed by the Kennel Club."

This is Freemasons in action. Manchester Dog Show Society is a Freemason Lodge, With a Grandmaster. Manchester Dog Show Society does not have any members. Therefore, the logical question is; How do you get selected to be a member of the Committee? The answer to this is you have to become a Freemason in that Lodge.

The complaint made against Melanie was from the Freemason Lodge AKA Manchester Dog Show Society, to the Freemason Lodge AKA The Kennel Club. The Kennel Club was overwhelmingly going to back the Manchester Lodge because every Freemason's first 'Allegiance' is to other Freemasons.

Melanie is also correct in not going ahead with any appeal, all she would be doing is wasting her time and her money. Even if she were to employ the finest Barrister in the land, there is no guarantee that they wouldn't be a Freemason and if so they would be on the side of The Kennel Club. The Legal Profession and The Judiciary is 'Saturated' with them. They meet in secret and are forever 'Chinese' whispering. I have observed them over many years greeting one another with their so called secret handshakes. The dog game is full of them. Is Melanie's crime any worse than this: click here

The decision was made following a complaint that was made against Melanie after she herself complained to the management at Manchester Championship show - as she stated, "on behalf of all the exhibitors in my breed" - requesting a change of ring from the waterlogged ring in which they were expected to show our Beagles.

Manchester Dog Show Society has past form with 'Dreadful' conditions at their shows. I remember Judging Lakeland Terriers at Heaton Park some years ago. The wet weather tents were waterlogged and it was hail rain and snow conditions - we were outside in it. The show should have been abandoned it was that bad, I had not long recovered from a heart attack. What was their punishment from the KC? Nothing as I remember. Yet, Leicester not long before this had lost their Championship Show status for far less. Freemasons protecting Freemasons.

In a statement issued on Monday July 9th on social media after the disqualification, Melanie said: 'My request seemed to fall on deaf ears and I left the secretary's office feeling extremely frustrated, as there appeared to be no interest in investigating the ring. (As it turned out later, the breed ring was changed when the breed judge said that it would be impossible to judge in such conditions.)

'As I left the office I was basically letting off steam to myself when I met a gentleman who I didn't know and who asked me what was the matter. I was extremely wound up and my language was more colourful than it should have been when I told him that I felt this was not the way to treat exhibitors. I now realise that the gentleman concerned was an  official of Manchester Dog Show and subsequently an official complaint was made against me.

'On July 2nd I was notified of the penalties by email.
'I have never before had any complaints made against me to the Kennel Club and I must admit to being surprised at the suspension, this being a "first offence".

'In the past, as far as I understand, when suspensions are given out they tend to be for a period of time measured in exact months - six, nine, 12 months or whatever. What I found puzzling was that mine was for eight months and 13 days. Coincidentally the suspension ends just one day after Crufts Dog Show finishes. This means that I am unable to exhibit at or even attend the world's most famous Championship dog show - that just happens to be on my own doorstep!

'Despite the suggestions of friends I have no intention of appealing against the Kennel Club's decision as I feel it would be pointless. I have no intention of transferring the ownership of my dogs into the name of family members. I will just stay at home, continuing to breed the dogs I love and considering my future in the world I was born into.'

I met Melanie a few years ago at the NEC in the bar. We had a conversation about Professional Handlers judging, we dissagreed. I found her a feisty character - which I liked - and she was also quite charming. The length of the ban and the timing says a lot about the Kennel Club... Slimy Bastards!

The outrage on social media has been swift and virtually 100% of people commenting are staggered at the severity of the sentence and the somewhat strange timing as to the length of the ban.

As in the cases of recent disqualifications, many fellow exhibitors and breeders are asking how this has happened and expressing concern over the decision, with one person commenting online, 'I'm sure you have your reasons for not contesting this decision but my feeling is that you probably should Melanie. Not only does your punishment seem like an overreaction your beautiful dogs would be such a loss at the shows you will be missing. The precise length of the ban does seem purposefully to encompass Crufts too which is very mean'. Another said, 'Disgraceful way to treat someone on something so trivial, a slap on the wrist would have been more than sufficient.'
A spokesperson for Manchester Dog Show Society said: 'Anybody volunteering at a dog show be it a steward or committee member should not be subjected to abuse.' Manchester 2018 was of course looking to 2019 when they have the opportunity to schedule all breeds with CC's and has to contend with new logistics in fitting everything in at Bingley Hall. 

The Kennel Club said: 'In her initial response, Miss Spavin admitted the incident and apologised. This contrition was diluted by the later submissions given in mitigation, much of which was not accepted by the committee.

'The committee noted that Miss Spavin suggested that she did not intend or direct the abusive language towards the show official who witnessed the incident. The incident occurred in the passageway leading from the Secretary's office.

'Miss Spavin should have been aware that in the context of a breed show there is not likely to be anywhere that is truly private and there will always be the potential for an official, exhibitor or spectator to be an audience or to bear witness to one's behaviour.

'To air a grievance in such in an unrestrained way in what amounted to a tantrum with unacceptable expletives is not conduct expected of anyone attending a Kennel Club licensed event, irrespective of the cause or grievance.

The committee members included Mr Mark Cocozza, Mr Nigel Smith, Dr Ian Gabriel and Mrs Sue Garner. Two members of the committee declared that they have prior knowledge of Miss Spavin from the breed show context but not such as to be material or that would create a conflict of interest or affect, influence or preclude them from determining the matter.

From the very strong reaction in favour of Miss Raymond online, it seems very likely that this story will play out for weeks to come. 
Mum Dianna Spavin said, "Our family have been attending and supporting dog shows and the Kennel Club across three generations. We are staggered at the severity of the ban and feel that in this instance the punishment does not fit the so called crime. If the KC can be this vindictive we are seriously worried about the future of the dog game in this country. I know we are not alone in thinking this and we thank everyone for their comments and support"



The Kennel Club has announced the launch of a new website for Dog Show Critiques. My first thoughts  was this seems to be a great idea, however, on reflection, I have my suspicions that this is the first cut to bring about the death of the Dog Press;

It has been mooted that the Kennel Club has set up this website because the names of Judges who did not write up a Critique was being published. I just don't buy that.
[It has been suggested that the publication of a list of judges who had not submitted show critiques might have had an influence on the decision to spend so much money on this project. (Our Dogs)]

As far as I am aware, Terrier World is the only publication that has named and shamed Judges who did not write up a Critique. To suggest that the naming and shaming of lazy Judges is the reason for the Kennel Club to spend a vast amount of money on this project is ludicrous. Instead of scratching their arses, why didn't  the Kennel Club just enforce their own ruling?

Now that we only have Our Dogs left  (since the collapse of Dog World)  to give us information;  it will be to the detriment of us all if Our Dogs falls too. Why do I say this? Because  the only way that the Kennel Club can be scrutinised and held to account is through the Dog Press. The Kennel Club already has a Monopoly on the World Of Dog Showing; anyone or any organisation who holds or exhibits at a show that is not licensed by the Kennel Club is banned from registering their dogs and all of the rest of it. Is this a good situation that this Monopoly exists? Not on your life. This is why in my opinion they [KC] want to get rid of the Dog Press. Then they can do what they like...and get away with it unchallenged. But, should we be surprised by this? No. This is the way that secret societies work -  Freemasonry.
The late Great President John F Kennedy in a speech said this to the American people:

"The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know."

At the recent Kennel Club's AGM Various questions were raised regarding details of Crufts and other expenses. These were said to be of a commercially sensitive nature and therefore information would not be forthcoming. Well they would say this wouldn't they.  During the discussion on cost, the issue of judges' critiques was raised, and the Chairman explained that the reason for the KC taking on this responsibility was so that the time which staff had previously spent on answering questions on missing critiques would be substantially reduced now that the KC is dealing directly with them.
(I smell Bullshit.) Why didn't the Kennel Club just enforce their ruling that Critiques have to be published in the Dog Press? After all, Terrier World provided them with a comprehensive list of Judges in Terriers who were ignoring the KC Rule. No need for KC staff to answer any questions about the Terrier Group, I had done the work. I forecast that the next step in their slimy plan will be to announce that as long as Judges send their Critiques to the Kennel Club, their rule that Critiques must be published in the Dog Press will be abandoned.  Another cut that will bleed 'Our Dogs' to closure.

These people that run the Kennel club are in dogs but they are not dog people. It is my view that their main interest is to accumulate many more millions of pounds for their Secret Society. Do not be taken in by the smoke and mirrors tactics that is used to disguise the accumulation of their multi millions;  for example,  the spending of money for the welfare of dogs, charity donations and all the rest of it that makes them appear to be'The Great And The Good'. This is a drop in the ocean to the vast amounts of money that they are raking in.

Where will it all end? I forecast that eventually you will have to pay to use the services of the Kennel Club. Once the KC has got rid of the Dog Press they will do whatever they like, without scrutiny and without being held to account. Then who will complain? Most certainly not the people who exhibit. In my experience, the majority of exhibitors are oh so desperate to get on the Judging ladder to award CCs and they are terrified that the Kennel Club will not pass them.

It never ceases to amaze me when I read Judge's preambles to their Critiques after they have Judged at Crufts, to sum up the majority of them in one word; Lickspittle. Why? Because they start their preamble with; 'It's an honour and a privilege to be invited to Judge at Crufts.' WHAT? Let me inform these Judge's that the 'Honour and Privilege' is on the toes of The Kennel Club. First and foremost the Kennel Club would not have a show without the Judges. Secondly, what does the Kennel Club do to help people who aspire to be Judges - and there is thousands of them? I'll answer this for you; NOTHING. If you want to Judge dogs and achieve CC level and then wait to be approved by the KC, it will cost you a phenomenal amount of time and money. Do you get any financial help towards this from the Kennel Club, not on your Life! Moreover, if you do get passed to award CCs it will take you a very long time to get to where Lodge Members get to in a very short time. Take Crufts as an instance, you will see the same Judges (Mostly Freemasons) doing different breeds year in year out. Further, they are Wined and Dined at the best of Hotels on the NEC complex, paid for by you the Exhibitors.

It is said that Power Corrupts - Absolute Power - Absolute Corruption. I have been calling for an alternative Kennel Club for years. It could be done but it would take guts. The German Shepherd fraternity could have made a big impact as a start in this regard. An alternative Kennel Club could easily be set up under Federation Cynologique Internationale rules (FCI) But for exhibitors who are still active, it would take a considerable amount of courage to do this.

Let us hope that now the 'Dog Press' will grow some balls, show a bit more determination and join Terrier World in exposing unethical practices that the Kennel Club allow, eg, the unhealthy influence that Professional Handler Geoff Corish has regarding Judging policy; the circumventing of rules when he [Corish] is officiating whilst his partner exhibits. at the same show with their dogs.
If you feed a Crocodile in the hope that it will eat you last, you may well be right; but eat you it will.

"A Free Press Is The sleeping Guardian Of Every Other Right That Free Men Prize. It Is The Most Dangerous Foe Of Tyranny."

The Border Terrier Club Committee has requested its Secretary, Kathy Wilkinson, to write a letter to the Kennel Club asking for the Judges' Competency Framework to be suspended and subjected to a survey of all clubs, judges and exhibitors.

The request is for the survey to obtain wide opinion on the present system for the development and approval of judges, and, if it turns out that the majority of clubs, exhibitors or judges do not want or need such dramatic changes as the KC JCF represents, then abandon it.
Here is the full content of that letter which was sent to Mrs Kathryn Symns, Canine Activities Executive at the KC, and copied to Jeff Horswell who chairs the KC Working Party set up to introduce the system.

'Dear Mrs Symns
'Judges Competency Framework - our concerns
'At a recent Border Terrier Club Committee meeting, a unanimous decision was reached to write an open letter to ask the Kennel Club to discontinue the introduction of this complicated and costly exercise and to revert to the status quo. As a club, as exhibitors and as judges, we were quite happy with the way things were already organised.
The Committee, while having some very experienced breeders, exhibitors and judges (including CC judges) also has, included in its number, people of varying ages and experience, who we feel reflect the general show-going population.
Some of our reasons for writing to you are as follows:

'1) We already run and pay for the type of seminars you will want in future but feel that the further work being asked of breed clubs is just too much and is a step too far. These new responsibilities are:
'2) Planning and organising and paying for mentors: as well as having these added responsibilities we are also concerned that Mentors need not be active judges, but can be leading breeders who do not judge, retired judges or even people who have not had the breed but have "recognised and current experience in the breed". In our opinion anyone who has not owned or judged the breed is unlikely to be qualified to act as any kind of mentor.
'3) Planning, organising and paying for observers, at various types of show. Mention was made that mostly breed people do not charge clubs for expenses, when asked occasionally, but if they are asked frequently, some might have to charge, given that some of them might be retired people who have limited resources.
'4) Added financial burdens because all breed clubs will be expected to offer supported entry classes to a minimum of two general open shows each year. Supported entry may include paying for the judge's expenses if any, rosettes, prize cards etc...and the observer's expenses.
'5) Added financial costs for payment for Mentors', Observers' and Assessors' expenses to come from profits arising from breed education seminars BUT at present, in order to provide a service to our stakeholders, we do not normally make much of a profit, and mostly just charge sufficient to cover expenses (some Border Terrier Clubs we know run their seminars at a loss as a service to the Breed and to exhibitors and judges). In future, we might have to increase the costs of these to make a profit to pay for mentors, observers and assessors expenses? We would not wish to do this, as we feel it will be counter-productive. We do not want to charge so much that prospective judges might not afford to pay to attend such educational events. In addition as we believe that many breed specialists will decide they do not want to go forward with this complicated and costly exercise, additional required profits to pay for all the expenses will be harder to generate.
'6) Finding observers at present we do organise A2 list assessors for our breed club open shows and evaluators for 1st time CC judges but this is often very difficult. More observers will be required in future and that will add to the difficulty of finding appropriate and qualified people to perform the task.
'7) Much of the above has to be done in conjunction with a Breed Education Co-ordinator (whoever may be daft enough or self-important enough to take on that role). We felt that most of the people who we would wish to ask to perform the task would probably be unwilling to do it and those who would want to push themselves forward for it might well be doing so in an attempt to influence judges of the future and progress their own or their friends' dogs in the show rings of the future.
'8) The practical implications of the time taken in the implementation of this system, not forgetting that all the people who serve on Committees are volunteers who give of their time and travel at their own expense and help to organise shows, seminars and the like already but who may well feel this is a request too far and decide to throw in the towel. This Framework appears to be very professional, strategic and corporate, but you appear to forget or ignore the fact that breed club committees are all volunteers running their clubs with limited resources.
'9) As the breed clubs have had no consultation on the new JCF PRIOR to announcement of all the detail (a day at KC HQ would have made sense!) we think it is important to feedback our very legitimate concerns. Although you are now seeking some review by a select few clubs (presumably chosen by you without consultation with ALL breed clubs, so we wonder how they were chosen and who selected them), we feel this should have been done BEFORE you decided on the detail, or even before you decided that the new Framework should go ahead at all.
Before you even started all this, you should have invited say 10 or 20 breed club secretaries (chosen at random from volunteers - AFTER you advertised for volunteer clubs to participate) to a "think tank", taken over a couple of days, laid out for them beforehand what you were intending, then had discussions with them at the KC as to what pitfalls the secretaries could see in a practical way, before just announcing the scheme. Was it perhaps that you were keen to impress other kennel clubs around the world, that you had to rush it in without consultation?
Who knows, you might have been advised of all our concerns BEFORE IMPLEMENTATION and decided not to go ahead with it.
Regarding your "pilot scheme" - we always thought that pilot studies were done beforehand rather than afterwards. That might be an old-fashioned view in your minds, but it is a practical and democratic one.
'10) A number of breed club secretaries are well used to tackling legislation and rules and try their best with everything the KC brings out to get on top of what is required as soon as possible. Even for them this new system is far too complicated, time consuming and costly and was not needed - things, certainly in our breed, were working very well the way they were.
'11) Where are the clubs' Officers and Committee supposed to find the time to undertake all the extra work? Perhaps you do not realise how busy secretaries already are? Our Secretary spends at least a few hours or more every day on Border Terrier Club business and there is always a long list of jobs not yet done. She just does not have the extra time to devote to this, unless she has no family life at all. Some secretaries also work in full time jobs - which ours did for a long time - and then come home from work, go straight to the home "office" and do Club work for hours. WHERE are all these people supposed to find the time to implement all this additional work?
'12) The KC has recognised in the past that some Clubs find it difficult to get people willing to serve on Committee or as Secretary. If they could not find people willing to serve before, how much more difficult will it be now? Most Secretaries are mere mortals and we as a Committee feel that a lot of them will throw in the towel, along with a number of decent breed specialist judges.

1) Exhibitors generally prefer to show under breed specialists (with the occasional allrounder/non-breed specialist/multi breed judge). As this new scheme is more inclined to advance the prospects of the latter and increase the number of shows judged by them, we feel that this will lead to dissatisfaction with showing and reduction in entries, the very things we understand you are trying to avoid.
'2) We have, as a breed, noticed more allrounder judges allocated to our breed in the last couple of years at General Championship shows and indeed, some shows where they have employed them every year for many years. As one of the generally highest entries in the Terrier Group at other General Championship shows where breed specialists are judging, we feel that this works against what our exhibitors and members would wish to see. We have had comments that "I am not travelling hundreds of miles for an allrounder" and "I have missed many of my favourite shows this year as they are not judged by someone who knows the breed." and many other such comments. Ask the exhibitors what they want and you might reconsider this new Framework.

'1) We worry that if the new Framework is implemented, we might lose some very good breed specialists, and lose out on bringing on new breed specialists, who may decide that it is too much and throw in the towel too (a lot of towel throwing might take place).
'2) Our judges have long been the envy of the world and rather than bring the world up to our standards, you seem to be demeaning the judges here and bringing in unnecessary new hoops for people to jump through when some of them were almost at the point of awarding CCs now.
'3) On that last point, we have some breed specialists who only had one or two items left on the A3 list criteria to achieve, after years of working towards them, for example one case where only 2 stewarding appointments remained for the person to fulfil ALL the current A3 list criteria (which includes 12 stewarding appointments), but because you are bringing this in, they stand little chance of now being considered for the A3 list and it is like a game of snakes and ladders for them - they were nearly there, heading for the top, when the (KC) snake knocked them back down to the bottom of the ladder again and they had to start again with all new features of mentors, assessors and observers. Some might just leave the dice as they lay and fold up the board. Good people may have lost out to the system.
'All the more galling as under the new system, people only have to steward 4 times (granted for full days, but our breed specialists have often undertaken full days at a busy breed club show, as our entries for our Open shows are around and sometimes well above 100 dogs with a lot of repeat entries, which challenge their control of the ring).

'4) You talk about the numbers required under the current criteria being just a "numbers exercise" and have also done away with the "adequate geographic spread".

'We consider both of these things very important, given that our Championship shows have high entries (apart from a few recent ones where allrounders were judging). Our judges need experience in terms of numbers judged, so that if they are presented with a championship show entry of say 100 or more, which is the norm (and some Gen Ch shows have been nearer 200 for breed specialists), that they have had experience of judging numerically high classes/shows and are not overawed by the experience. Adequate geographic spread is important so that judges have had sufficient experience of judging different types of dogs and not just the same dogs at different local shows.
'5) We also think the Framework will put a lot of new people off judging at all. In the past, we have had people who have said, when they are on a C List but not yet taken all the seminars and were being encouraged to take them so they could maybe progress to the B lists, that they just wanted us to take them off the lists instead, as they were not that keen on jumping through all the hoops. We think we will get more potential good judges saying they do not want to take it any further because the whole process is too complicated and too involved. We realise this will open it up for more allrounders, which to be frank looks like your main aim here! A lot of us prefer to show under someone who is perhaps a reluctant judge but who cares about the job they are being asked to do rather than those who pushed themselves forward to judge and regard the process as part of a 'career'. Now the new system takes it one step further and seems likely instead to reward those who push.

'1) We worry that the Framework will have an adverse effect on General Canine Society Open shows, who struggle as it is to find judges and ring stewards. This new JCF would reduce further the opportunities for people to gain hands on experience which in our view is such a vital training ground for judges before they progress to higher levels. This country is unique in having a reasonable open show scene but the KC seems intent on destroying such of it that currently exists.

'1) Under the current A2 assessment procedure, the identity of the assessor/s is unknown to the judge, so the assessor can make valid comments to the KC without fear or favour, or worrying that the next time they meet the judge it might be under acrimonious circumstances. The JCF allows the judge to know the identity of the person mentoring and observing them. There is then the possibility of two repercussions:
a) recriminations if the judge does not find the approval of the mentor and observer,
'b) the danger that some mentors and observers may err on the side of caution and give a pass mark for fear of such recriminations, thus reducing the procedures to a box ticking exercise.

'1) Lastly, but quite important we feel - as well as exhibitors referred to in paragraph B above, we the Breed Clubs are also your CUSTOMERS - without your customers, you have no business and as you are now a Limited Company, will you please listen to your customers, go back to the beginning, SUSPEND THE INTRODUCTION OF THIS Judges Competency Framework and ASK us first what we want. Survey all clubs, judges and exhibitors to ask if we are, or are not, happy with the present systems and then if it turns out that the majority of clubs, exhibitors or judges do not want or need any changes of such magnitude forced upon them, then abandon the Judges Competency Framework!'


The RSPCA Has Been Thrown Into Crisis By The Resignation Of Its Reforming Chief Executive.

Jeremy Cooper, who took the role in April 2016, with a salary of £150,000 a year and had been named as the man to lead the .organisation to more progressive and prosperous times.

It has been reported that he has instead left the organisation with a declining membership and has not implemented the recovery plan he was called on to deliver.

The Times reported an RSPCA insider who claimed the situation was a ‘disgrace’. The paper was told: “It is high time the Charity Commission took over the day-to-day management of the charity to safeguard animal protection.”

In the wake of Mr Cooper’s departure the RSPCA has released the following statement: “After four years with the society and over a year as chief executive of the RSPCA, it is with regret that we announce that Jeremy has decided to move on to pursue other business opportunities.

“Jeremy has been an asset to the team and has contributed to the continued success of the RSPCA.”

The charity has confirmed that chief operating officer Michael Ward will become interim chief executive.

A week after extensive criticism in the media due to the resignation of its chief executive the RSPCA has come in for more harsh words, this time from Countryside Alliance chief executive Tim Bonner.

Mr Bonner has written a blog for the organisation’s website and newsletter which has described the fiasco at the RSPCA as becoming so commonplace that they have become ‘unremarkable’.

Mr Bonner says: “This week The Times and The Telegraph have reported the loss of another chief executive while The Sun has asked questions about its chairman’s role in the purchase of property and employment of family members. We should not, however, let familiarity cloud the depth of the crisis within this iconic organisation.”

Mr Bonner goes on to say that the RSPCA should be entirely a force for good protecting the welfare of individual animals and promoting good practice and husbandry with the support of sensible and proportionate regulation where necessary.

However, he believes it has instead increasingly become a battlefield on which the advocates of ‘animal rights’, a philosophy in which he says the interests of humans and the welfare of individual animals are subservient to a campaign to give political rights to non-human species, wrestle for control with those who seek to address the practical issues of animal welfare among pets and other domestic animals.

He believes this has been allowed to happen by a governance structure which is ‘utterly dysfunctional’.

He continues: “The RSPCA has a large and unwieldy board of trustees largely elected by a small and shrinking membership. Trustees propose each other for re-election and are constantly recycled. Ex-chairman and, by his own description ‘inventor of the modern animal rights movement’ Richard Ryder has, for instance, been on the council permanently since 1972.

“A ‘governance review’ ordered by the Charity Commission was published last week and, like so many other ‘independent’ RSPCA reviews, does little but justify the RSPCA’s activities and offer sticking plasters to cover gaping wounds.”

Mr Bonner then describes this review as ‘toothless’ and suggests that it may have been this which persuaded the chief executive, Jeremy Cooper, to leave his role at the charity.

He writes: “Mr Cooper dared to apologise for the society’s excesses and state that it was not a political organisation in his only interview when he was appointed last year, but was immediately forced to retract by the RSPCA council. He has not talked to the media since and his departure is no surprise at all.”

Mr Bonner doesn’t hide the fact that he is one of a number of people who have predicted the continued fall of the RSPCA.

He didn’t hold back with the final words in his statement: “The RSPCA is utterly incapable of curing itself. It will be down to the Charity Commission and the Government to force through change, and if history tells us anything it is that things will have to get even worse for the RSPCA and the animals it is supposed to protect before they act.”

The Kennel Club Breaks Cover From The Lodge

The KC has informed its Members about why they Expelled Alan Hedges amid accusations of stifling freedom of speech.

Is Alan Hedges' Crime Any Worse Than Zena Thorn Andrews' Vindictive Response To A UK Judge Who Didn't Give Her
The Win That She Expected, Click Here Or, Is It Because Zena Thorn Andrews Is One Of Their Own With Influential Freemason Connections And Also A Former Crufts Best In Show Judge? There Is A Stink At The Kennel Club - We Can All Smell It.
Mr Hedges Is Rightly Concerned About Bad Judges And Nepotism Should Be Considered Too. One Of The KCs
Crufts Best In Show Judges Awarded The Top Spot To A Dog That Tried To Bite Him. Click Here Nepotism In All Its Glory.

The Kennel Club has written to its members amid the outrage from ordinary exhibitors at Mr Hedges treatment and subsequent expulsion.

“This case involved issues of propriety,” the statement reads. "The decision (to expel Mr Hedges) has not been taken to curtail free speech nor is it some form of concerted action as a reaction to steps taken by the member concerned over the FCI judges agreement.

"Any suggestion that the forum was acceptable because it did not affect or involve UK judges, but largely overseas judges, is not understood or accepted by the Board as a distinguishing or redeeming feature. This case was about the inappropriate actions of a member who the Board did not consider was demonstrating the responsibility and expected standards of a KC member.”

The statement was aimed at tackling ‘unhelpful public speculation and misconceptions’ aired since the expulsion, the KC said, adding that it wanted to reassure members that it had their interests at heart ‘and would always act in their best interests'.

Mr Hedges’ ‘refusal’ to accept that setting up the forum was inappropriate was a 'source of disappointment’, it stated: “A KC member is an ambassador and a representative of the KC. Inherent within that status is an expectation of a certain standard of conduct and propriety.
"The privilege carries responsibilities (which) are not prescriptive but ought to be obvious within a bandwidth of reasonable expectation. They include extending respect towards everyone in the canine world – both at home and to others overseas."

The Board’s duties included upholding standards, particularly those of members, it went on. If those standards fell short the Board was entitled under article of association 38 to consider whether someone should be allowed to keep their membership. This was not a disciplinary process; the two-stage process involved asking for a member to resign and if this was not forthcoming to hold a meeting to consider the member’s representations.

"Questions have been raised over whether there is any precedent for members having their membership terminated,” the statement continues. "Facebook is, of course, a modern phenomenon and so there are no direct precedents to the position here. Indeed, cases of the resignation/expulsion process for a member are very few and far between.

"However, there are previous examples including: a member who wrote a disrespectful letter about women; a member who gave discrepancies in information in a nomination form for the General Committee; a member who was disrespectful to a fellow member being intoxicated; a member who was considered to be undermining the General Committee’s authority; and a member who privately abused a fellow member by sending offensive and abusive mail after what he considered had been the lenient outcome of a disciplinary matter."

The precedent cases involved issues of propriety, the statement said, and the Board’s concerns over Mr Hedges’ Facebook group included:

that it was disrespectful and undermined judges and was effectively a public ‘name and shame’ forum;

it was outside the confines of the normal protocols for complaining about a judge’s performance which allow testing of evidence and the right to respond/defend;

there was the potential/risk of reputational damage to judges;

the forum provoked unmoderated reaction and language and derogatory comments about judges generally.

Update For Alan Hedges Re His Refusal To Cede His Kennel Club Membership

Mr Hedges’ membership was suspended in January after the KC took exception to Mr Hedges’ Facebook page ‘Bad Judges, Bad Practice’, which called for judges to ‘follow official guidelines and judge breed in the manner expected by exhibitors, and allowed people to air their grievances.

Mr Hedges said he appreciated the support he has received from ‘hundreds of people’.

“I’ve told the KC I’m not going to resign my membership and they said my case was due to be discussed at a KC Board meeting this Tuesday,” he said. “They’ve also told me that at that meeting the Board will confirm that any final decision on expulsion will be delayed until February 23. Then only some members of the Board will consider my position and only that smaller group, not the whole Board, will vote on it.

“The Board has said that the Facebook page I set up was not an activity it would expect from a KC member, that it is not something which can be condoned and it is not considered to be in the interests of the KC.

When I became aware that the KC Board felt that way I took the page down.

“I still don’t believe that I’ve been validly accused by the KC Board of doing anything which would justify my expulsion so I’m still asking the Board to drop its decision to request my resignation. But if it’s not prepared to do that I’ve suggested that, due to the importance of the case to me and so many others and how seldom KC expulsions take place, I should surely be given the courtesy of being allowed to put my case to the whole Board, not just a sub-committee of it.”

The Kennel Club refused to comment.

I wouldn't hold my breath if I were Mr Hedges. The verdict will already have taken place within the Freemason Lodge.

Kennel Club Member Alan Hedges Says
He Has Become The Victim Of An ‘Absurd Witch Hunt

 Alan Hedges  a Staffordshire Bull Terrier exhibitor says he has been asked to resign as a Kennel Club member but that he has ‘absolutely no intention’ of doing so.

  He has received a letter by recorded delivery from the KC, and also an email, asking him to cede his membership, saying the reasons why are unclear.

   Mr Hedges has been a thorn in the KC’s side of late. At the AGM his proposal that the club’s reciprocal judges agreement with the FCI should be abolished was passed, senior members of the General Committee were outraged.

More recently he is said to have shaken KC blanket again with his Facebook page ‘Bad Judges, Bad Practice’ which the KC allegedly complained about and which he eventually took down.

  He said that following the AGM he was asked by many supporters of his views whether he would stand for the General Committee, and he believes that asking him to resign is a means of preventing this happening.

 If he refuses to go and the KC is determined he should it would need two-thirds of the Board to oust him.

  “I have absolutely no intention of resigning my membership of the KC because I’ve not done anything wrong,” he said. "In one of the KC letters to me they state, 'It is not being suggested that the content or individual statements made by you attracts specific issue'. Where I live that means you have done nothing wrong.

  "However, I will defend my position and situation to the fullest extent and in every way possible. I will also draw comparisons about my own situation and that of others. In the aftermath of the last KC AGM I made it known that, after being asked by several people, I was prepared to stand for election to the KC Committee later this year. If the General Committee wants me out they’ll have to kick me out."

  Mr Hedges said he was prepared to place all the relevant paperwork in the public domain and 'let everybody decide for themselves what is right and wrong in this situation, and take a view on this absurd witch hunt'.

  "My lawyers advise me to say no more at this time, but I had to part with hard-earned money to convince them that this KC action is not a joke and it is actually for real,” he said.

  There has been no comment from the KC to date.

  At the KC’s annual meeting in 2016. Mr Hedges’ proposal that the KC should drop the ‘unwanted, unneeded and patently unfair’ judges’ reciprocal agreement with the FCI found favour with members – much to the KC’s annoyance. His view is that the club should return to asking foreign judges to fill in a questionnaire, just as judges have to here. As a result, the FCI immediately threatened to retaliate by stopping all British judges awarding CACIBs, and in some countries even CACs.

  It was announced at the November special meeting that a compromise had been negotiated under which FCI judges here – and if requested British judges invited to FCI nations – would have to fill in a ‘contract’ containing some but not all the detail about their previous experience formerly demanded by the questionnaires.  It has been drafted and is now awaiting formal agreement by both Boards.

Robert Killick

Robert Killick

It is with great sadness that I report the death of an old friend, Robert Killick.Terrier World

I had known Robert for some years and always enjoyed a chat with him; a fine 'Raconteur'. He had the most wonderful rich voice that I was always envious of; I could have listened to him for hours. A witty man with an observers eye, Robert would spot things that the rest of us miss.

1987 was the year that Terrier World was launched as a hard copy and I had approached Robert to write for me. He didn't disappoint.
His articles were always Professional, good reading and importantly, met the deadline.

'Dog Showing - Beginners To Winners' 'West Highland White Terriers' and 'Yorkshire Terriers' are three books that were written and Published by Robert. He was also the 'Main Contributor to 'The Family Dog'.

Our Dogs, Dog World USA, Dogs Today, and Hundsport Sweden are all Journals that Robert contributed to.
He was a winner of 'Poet Of Merit' award by The International Society Of Poets and also a winner of two 'Golden Bone' awards for Journalism.

Robert bred and exhibited Wire Fox and Welsh Terriers, Miniature Schnauzers and Lowchens.
He will be greatly missed by his family and friends The world of dog Showing and Journalism will miss his wit humour and unique voice.

Bon Voyage Old Friend.


At Darlington Geoff Corish Judged The Hound Group, Norfolk And Norwich Terriers, Also He Judged Chows.
Michael Coad (Mr Corish's Partner) Showed Their Bichons - At The Same Show. These Two Charlatons Don't Give A Toss About Ethics; They Think They Can Do As they Please. Do They Think That Exhibitors Will Not Notice?
Terrier World has been exposing these Practices since 2012.

This week in the Dog Press October 7/16 a Mr Geoffrey Davies writes of his concern about these unethical practices. He describes himself as an Exhibitor, Breeder, Championship Show Judge, General Championship Show And Breed Club Official - with 53 years of experience behind him. He is also a member of the Kennel Club. Undeniably he has wealth of experience.

Mr Davies writes: The manipulation of rules and regulations allows individuals to exhibit and judge at the same show, Mr Davies went on.
“I’ve seen judges who stand at the ringside while dogs they have previously owned and exhibited are being shown; this occurs while they are officiating at that same event. “This practice demonstrates their greed and lack of ethics, and understandably creates frustration in other exhibitors competing at the show. This is another reason why people turn away from our sport, and it is a major reason why certain breeds are suffering from significantly reduced entries.”

I have some news for Mr Davies Terrier World has voiced concern about this for years, whilst the members of the Dog Press dine with them and their free luncheon vouchers at shows and quaff wine with these maggots and say nothing. And it has been going on for years with a former Chairman of The Kennel Club brazenly doing it.

Other sharp practices are seen when dogs are not entered in the catalogue and then a handler turns up and gets Best of Breed with one not in the catalogue.

Can we hope that the Kennel Club will do anything about this stench that is overpowering the world of 'Show Dogs'? Sadly I think not. They appointed a Professional Handler to Judge Best In Show at their show, Crufts 2013. If this wasn't a conflict of interests please let us know.
The stench of it all is disgusting.

Click Here To Read What They Did At Crufts

First Place Awards Witheld At Welsh Kennel Club By A Russian Judge

Senior exhibitor Mary Swash made a complaint against Russian judge Dr Eugeny Kuplyauskas after showing her Airedale under him. It is understood that she was asked to move her dog more quickly, and that she said this was not usual practice.

She was placed second in a junior dog class of one, and first was withheld.

Mrs Swash had been unhappy with what had happened, Mr Hill said, adding that after the class Dr Kuplyauskas had asked her if she would like to come back into the ring and he would explain why he had not placed her first. She declined.

“I think he also wanted her to move a bit faster,” he said.

Dr Kuplyauskas also withheld first in Airedale puppy bitch and junior bitch. In Scottish Terriers he withheld first in junior dog and limit bitch.

In German Shepherds he withheld all prizes from the entry in novice dog, second in graduate dog, and first in post graduate dog, puppy bitch, junior bitch and graduate bitch.

Mr Hill confirmed that complaints had been made by German Shepherd exhibitors because several placings had been withheld.

“Dr Kuplyauskas gave us good reasons, anatomical reasons – and he has a degree in anatomy,” Mr Hill said. “There were no complaints about his judging of the Bulldogs.”

The complaints have gone forward to the Kennel Club.

Is this a case of ' I came, I Saw And I Plonkered ?' This of course is the ridiculous placings after an award has been withheld. Once an award has been withheld, any subsequent placings have to be withheld too. How can you have a second placing if a first place has been withheld? If you do not have a first place award, there can absolutely be no second placing. It's as simple as that. Anyone who argues for this idiotic practice should be put into a Straight Jacket!

What was the point of this Lunatic Russian judging here in the first place? Who is it that put this nut case forward to judge who will most probably be getting a reciprocal appointment in Russia?

Exhibitors pay a lot of money and incur considerable expenses to go to a show. They certainly do not need a gobshite Russian presiding over their breeds in an idiotic manner - who clearly is trying to be self important; or should that be impotent? What a fucking gobshite!

The Kennel Club is takings steps to stop exhibitors exploiting the proof of posting entries system.
Terrier World Exposed This Abuse (click here) Three Years Ago

This so called ‘unsportsmanlike’ behaviour has led the Kennel Club to remind people of its policy on the subject and tighten the rules.

The Kennel Club is aware that entries can get lost in the post, it said so this week, but from now on exhibitors will be contacted and may have awards they won removed to prevent the system being abused.

The KC uses a ‘proof of posting’ database which lists everyone who makes an entry on the day of a show, and, in particular, whether proof of posting was provided on the day.

Repeat offenders will have to send future entries by recorded deliver or enter online.

“We will contact exhibitors who have not provided proof of online entry following the show,” said KC secretary Caroline Kisko. “If an exhibitor is found to have been entered onto the database twice they will be notified that, should they make a further entry on the day of a show the matter may be referred to the Committee and could result in the disqualification of awards.

“If subsequent entries on the day are made, the only proof of posting which will be accepted is the show society’s confirmation of receipt or an email receipt from an online entry company or a copy of a bank statement.”

Exhibitors who have had their entries lost in the post may want to consider entering online or sending their entries via recorded delivery, Mrs Kisko said. This way, they can be sure the entries have been received and there is an opportunity to resubmit them before the closing date if any future postal problems arise.

“No one likes to think of exhibitors circumventing the rules, but sad to say there will always be a small minority of people who do this,” Mrs Kisko said.

“It is for this reason that these measures concerning proof of posting are in place to ensure a level playing field for all.”

[ Time and again there is a Professional Handler who thinks that he can do as he likes and has been getting away with 'Circumventing' the rules for many years. If the new Chairman is as good as his word, he should stamp out all mal practices and and make Dog showing a fair competition for all - not just just some who clearly have an unhealthy influence at the Kennel Club. ]


What an absolute carry on! They are coming out into the open like wasps from a nest that has been disturbed. What's this all about you may well ask? Two more of Dog World's 'Feature Writers' have penned concern about the possibility of Corruption in the World Of Show Dogs.

The latest two to jump on Terrier World's 'Bandwagon Exposé ' regarding 'Corruption and Politics' are Jessica Holm alongside
(same edition) Andrew Brace - although this is the second time that Mr Brace has covered the subject. The others are Frank Kane, Steven Seymour, and Sheila Atter, although their offerings [ the latter three ] were sanitised...almost twee. Nonetheless, Terrier World welcomes them all; the more the merrier. Let us purge these corrupt 'Tapeworms' together. The Exhibitors deserve nothing less - a fair crack of the whip for all.

At LKA recently a highly eminent Judge told me that £1000 had been offered to put  a dog up at a show (not LKA). The Judge concerned had declined the offer and said to me; "Once you go down that road you are finished."

Terrier World has been banging the drum about this for a number of years whilst the handwringers of the Dog Press have said nothing until recently.  Another form of cheating, in my opinion, is Judges who fail to send in a Critique to the Dog Press, as is contractually required once a judge accepts an appointment. Why do I say that this is cheating? Exhibiting dogs can be very expensive and you are in effect paying for an opinion. Even if the exhibitor does not win, they should be able to read the reasons for the Judge's decisions. Terrier World has been exposing the 'Miscreant' Judges since 2010. What have the popular Dog Press ever done about them? Absolutely Nothing! Failure to write a Critique is cheating the exhibitors.

The decline in entries, and the lack of new exhibitors now cannot and should not  be ignored.
In the summer of 1978 'The Sunday People' attempted to expose the alleged corruption that some say was rife, in the world of competitive Dog Showing. This however, came to nothing when witnesses failed to turn up in court. The big fish that they were apparently after was Joe Braddon.

It all came to light and under investigation after an exhibitor  David Stevens contacted The Sunday people Newspaper alleging corruption.

Four Judges were named; William Foster, Les Atkinson, Fred Dempster and Mike Bottomley.  All four were summoned to court.

A very serious view of it all was taken by The Kennel Club and as I understand it, their Secretary Bill Edmunds, was suspended for a year.(apparently for helping the Investigative Journalists with their probe) although I may be wrong; secrecy is their 'Modus Operandi '.

The Kennel Club  appointed Mr John Taylor (A former Chief Constable and KC Official) to chair an enquiry. Taylor quickly established that the KC did not have the facilities to make the in depth enquiry that was needed and decided to hand all of the documents over to Scotland Yard. A Chief Detective Inspector and A Detective Sergeant took up the case thereafter.  The Investigation was then handed over to another Senior Detective, Chief Detective Inspector Briers.

It is said that vigorous enquiries were made and  substantial numbers  of Exhibitors gave information and as the months went by, the file grew to enormous proportions.
After an 18 month enquiry, the evidence was sent to The Director Of Public Prosecutions and then passed to The Attorney General.
Interestingly, the main Protagonist David Stevens who made the allegations and one of the accused, Fred Dempster  were both former 'Policemen'.

The case for Dempster was heard at Manchester Crown Court where Bribery and Sexual Favours were alleged to have been offered in return for 'High Awards'. At Dempster's trial Stevens asked for his address to be withheld because of 'Attempts on his life'.

During the trial Stevens described his first contact by telephone with Dempster who seemed uncomfortable and evasive until he mentioned the name of Joe Braddon.
" Joe Braddon was prepared to be my Guarantor" he said. Asked again why Dempster was prepared to talk to him, Stevens said; " The magic words were Joe Braddon. He was my Guarantor. He is the God in dogs." Stevens also stated; "I had Joe Braddon behind me. Dempster would be prepared to do it [the fix] for nothing because of Joe Braddon. If I had explained to Mr Braddon that Dempster had tried to rip me off there would have been trouble[for Dempster]. Mr Braddon pulls a lot of strings. He's important. More than some people at the Kennel Club." he said.

After a period of 2 years and 9 months waiting for justice to be done there was an outcome. In the case against Mike Bottomley the Judge stopped the trial. Bill Foster's trial collapsed when the Chief Prosecution witness did not turn up. A jury found Fred Dempster 'Not Guilty' and in Les Atkinson's case, no evidence was offered.

Many years ago I was asked to handle a Terrier in the Open Class at a Major Championship Show.
I looked at the dog and wasn't that keen because it was just another one. I agreed to the favour and was told; "Don't worry you will get the 'Ticket and BOB' I took that with a pinch of salt. The Judge officiating was Joe Braddon. Consequently,  I did get both awards.  Afterwards the judge  was talking to a couple of women outside of the ring. The owner of the dog had come back to the ring and roared in a loud voice; "If you've got money you can buy anything from that crooked bastard!" The two women turned  around - mouths agape - and looking clearly flabbergasted. The Judge Joe Braddon never flinched and went on talking.

I subsequently took the dog into the Group for 'a walk' and that was it. What happened to the dog  afterwards? The owners gave it away after the group. It would seem to me that they had set out to prove a point.

Another method that Braddon was said to have used was exerting his influence in the Judging Circles to promote a dog/s. There is big money to be had in the sales of constant winners and Braddon it was said would demand his cut from a sale for his 'Promotions'.  Even if the owner of the animal had not invited his 'Services' Braddon - they say -would try and pressurise the owner stating that he had 'Promoted' the dog thus enhancing the sale price. Ambitious people were  afraid of Braddon who had a lot of influence in a lot of places and could make and break Judging Careers - just as others who have followed in his footsteps have done and are still doing so.

'Teflon' Braddon was said to be corrupt and any award when he was judging could be purchased from him providing that you had enough cash. 'Take 'Em Round, And Again, And Again...Joe,  was a slippery as they come, hence the prefix 'Teflon Joe'. The Investigative Journalists from The Sunday People had failed to get him; he was so clever, cunning and slippery.
Braddon thought  - and I suppose he was - untouchable. He was passed by the Kennel club to award CCs in every breed. Who could question his awards  even if he was corruptly being paid for them? Nobody would dare question his awards; The UK's Top Judge corrupt...Never!

Another Judge [who was also named by Stevens] actually couldn't care less who knew that he could be bought was Bill Foster. Foster would march up and down the preparation areas at shows asking the handlers if anybody wanted to buy from him the CCs, RCCs, BOB...this is absolute fact and it was as blatant as I have written it.

We all know that CCs are exchanged on a regular basis and judging appointments swapped like comic books.

The Kennel Club no less , openly embraces Professional Handlers judging at their show Crufts, when it is clearly a conflict of interests.  The KCs Crufts Best In Show Judge in 2013 was Professional  Handler Geoff Corish. How can the Kennel Club allow a Professional Handler to Judge BIS at their Flagship Show Crufts when  at his next show he is competing as a 'Paid By Results' Professional Handler? Does this not put any Judge he exhibits under in this scenario and thereafter, under immense pressure to favour the 'Handler' who has judged BIS at Crufts and clearly has lots of influence?

Dog World reprinted an article in their 9th January 2009 edition taken from Dogs In Review. In the article two Professional Handlers were interviewed about various aspects regarding their involvment in dogs.
One of the questions was; " Did you have mentors or benefactors during your early years."
The answer from one of the Handlers was; " The greatest influence [for me] was Joe Braddon. Joe was this Country's top
all-round Judge and a great Stockman. His Ide Irish Setters, Pointers and Pugs were World famous. He was such a wise man and had a sharp eye for good animals. He taught me so much."

Joe Braddon was the United Kingdom's Top All Round Judge and was passed by the Kennel Club to award CCs in every breed. He Judged Best In Show at Crufts in 1976 and awarded the top honour to a West Highland White Terrier; Ch Dianthus Buttons, which was exhibited by a Professional Handler.

Does Corruption exist in the World Of Show Dogs today? In my view yes it does. But, it is much more sophisticated now than it was in the past.

Exhibitors are not stupid and can see a fix when it can sometimes be blatantly obvious. Low placed dogs miraculously winning CCs BOB and group placings as soon as a Professional Handler gets hold of the lead, without ever altering the presentation or even grooming the animal. It is palpable what is happening. It could be said that this is buying awards and who could argue against this analogy? Whilst this is going on all we can do is try and expose it and hope that the Kennel Club does something to close loopholes and be seen to be concerned about exhibitors. They could start by looking at their policy on Professional Handlers Judging; a clear conflict of interests.

Terrier World has exposed many things since its inauguration in 2008. Judges who fail to write a Critique for example. Remember too our exposé regarding Judges and their partners exhibiting at the same show? Ronnie Irving (Former KC Chairman) judging and his wife exhibiting at the same show; also Geoff Corish judging the Utility Group at Crufts 2012 and in the very next Group the same day in the Toys, his partner Michael Coad walks into the group with their Bichon Frise. They had all been getting away with these practices for years without any challenge until Terrier World exposed them. And what had the Dog Press ever done about it? Nothing. Because they all, as they say, Piss In The Same Pot.

Terrier World will always present you with the facts; it is up to the reader how they interpret them.
Happy New Year from all of the Staff at Terrier

Go To Top Of Page

JRTCGB statement on Kennel Club recognition of a small Jack Russell Terrier

Jack Russell Terrier Club of Great Britain Statement on the Kennel Club and the Jack Russell Terrier – 08/11/15

The Jack Russell Terrier Club of Great Britain, has, for 40 years stood against Kennel Club recognition for the Jack Russell Terrier and will always do so.

We along with our worldwide affiliated Jack Russell Clubs, fought tooth and nail against the recognition of the Parson Jack Russell Terrier but the Kennel Club committee blindly went ahead. Now many years later they have realised their predicted failure and Parson Russell’s are almost as rare as the breed the Kennel Club started with in 1860, the Fox Terrier.
They badly need a small breed to gain income!

The Jack Russell Terrier Club of Great Britain wrote the definitive breed standard for the Jack Russell Terrier 38 years ago and it has been adopted by Jack Russell Clubs worldwide, even copied by the Parson Russell Club! No doubt it will be used once again.

Along with our affiliates we have a registration system reaching back to the mid 70s.
Our terriers, worldwide, are classy, correct in conformation and possess a tremendous working ability. They are virtually free of both hereditary and congenital defects whilst among the Kennel Club breeds these are rife.
Kennel Club recognition will not affect any of us and most importantly it will not affect the Real Jack Russell Terrier that are under our care

The Parson Russell came and has almost left. This ridiculous attempt will also fail and pass.

The Kennel Club is about to embark on a journey into a minefield of confusion, misery and failure.
The JRTCGB along with its affiliated JRT Clubs worldwide have a huge register of quality Jack Russell Terrier dating back to the mid 70s. Our registration system is carefully structured to prevent any Kennel Club pollution.
We have a breed standard that is totally work related and practical.

The secretary of the Kennel Club, Caroline Kisco, gave the reason for their move;- “By recognising the Jack Russell as an official breed we can help cement its heritage and protect its future”. Unreal!
Well Caroline, you are 41 years too late. We have been doing just that since 1974!
The Kennel Club has NEVER cemented the heritage nor protected the future of ANY of the breeds under their banner! Quite opposite. Take for example the poor old English Bull Dog they have protected it to the point where natural reproduction is impossible!
What kind of protecting and cementing is Caroline Talking about exactly!?

The true working Jack Russell is quite safe where it always has been, LONG BEFORE THE OLD SPORTING PARSON BOUGHT ONE! Safe, with the working terrier men and women of Great Britain and the rest of the world!

Our worldwide aim is;-
To PROTECT, PRESERVE and WORK the Jack Russell Terrier We have held firm against the Parson Russell and
succeeded. The same resilience will hold firm again.

Greg Mousley
Chairman and a founder member of the JRTCGB

Observation and reaction to KC and the JRT – Greg Mousley Nov 2015

It seems the kennel club here in the UK is once again seeking income from recognising a smaller breed.

Realising they failed as predicted with their “recognition” of the “Parson Russell Terrier” they now enter a minefield of confusion and future failure by their “recognition” of a Jack Russell Terrier”.

The reason given? “To protect the heritage of the Jack Russell Terrier.” Sadly the kennel club has failed to “protect the heritage” of ANY breed since its inception in the mid 1860s. Indeed it has “protected” some breeds to the point where unassisted conception and natural birth of puppies is impossible. Others where eyelid operations at 6 months old are the norm.
Protection?! Words like ruination and exploitation are more appropriate.

The kennel club is a business and employs many people. As a business they need income. The mainstay of this income is from smaller breeds registered with them. Upon realising their failure with their foundation breed the once very popular Fox terrier. they sought to correct this by recognising the Parson Russell terrier. That has quickly failed, now they need another try.

What next ? Sprockers! Labradoodles!!
They walk among us!?

Mrs Kisko for The KC responded by saying she wanted to assure people that the KC believed in dogs being fit for function and able to perform the tasks for which they were originally bred.

“The benefits of becoming a recognised breed includes breeders being given access to a wide range of health resources and including health screening and DNA testing,” she said. “It will also ensure puppy buyers looking to get a Jack Russell Terrier can check that the puppy’s parents have had the relevant health tests, as the KC records health data for all the dogs it registers.

“As a not-for-profit organisation the KC invests profits that it makes from registrations into its Charitable Trust which supports research into dog diseases and gives money to dog rehoming charities and similar good causes relating to dogs.”

Go To Top Of Page


A Zena Thorn Andrews' advert in a show catalogue has prompted an angry protest by exhibitors.

They want the Kennel Club to take action after the judge involved broke down in tears at the Great Joint Dachshund Association championship show.

She had seen Zena Thorn Andrews’ ad which said, ‘Sadly we will not be exhibiting at this year’s show due to the choice of judge'

She went on to say she was proud of her kennel’s record of wins ‘at this fabulous show’, listing Drakesleat’s wins at the event.

She also placed a copy of the advertisement on her Facebook page.

Judge Janet McLeod did not see the advertisement until it was pointed out to her after she had completed her appointment; it is understood she was so upset she immediately went home.

There is history between the two women. A few years ago Mrs McLeod placed Mrs Thorn Andrews’ dog Ch Drakesleat Win A Lot second in open; shortly afterwards Mrs Thorn Andrews sent Mrs McCleod a letter offering to mentor her and enclosing photographs of the winner of the open class and of Mrs Thorn Andrews’ dog.

The letter was reported to the Kennel Club but a third party but no action was taken.

On Saturday, the advertisement was the talk of the show, and after seeing Mrs McLeod’s reaction Mini Wire exhibitor Mandy Zena Thorn Andrews' AdvertDance began collecting signatures on a petition, which had had 50 names on it when it was handed to secretary Geraldine Brace.
It protested against the advertisement which they signatories said had criticised the judge – and, it seems, the society which nominated Mrs McLeod, the Wirehaired Dachshund Club, which is also said to be considering contacting the KC about it.

Mrs McLeod said the advertisement had been ‘totally uncalled for’.

“I had a really lovely day,” she said. “I hadn’t been to a show for such a long time; everything was very fresh and I so enjoyed it – until I saw the ad.

“I was really upset. The last time I judged was several years ago and I received a letter from Zena afterwards – she hadn’t liked my judging. But the matter was dropped.

“When I got home I heard about the petition; people haven’t stopped phoning me over the weekend, people have been so nice. My best friends are dog show people.”

Petitioner Mandy Dance said she went to make a complaint to the secretary and was told to put it in writing.

“As this was going on people kept coming up to me and saying they wanted to sign it,” she said. “I understand that it’s being forwarded to the KC.

“People are entitled to an opinion but this ad should not have been published. Janet was in floods of tears and desperately unhappy – and she had pulled in the biggest Mini Wire entry this year, 68, apart from Crufts.”

Mrs Dance said that when Mrs Thorn Andrews’ letter to Mrs McLeod was forwarded to the KC no action had been taken.

Janet’s a sensitive soul,” she said.

Mrs Thorn Andrews said the furore was being whipped up by ‘a couple of enemies’.
“People I’ve had issues with in the past,” she said.

“What I put was only a statement of fact, due to the choice of judge. I have had issues with Mrs McLeod before which went as far as the KC but I don’t want to go into that. I didn’t accuse her of anything, I only stated fact. “I love that show but I didn’t want to enter because of the choice of judge. It’s my choice; they’re just trying to make a thing of it.

“They’re just jealous of anything I do and are trying to cause trouble for me. Mandy Dance was taking round a petition – for what? I haven’t said anything detrimental about the judge and I haven’t named her.”

Asked about the letter, Mrs Thorn Andrews said: “I offered to mentor her". The breed council was mentoring people at the time, that’s all.

I thought she might like photographs of her CC winner and 'Ch Drakesleat Win A Lot'. Sometimes judges need help understanding the Standard.”

Asked why her absence from the show could not have been sufficient she said: “Sometimes I don’t go to shows because I’m judging; it gives other people a chance.[to win]"

I let other people use my dogs", but why should I do that if I’m just going to get that abuse? People want to drag you down and I have been very helpful to them.

I’ve sold 30 dogs to other people who had made up their first champion with them. They get jealous and I get treated very badly. Why should I put up with the abuse – makes you want to give up.”

Great Dachshund secretary Geraldine Brace said past winners are invited to place an advertisement in the catalogue and Mrs Thorn Andrews, who was included as she won best of breed last year, sent hers straight to the printers. [What a sneaky thing to do]

“I didn’t see it when I proof read the catalogue,” she said. “When it was pointed out to me I thought it was someone making a slur about the selection of judge, not the judging of that judge. It went over my head.

“People were complaining at the show. I feel awful that I didn’t notice the ad. The matter will be discussed and I will be instructed what to do.”

This matter is now in the hands of The Kennel Club.

Breathtaking Arrogance

[ The response from Thorn Andrews smacks of a person so much up their own arse that they're untouchable and can and do ( like Handler Geoff Corish) just as they please.
Zena Thorn Andrews should receive a ban from the KC and rightly so if they do impose one. ]

Go To Top Of Page

Recently a Championship Show Judge was Banned by The Kennel Club from exhibiting for 12 months
and from other activities connected to dogs for 15 years.

The Kennel Club took action after Sylvia Pope of the Keisyl Pomeranians was convicted of five charges of breaching the Animal Welfare Act with regard to four ponies and a horse when she appeared before Shropshire magistrates earlier this year.
 Mrs Pope, 64, of Wistanswick, Shropshire, also admitted failing to provide routine farriery attention and hoof trimming to all the horses, failing to limit the horses’ food, which led to obesity, and failing to adequately inspect them on a daily basis. All offences took place between February and May 2014

She was banned from keeping horses for life and ordered to pay a fine of £500 and a £60 victim surcharge.
At a recent hearing the KC’s Disciplinary Sub-Committee Banned her for a year from:
· Exhibiting at, taking part in, attending and/or having any connection with any event licensed by the KC, A11j(4);
· Being or becoming a member of any canine club or society registered with or affiliated to the KC, A11j(5).

Mrs Pope received a 15-year Ban from:
· Acting as an officer or serving on the committee of any canine society, A11j(6);
· Taking part in the management of any event licensed by the KC, A11j(7);
· Judging at any event licensed by the KC, A11j(8).

The sub-committee said it had taken into account Mrs Pope’s mitigation in terms of personal circumstances, character references and the significant contribution made by her to her breed over many years.
There was no suggestion that the dogs in her care were or are at risk in terms of welfare, members said in a statement afterwards.  “The conviction arose from horses not being properly inspected and cared for,” the panel said. “Good animal husbandry is a paramount concern for anyone involved at any level in the care and keeping of animals.  The conviction cannot therefore go unremarked and without reaction and penalty.”

Without knowing the complete details of this case for breaching The Animal Welfare Act, Comment can only be limited. However, it would seem to me that  maybe Sylvia Pope didn't know enough about Horses and the attention to the 'Husbandry' that goes with them. Usually when we read about Horses being mistreated is when they are underfed.


The bigger question for me is; what on earth has this case got to do with the Kennel Club, are they now taking the 'Moral High Ground' and now see themselves as The Animal Police Force, The Judges and The Juries for this in the UK? There was no suggestion at all that her dogs were in any way mistreated.

Why was this woman banned from Judging Dogs for 15 years?
A Judge who should have been banned was the BIS Judge at Crufts 2000 when he awarded Best In Show to his mates Exhibit even after the dog tried to bite him.
This sanctimonious bunch at The kennel Club should take a step back and look at this from a different angle.
And, remember the words that were said; “Let Him Without Sin Cast The First Stone”.


We also have the double standards at the Kennel Club when one of their own [Freemasons] is up before them for misconduct.
Remember Wilson Young? Wilson Young, who at the time was  chairman of the KC’s Disciplinary Sub-Committee and the Field Trial Sub-Committee and a member of the General Committee, he was reported for his behaviour at the International Gundog League (IGL) open stake in July of that year,  when he was accused by a Judge of misconduct.
Jean Brown, a B list judge, was officiating and reported Mr Young – an A list judge – to the KC for his attitude on that day and subsequently.

The allegations before the committee was that Mr Young: had questioned and challenged the decision of Miss Brown that his dog had committed an eliminating fault in missing a bird; gathered opinion from the gallery of spectators and guns as to whether they had seen the bird in question and that he then returned to Miss Brown in an aggressive and threatening way to further query the decision; continued to discuss the decision beyond the incident with many people, and said Miss Brown was dishonest and had lied; and had said to the A panel judge on the day, Carol Brown, that he wondered how she would complete the evaluation form, which, in the view of Miss Brown, was an attempt to prejudice future appointments as well as the possibility of an appointment to the A panel in the future.

The Chairman of the KC's Disciplinary Committee - Wilson Young was subsequently fined and censored after the more serious charges were dropped.  No ban for Mr Young was there? Just Freemasons looking after Lodge Members.

Then we had the case of the KC Member Vincent Mitchell who was also a Group, Best In Show and a Crufts Judge too. This Monster was convicted and received an 8 year prison sentence for raping school girls who helped out at his kennels after school. I don't ever recall reading about a ban for you? It would seem to me that naivety in husbandry regarding horses is a far more serious offence to the Kennel Club.

Vincent Mitchell (Kirkmoor), 82, of Lodge Farm Cottages, Kings Walden near Hitchin, Hertfordshire, had denied the charges, which related to offences which took place when he was in his late 40s, but was found guilty after a trial at Cambridge Crown Court last month. He was sentenced some time ago.

Mitchell, formerly a BIS and Championship Show Judge, who used to own Kirkmoor Kennels in Gosmore, Hertfordshire, was convicted of one offence of raping a girl aged between 14 and 16 between May 1976 and May ‘78, one of indecently assaulting her, and one of outraging public decency by inciting her to touch his private parts.
He was also found guilty of two offences of gross indecency with a child involving a brother and sister in 1982-3 when they were less than 14 years old.

The court heard they were not connected with the first girl.
Judge Jonathan Haworth jailed Mitchell for eight years and made a ten-year sexual offences prevention order which prohibits Mitchell from having any contact with a child under 16 without another adult present. He was also told he would have to sign the sex offenders’ register for life.

The incidents at the kennels came to light in 2012 when the rape was reported by the woman. The siblings also contacted police after this.
The jury acquitted Mitchell of another rape and indecent assault involving the same girl and was unable to reach a decision on two other charges of gross indecency with a child involving the brother and sister.

 Does The Kennel Club protect its members who are within the 'real' membership confines of its Lodge?
Since The Kennel Club has decided to take action against an 'Ordinary' Exhibitor and Ch Show Judge for insufficient Husbandry regarding horses, why do they continually protect their own Hierarchy and Members?

The answer is this. The Kennel Club can ban anyone that they like, this is because it's an 'Exclusive Club' [Freemason Lodge] which is paid for by all of us. A typical example of these payments is the Kennel Name or Affix.

Why should you have to pay an extortionate fee of £70.00 and an annual maintenance of £20.00 to have an Affix? We already pay to have our litters registered in their Data Base - which incidentally is now accessible because of pressure from Terrier World, (although the KC would never ever admit to this).  And don't listen to bullshit if someone says the maintenance fee is for the work regarding the Affix Data Base.  Once a data base is made maintenance is simple. Further, the replication of an Affix is easily avoided; in seconds you can identify one already in use from a data base and thus tell the applicant to choose another one. Why must you pay a Maintenance fee? A breeder doesn't have to pay anymore for a registration without an affix attached; therefore Affix holders are paying more by having to maintain their Kennel Name. A nice little earner for the KC isn't it...

Then there is the membership of the Kennel Club. Did you know that they only allow a maximum of 1500 plus 100 from overseas along with some Honorary Members and Life Members? There's very little chance of becoming a full member with such a limited number allowed. However, the waiting list is long, but membership of a Freemason Lodge will put an applicant for full membership above the rest. Acceptance though is only if you are not 'Black Balled'.
The rest are the associates who are asked to part with £90.00 per year for the privilege and are rewarded with a metal KC badge.  Another little earner...


What about sheep; will anyone caught 'Shagging' sheep in the valleys become the next ones on The Kennel Club's hit list?
And what about the 'Dog Wankers'? You know the ones...those who are the backyard experts in extracting Semen for artificial insemination, with kits bought from EBay. The KC may turn a blind eye to the Wankers... if they wear lipstick a frock and play Scooby Doo videos for the dog whilst extracting the semen.

Will the next measure from the Kennel Club be 'Thought Police'? Don't even think this!
In conclusion: Sheep Shaggers and Dog Wankers take heed, The Kennel Club Police may be watching and woe betides you if the KC's 'Attack Dog' Ann Arch is on your case! PERISH THE THOUGHT…


Go To Top Of Page

What Is The Difference Between Young Lauren Bridges Winning The Pastoral Group At Richmond
And For Example A Professional Dog Walker Like Geoff Corish Winning A Group?
The Answer Is Simple, About Five Hundred Pounds! (£500.00)
Well Done Lauren Bridges.

Lauren Bridges who is eight years old became the youngest handler to win a group at Richmond ch show.

She handled Jana Fulierova’s Samoyed Ch/Svk Gr Ch Smiliesam Strike Home (Striker) to success under Mark James, who in his critique said: “Handled to advantage by his young charge. She certainly did a great job.”

Striker now has six CCs and a group 3 and 4.

Go To Top Of Page

“In the US canine press recently a 'big name' commented that the America Kennel Club was undoubtedly the best national canine governing body in the world.
[They also have a sensible policy regarding 'Professional Handlers' too. You cannot judge if you are still - or aspiring to be a Professional Handler. This policy negates any accusations of 'Corruption'.]

Comments to 'Letters' in Terrier World. Anonymity guaranteed.


Mr Luxmoore said; "I have a very open approach to communication. I’ll talk to anybody about anything."
[Will The Chairman Talk To Terrier World?]

Chairman of The Kennel Club Simon Luxmoore gave the traditional ‘state of the nation’ speech at the Welsh Kennel Club dinner on Friday evening 21/08/2015.

He thanked joint secretaries Graham and Anne Hill and the show committee for their invitation to him and his wife Pauline to attend this dinner – ‘while recognising I had little choice but accept!’.

“’You'll receive a welcome in the hillside' has always been a proud boast of the Welsh – a matter to which I can attest from the October day in 1966 when I ran out on to Stradey Park, the home of Llanelli rugby club now known as the Scarlets, to the day I hung my rugby boots up following a game against the mighty 'Pooler' front row in October ’81,” Mr Luxmoore said.

“But if the battering I took during that period wasn't enough, on reflection it was nothing compared to the battering afforded me by a certain joint WKC secretary when I stepped out of line in my role as chairman of the KC Judges Sub-Committee!

“But seriously, Wales has always meant a great deal to me, having lived in Monmouthshire for 22 years, and at the WKC made my first appalling attempt at showing a dog at a ch show in ‘81, awarded my first set of CCs in ‘91 - the same year I proposed a toast at this very dinner at the request of a dear friend and mentor of mine, David Samuel. “This last year many of us said goodbye to Esmee Samuel on a fittingly glorious day, a sad day in many respects but an event of which Esmee herself would have been very proud.”

It was tradition for the Chairman of the General Committee to deliver a 'state of the nation address' at this annual dinner, he said.

“But in some respects I share the view of a BIS judge with whom I was sitting at a previous dinner here, who having been bombarded with a lengthy 'defence of the realm' address commented, ‘This is neither the time nor the place’.

“However, I know Graham and Anne would not let me go lightly, such are their natures. So here I have some initial thoughts – personal thoughts.”

The KC is a governing body, a members’ club and a multi-million pound business which also operates as a charity, Mr Luxmoore continued. The membership – the shareholders – elects a board of directors who on election accept personal accountability and responsibility for the running of the KC.

“Not only that, but in doing so they indirectly or directly, depending on your point of view, accept a collective responsibility for the world of registered pedigree dogs in this UK of ours, a responsibility to the dogs themselves and a responsibility to their owners, and to all who have a stake holding in this activity we all enjoy.”

Any organisation led by volunteers but which has the majority of the business undertaken by a full-time staff and executive, faces challenges in itself, he said. The staff need the volunteers and the volunteers need a staff and executive team which performs.
Over many years, the Kennel Club had evolved from the emphasis of it being a London members’ club to what is an incorporated multi-million pound business, he said; the members’ club aspect was and always would be important, but for the KC’s stakeholders the business itself and how it develops and serves its 'market place' would determine the future of the KC.

“Whoever said or thought at the time of incorporation, 'Oh, it's just a paperwork exercise then it's business as usual’ was or is living in cloud cuckoo land,” He went on; “If ever there was a time and need to interact closely with our stakeholders, at every level, then that time is now.

I reflect on the overall views of contributors to the membership research survey we conducted earlier in the year who commented that they recognised the need for the KC as a governing body, and indeed agreed with many of the things the KC did. However, what some found unacceptable is the way in which the KC actually conducts its business.

“To me this may refer to the arguably arrogant management style that used to, and in some cases still does, pervade London clubs. Perhaps this style is perceived to exist in the way the KC has conducted its business. If this is the perception – and we all know perception is more important than fact – we should be very mindful of what our stakeholders are telling us.”

Mr Luxmoore explained that he works in the aerospace industry and runs the industry's only global-learned body, which has a membership of 22,000 and advises industry, governments and academia. The aerospace industry was made up of 'big beasts', he said – individuals who ran the industry whom he described as visionaries, influencers, achievers and mentors of the next generation.

“It is somewhat similar in our dog world,” he went on. “There are some 'big beasts' – people who are really worth listening to and engaging with, some have a personal affiliation to the KC and others do not.

“They are breeders, exhibitors, judges, organisations, big personalities, winners, trend setters, successful administrators. Irrespective of personalities and any past differences I believe we should all come together with the aim of creating and promoting an environment for healthy pedigree dogs.”

Mr Luxmoore said he had a very open approach to communication.

“I’ll talk to anybody about anything. However, Pauline will tell you I have a 'red' personality, perhaps even dark red, the prime characteristic of which is that I have an aversion to time wasting. So I spend no time at all reading columns written under pseudonyms or the columns associated with the somewhat self-obsessed.

“But I do spend a great deal of time communicating with people who are at, or very much in touch with, the grass roots of our pastime. Be it in aerospace or the world of dogs, my personal experience of what I call the commentators is that at one extreme if you can't do it you write about it, and at the other extreme there are those who are extremely perceptive in their very occasional missives, almost to a point of fault!”

It was not his job to defend the role or performance of the KC, he said; it was for the stakeholders, ‘our customers at large’, to determine the performance of its governing body and for him to try to build the best possible team to lead the KC, proposing and encouraging the board to take the club forward to meet the challenges of the future.

“However, we must recognise that the days of being able to organise and manage any governing body, let alone ours, along autocratic lines are gone. There is a very talented group of volunteers who comprise the General Committee of the KC. In addition there are also very many talented individuals who comprise all the various committees, sub-committees, working parties and of course among the staff. But perhaps, as importantly, I also believe there are others who are not engaged, as yet, who will be the future of our hobby. We should start to engage now!”

The General Committee will be developing strategy – looking to the future of the world of dogs and the role the KC can play, Mr Luxmoore continued.

“Most importantly they will build a new, far closer working relationship with the operational side of the KC which may well require significant investment if it, like modern, high-performing businesses, is going to be able to meet its targets on quality cost and delivery. I believe the executive, staff and the General Committee will welcome that development.”

He described the resolutions made at the annual meeting as ‘somewhat heaven sent’.

“In the past, the proposers would have been seen as irritants and trouble makers – indeed, some may still view them that way! However I take an entirely different view.

“John Symonds’ proposal concerning governance has obligated the General Committee to oversee what is in my opinion a long overdue review. Prior to incorporation, the Finance and General Purposes Committee may well have been all powerful, at least in the view of some, but today the General Committee – the board – is where the decisions are made, and that fact combined with the need for tighter financial control, and a formal audit and compliance function, will almost certainly necessitate proposals to change the current committee structure.

“All of this will of course be overseen by the General Committee themselves who will in turn report back to the membership.”

Mr Luxmoore then turned to Dr Symonds’ AGM proposal regarding communication.

“When taken in the context of the feedback obtained from our research previously referred to this gives us the opportunity to look at improving our style and manner of communication,” he said. “Again it's not what we do necessarily but how we do it!

“Any remaining residue of an autocratic past must quickly disappear if we are to appeal to both our members and our stakeholder community. I was completely taken aback by the size of the positive feedback I received from a simple letter of communication I sent out to members in mid-July. This type of letter should be the norm, not something that receives that level of surprise and delight.”

This letter updated members on progress made on the AGM proposals and the fact that the KC’s bi-annual meeting might be brought back.

Jean Lanning’s AGM proposal concerned crossbreeds.

“I would only proffer this as a thought,” Mr Luxmoore said. “When a governing body which operates under a historic brand identity, which the majority of stakeholders believe they know and understand, subsequently conveys messages or indeed takes actions that are perceived to be confusing, then quite possibly the organisation has got it wrong.

“Businesses are quite entitled to offer different products and services, but they need to be branded and managed separately if they are to operate successfully under the same umbrella organisation.

“So what next? Well, while Steve Croxford undertakes ongoing operational reviews with the aim of understanding where improvements might be beneficial through investment in the broadest sense of the word, I will be chairing the governance review and Mark Cocozza the communication activity,” Mr Luxmoore said.

“Meanwhile the General Committee will be meeting on September 8 and 9 to conduct a strategic review of the KC's objective. A whole day spent on strategic debate – just imagine!”

The majority of General Committee members were in a ‘somewhat challenged position’, He said.

“Few come with absolutely no agenda, be it as a show society secretary, representing a specific activity interest, as a career judge, exhibitor or whatever. The challenge they face as individuals is to put their own agenda to one side in favour of the best interests of the future of dogdom – easy to say, tough to do.

“This is one of the reasons I believe the Dog Show Promotion Working Party has made relatively slow progress. Not only do they have to agree as a group but they have to persuade the Show Executive Committee and the General Committee, which of course includes a number of show secretaries, but if that is not enough they also need to agree a practical strategy for implementation with the operational side of the business.

“While, with the interruption of the ill-informed commentators, we found establishing the FCI mutual recognition agreement for judges difficult, I believe this working group has an even tougher task.

“There are a number of long outstanding issues of general interest which remain to be addressed, be it coat testing, the KC membership model, property investments – which are very much alive but commercially sensitive – and others. “

Nobody would ever be able to neutralise the ‘out-and-out radical’ who opposes the KC's every activity nor the social media bullies' who attack individuals at a distance, in spite of those individual’s good intentions, Mr Luxmoore said.

“But I have said elsewhere, I believe good people make good things happen and I believe the ne'er-do-wells have had their day. If we all pull together we can make real progress.

“In the US canine press recently a 'big beast' commented that the America Kennel Club was undoubtedly the best national canine governing body in the world. Whether that is true or not, wouldn't that be a good thing for the KC to aspire to be, even when measured by such subjective judgment? The KC should be recognised by everyone in the world of dogs as a strong, independent national body with an influential international footprint.” End.

“In the US canine press recently a 'big name' commented that the America Kennel Club was undoubtedly the best national canine governing body in the world.
[They also have a sensible policy regarding 'Professional Handlers' too. You cannot judge if you are still - or aspiring to be a Professional Handler. This policy negates any accusations of 'Corruption'.] Comments to 'Letters' in Terrier World.
Anonymity guaranteed.

Go To Top Of Page

The Kennel Club Is To Extend The Period Between CC Judging Appointments.
Clubs Are Being Asked To Prepare For This.

The minimum period of time between CC appointments to the same sex and breed is to be extended from 12 to 18 months.

The regulation ch ange will come into effect on January 1, 2018 and will relate to all nominations received by the Kennel Club on or after January 1, 2018.

As a result, all breed clubs, particularly those of numerically small breeds, will need to ensure that their judges’ lists are adequate to support the additional length of time between appointments, the KC has said..

All show societies will need to review the wording of their judges’ contracts and update as appropriate, and should note that any nominations they intend to submit to the KC on or after that date must comply with the 18-month time period.

The KC believes the change to the regulation will allow a greater rotation of judges and create increased opportunities for judges to be appointed for their desired breed or breeds.

“In order to ensure that there is a sufficient pool of judges to facilitate this change, breed clubs must, as a matter of priority, review their judges lists and consider how best to educate, promote and train judges to progress through their lists,” said KC secretary Caroline Kisko.

“We would take this opportunity to remind breed clubs of the importance of updating and circulating their judges’ lists. In particular, it would be helpful if clubs could ensure that up-to-date judges’ lists are available on their websites.”

Go To Top Of Page


Let Us Hope That New Chairman Luxmoore Uses The Occam's Razor Principle To Problems And Also Adopts Sensible Ideas From The Showing Fraternity After Two Previous Tenures Of Unfettered Arrogance.

Members are being asked to vote on whether the Kennel Club’s bi-annual meeting should return.

A special meeting has been set for November 10 at which a decision will be made.

It was scrapped in 2008 during Ronnie Irving’s tenure as chairman but, as new chairman Simon Luxmoore said in a letter to the membership this week, members ‘both deserve and require the opportunity to have their say on the way in which the club is run on a more regular basis than at present’.

Although Mr Luxmoore’s letter stated that the bi-annual meeting was to be reintroduced, the KC said this morning that this is not necessarily the case and a vote must be taken first at the SGM.

Other matters will be discussed at the meeting, but what they will be has not yet been revealed.

Mr Luxmoore wrote: “The meeting will begin at 12.30pm, enabling best possible travel costs for members, and will be followed by a ‘high tea’ at the KC’s new premises, offering members the opportunity to visit the new (offices in Clarges Street) and see the facilities on offer.”

He also updated members on matters arising from the AGM. The construction of the KC’s new offices building in Clarges Street is progressing well, he said, and the ‘graduated process of moving’ had started, with artwork and books going off site to storage in anticipation of the final move.

It is anticipated that the offices will open towards the end of October ‘following the necessary commissioning process of mechanical services, kitchen etc and the re-hanging of artwork and library restoration.

“I trust that Members will find the finished article worth the wait,” he added.

The three working parties members asked for at the AGM – which will look at the KC’s communications, crossbreed registrations and governance – had been formed and had met for the first time, elected a chairman and discussed terms of reference and intentions.

Mr Luxmoore will chair the Governance Working Group which has its first formal meeting on August 5. Other members are Steve Croxford, Tony Allock, Dr John Symonds, Paul Eardley and adviser from solicitors Farrer & Co Anne-Marie Piper.

Mark Cocozza is chairing the communications group, with Frank Kane, Tony Allcock and KC secretary Caroline Kisko. Chairman of the registrations working party is Gerald King, with Mike Townsend, Jan Wood and Mrs Kisko.

A further update on matters will be provided to members at the SGM, Mr Luxmoore said, one of them being the KC’s quest for new offices in Aylesbury.

Members voted to scrap the bi-annual meeting in 2008 after agreeing that business discussed there had become ‘of a purely routine nature’.

“Items which have not been routine have been introduced to fill the time available and could easily be dealt with in the annual meeting,” Mr Townsend said at the 2008 AGM, adding that only half the number of members who attend the yearly meeting turning up for the bi-AGM.

“And I understand that (some of them) do so out of a sense of duty, or to have lunch, meet friends, go shopping or take in a show,” he went on.

“All these points are independent of the holding of a KC meeting and can be achieved simply by planning an outing on one or more dates to suit you as an individual or your friends.”

He also cited the cost of holding the meeting, with the hire of premises, the time staff spend attending and preparing for it, and the cost of inviting every member when ‘few actually attend’.

There was also an absence of urgent business, and if something arose of that nature it could be dealt with at an SGM, he said.

The venue of this year’s SGM will be announced later.

Go To Top Of Page


Who Is Kidding Whom? If A Professional Handler Has No Input Other Than To Walk Into The Show Ring With A Dog And Then Wins CC & BOB. Then, Schmoozes Into The Group. Is The Owner Kidding Himself, Kidding The Judge, Or, Adding To The Acrid Stench That Exists Already When A Handler Who Does Nothing Other Than Walk Around The Ring To Win?

A Handler Who Doesn't Kennel A Dog Or Even Touchl It; Then The Owner Brings It To The Show And Does Everything Else Necessary To The Dog Trimming, Grooming Etc, It Is The Handler That Is Winning Not The Dog. Why Else Would You Pay Vast Amounts Of Money To A Handler If This Isn't The Case? A Handlers Fees Can Run Into Many Hundreds Of Pounds...For One Show. We All Know What Is Gong On. However, Exhibitors Are So Intent On Getting On The Judging Ladder They Are Afraid To Rock The Boat. Why? Simply Because There Are Certain Handlers Who Have An Unhealthy Influence At Many Dog Societies And Can Make Or Break Judging Careers.
I Came Across This Many Years Ago After Attending A Freemason Dinner Before The Manchester Dog Show. (Manchester Dog Show Society Is a Freemason Lodge). My Wife And I Were Seated Opposite Carl And Di Johnson. I Was Asked By The Late Carl Johnson What I Thought About An Imported Kerry Blue. At The Time There Were Two Imports And I Had One Of Them From Italy To Handle - The Other Was From The USA - Also Being Handled. In My Opinion The American Dog Was A Nothing Dog Which Also Hadn't Changed Colour. My Answer To Johnson Was That I Had The Better Dog. The Following Day At Eaton Park Where The Show Was Held, I Was Pulled By The Handler Of The Other Kerry Blue. He Said; " I Hear That You've Been Slagging My New Kerry Dog" I Told Him I Was Asked My Opinion - I Hadn't Offered It. He Promptly Said In A Threatening Manner; " I Can Sling A Lot More Shit Than You!" And Walked Away. Obviously The Spineless Chinese Whisperer, Carl Johnson Had Repeated Our Private Conversation. This Particular Handler Proceeded To Undermine Me At Every Opportunity Even To The Extent Of Stating That He Would Not Consider Handling A Dog If I Had (Ever) Trimmed It. What An Odious Maggot.

A Good Dog Can And Should Win No Matter Who Shows It. FIFA Has Nothing On The Dog Showing Scene, It Isn't As Blatant!

Go To Top Of Page

Geoffrey Davies Says Dean Must Go!

Geoffrey Davies -  a senior member of the Kennel Club -  has written an open letter calling on the organisation’s General Committee to appoint a new chairman.

  The KC had to get its house in order, Geoffrey Davies said, and change was needed ‘urgently’ to address concerns expressed by its members.

  The grassroots of dogdom ‘think alike’, he said, and were not in tune with what was coming out of the KC’s head office in London.

  Mr Davies says he already has support for his views from more than 40 other KC members.

  He said he wanted Steve Dean removed at next week’s meeting of the General Committee.

  Mr Davies said that over the past year he had become ‘increasingly concerned’ about the way the KC was being led and directed.

  “First, I must place on record the fact that I am a staunch supporter of the KC, and have supported the KC during its most turbulent times,” he wrote. “Following the KC AGM on Wednesday I feel the time has now come when I must publicly speak out about the unacceptable way in which the club’s membership is being treated, and the manner in which the chairman is leading and directing the club.

  “Is it unreasonable to expect the chairman of any organisation to listen and accept the views and opinions of others that are at variance with his own views? Is it unreasonable to expect any chairman to be unbiased and courteous to those expressing opinions that differ from his own?

  “We do not want a dictator as the head of our KC, but someone who is willing to listen and then lead, and to be polite and courteous to all. The turn of events during the past 12 months illustrate and support my concerns.”

  After receiving a clear mandate from the club’s membership at the 2014 AGM publication of the relaunched Kennel Gazette was still awaited, he went on.

  “The time taken to effect the mandate of the membership has been unacceptable, and is a direct consequence of delaying tactics,” he said. “The responsibility for this delay must rest ultimately with the chairman of the board.

  “While I accept the fact that the chairman is entitled to his opinions on proposals, I find it objectionable that he alone is allowed to express those opinions in the KC’s official publication prior to the membership receiving notification of those proposals. This could be interpreted as a chairman attempting to influence decisions before they have been discussed by the members.”

  “Similarly, the chairman expressing opinions verbally about the unsuitability of certain individuals as potential board directors before a vote… in my opinion disadvantages some of the people standing for election.”

  It was equally concerning, Mr Davies believes, that in the biographical notes circulated with the AGM agenda, the names of the proposers of the new candidates were omitted from the original documents sent to members. it was reported at the time that the KC had apologised for the mistake and sent out the information to every member.

  Mr Davies questioned whether the names had been omitted on purpose and asked on whose authority it was done.

  “The omission resulted in an additional letter being sent to members and incurred the KC in an unnecessary additional cost,” he said.

He then moved on to the Assured Breeder Scheme, claiming it had resulted in a ‘serious division’ between breeders and the KC.

  “A large number of breeders have resigned from the scheme and very little is being done to resolve this. The ultimate responsibility of rectifying this position must rest with the chairman of the KC. The KC really does need to get its house in order, and change is needed urgently to address the concerns expressed by its members. It is very clear that the grassroots of dogdom think alike and are not in tune with much that comes out of Clarges Street.

  “To be a KC director requires an enormous amount of integrity and the will to stand up for dogs. The directors are the decision makers that can lead to change for the better.

  “In the short time that I have shared my views I have received messages of support from 42 KC members. This groundswell of support expressing concern over the chairman’s leadership is quite staggering and confirms my belief that there is deep unrest within the membership. While we must guard against the club becoming de-stabilised, a change of leadership has become imperative, and I would ask the board to consider the appointment of a new chairman when the time comes for one to be elected.”

Go To Top Of Page


The lights are dimmed, the trumpeters sound – Tararrrrr , Tararrrrrr, and out walks the Best In Show Judge bathed in a spotlight,  alongside the Chairman Steve Dean. (He doesn't bring 'Orville' to Crufts)

After four days of judging the finale at Crufts held at the NEC is about to begin. In the commentary box drooling over this is Frank - Kermit - Kane and Clare – Desperate Dan – Balding;  the very one who’s crass remarks humiliated Jockey liam Treadwell when she asked him; "Are you going to get your teeth fixed now?" in her interview with him after he had just won the  2009 Grand National. I also recall butch Balding making a comment about the sloping back of the German Shepherd when she said; it doesn’t look right to me and I know nothing about them…what an absolute tosser!  

Back to  judging best in show.  The crowd are hushed and then the nonsense of Judging the ‘Seven Dogs’ begins. Now you may well ask why I say that it’s a ‘nonsense’.  It’s very simple. You could get anyone to do it after half a days coaching even if they know nothing about dogs. It doesn’t matter which dog is chosen - the two of them Kane and Balding - would be in raptures about the winner. It’s a load of bollocks and they know it! Only if a dog misbehaves should it not be considered for Best In Show, unlike in 2000 when Ellis Hulme awarded BIS to a dog that tried to bite him.

All of the work leading up to Best In Show is done before this happens. The Breed Judges have the most difficult task of all when they select a Best Of Breed. All of the BOBs are then sent to the Group Judges, who’s task is somewhat easier than the breed Judges. Then the seven Group Winners are sent for the final selection from the Judge appointed for Best In Show. And then... the nonsense begins.The lights are dimmed, the trumpeters sound – Tararrrrr , Tararrrrrr, and out walks the Best In Show Judge bathed in a spotlight,  alongside the incumbent Chairman Steve Dean. The walking up and down by the Judge begins
knowing that the cameras are rolling and milking every minute of it – posing, posturing and all of the rest of it. Multiple Mental Orgasms are experienced by all of the KC Hierarchy. For me, it’s gut wrenching embarrassment looking at it. You could train a Chimpanzee to do it.

Now here is some food for thought. Have the Kennel Club got their procedures for judging all wrong? Should first time Judge’s start off by awarding Best In Show? Even at Crufts or any General Ch Show it's only seven dogs to choose from and they are supposedly the very best of their groups. After all, the hard work and knowledge is surely at the breed classes and then to a lesser extent in the Groups.
Don't let anyone convince you of anything else; it's the biggest 'Charade' that you will ever encounter!

Go To Top Of Page

[This Article Was Written A Few Years Ago, It was Valid Then As It Is Today 2023]

An Honour And A Privilege To Judge At Crufts? What An Oxymoron This Is.
The Privilege And Honour Is All The Kennel Club’s!

It never ceases to amaze me why judges at Crufts say in their Critique preamble;
“It was an honour and a privilege to be invited to judge at Crufts”

Hang on a minute and think about this. Does the Kennel Club offer any subsistence to the judges who travel all over the country to gain the necessary experience and class numbers that the Kennel Club requires to award CCs? And, not forgetting the Seminars that are thrown in for good measure. So just who should be ‘Honoured and Privileged' when an invitation is accepted for Crufts’? The Kennel Club of course!

Without the judges who spend hundreds and hundreds of pounds to gain the necessary experience Crufts would not happen. The Kennel Club should go on hands and knees in gratitude when a judge accepts their invitation to officiate at Crufts.

The latest narrowing of the ‘Goal Posts’ for prospective judges has just been announced by the Kennel Club (with ringing endorsements from the Dog Press) it will make it even more difficult for those who want to get on the judging ladder than it is now. All of the usual ‘Merry Go round’ judges will be having mental orgasms. You see they are already on the judging ladder. The more difficult that it is for newcomers, the more appointments they will get. It is in the interests of the ‘Judging Establishment’ for these new criteria to happen.

Look at the judges for any Major Champ Show and you will see all of the same names officiating show after show – just changing breeds. And, Crufts is no different - all expenses paid and put up in the best hotels if need be. Then there are the ‘Holiday’ appointments. One judge recently officiated in the Bahamas and then India, with frequent events in Europe too. This is why they would prefer it to be even more difficult for newcomers. They don’t care as long as they are on the ‘Gravy Train’.

What we should have is an ‘Exhibitors Union’. This isn’t as unrealistic as it seems. If we had enough people with the courage to join we would have clout. The ‘Canine Alliance’ has turned out to be as effective as a chocolate fireguard. What did they achieve? Not very much – a ‘Damp Squib’. Most of those who run it are on the judging merry go round too. They made a lot of noise initially and the Kennel Club let off a little steam from the KC pressure cooker – to appease them - and then basically, fucked them off. The Canine Alliance achieved very little if anything.

Just imagine if we had an ‘Exhibitors Union’. We could put pressure on the KC in the most delicious of ways. Better conditions for Exhibitors at Crufts; free car parking; lower fees etc, or we withdraw our members who are officiating at the show – no judges, no show, no television revenue for the KC.

The Kennel Club are a multi million pounds private members club with the big decisions that matter taken in secret at The KC Freemason lodge meetings and then sold to the ordinary members.
So remember if you have judged at Crufts, the ‘Honour And Privilege’ is the Kennel Club’s when you accepted the appointment. Anything other than this is Bollocks!

Go To Top Of Page

Judges Who Fail To Send A Critique Are Guilty Of Breaking KC Regulations.

The Kennel Club is reminding judges who officiate at championship and breed club open shows that they must produce a written critique for the first two placings in each class.

These must be sent to at least one of the weekly dog newspapers, as Kennel Club club regulations dictate.

Over a 12-month period the Kennel Club has had to write to more than 170 judges who have not produced critiques, and said it was concerned with the increasing amount of communication received from breed clubs, councils and individuals about it.

KC regulation F(1)22d states that ‘All judges at ch shows and open breed club shows must produce a written critique for the first two placings in each class, and will dispatch these to at least one of the weekly UK canine journals’.

“The vast majority of judges are submitting critiques properly in accordance with the regulations, but unfortunately there are a small number that are not,” said KC secretary Caroline Kisko. “We have had to write to 174 judges over missing critiques last year and 17 of these still failed to produce one, which resulted in a number of fines being issued.

“Not submitting critiques properly can also lead to no further nominations to award CCs being considered by the KC General Committee until the matter is resolved, so it is in the best interests of judges to ensure they follow the regulations, which of course most of them do.

Different Media

“We have been made aware of instances of judges submitting critiques to other outlets, such as Facebook pages, assuming that this complies with KC regulations, so we would encourage all judges to familiarise themselves with the correct procedure as detailed in our show regulations.”

Judges are reminded that producing a critique is an important part of the judging process, allowing the judge to outline the relative virtues and weaknesses of the dogs and to explain their placings.

The KC recommends that judges retain a copy of their critiques for a period of a year or until they see their report published.

To report a missing critique, contact the breed shows team at the KC at 1-5 Clarges Street, London W1J 8AB,
or email

Go To Top Of Page

Is It Acceptable To Award BIS To A Dog That Refuses To Be Examined?

I read an article in the dog press by Simon Parsons, it was about 'Judging on the day'.
(I have copied the parts that I consider, important and relevant)

Mr Parsons said this; "I'm sure that appearing in Crufts’ main ring cannot be the easiest experience for either handlers or dogs... it always amazes me that each year the vast majority of the dogs cope admirably."

He goes on to say; "  Dog are dogs, though, and occasionally you see one or two who aren’t at their best when the time comes for the judge to go over them. Presumably they were quite okay during the breed judging, and indeed at previous and future shows, but on this occasion it just gets all too much and the dog clearly is not keen on being handled by the judge."

He went on further; "What does surprise me, though, is that sometimes the judge continues to try to go over the dog, when it is quite obvious the dog isn’t happy. Surely this just risks making a difficult situation far worse.
Wouldn’t the sensible situation be simply to ask the dog to move straight away, and not bother to try to touch it further? After all, you are hardly likely to short-list or place it, so what does it matter? Minimising any possible damage or embarrassment is surely the best option."

The most important part of his article for me is this;
"After all, you are hardly likely to short-list or place it, [a dog that refuses to be examined] so what does it matter?"

When I first read this article what immediately sprang to mind was Best In Show at Crufts 2000.
The Best In Show Winner was the Kerry Blue Terrier Ch Torum's Scarfe Michael. I recall vividly when the Judge Ellis Hulme went to examine the dog it shied away and then took a snap at him. It has never ever been known for a dog that behaves in this manner ( No matter how good the dog or its past wins) to be considered further. It was and still is unprecedented.
A badly behaved dog that snapped at the Judge and cowered away was awarded Best In Show.

If Simon Parsons is to be believed when he says Wouldn’t the sensible situation be simply to ask the dog to move straight away, and not bother to try to touch it further? He went on;
"After all, you are hardly likely to short-list or place it, so what does it matter?"
Why then did this dog go on to be awarded Best In Show at Crufts 2000? To me the answer is in the images.

Ch Torums Scarfe Michael Crufts BIS 2000
1 The Judge tries to examine the teeth

Ch Torums Scarfe Michael Crufts BIS 2000
3 The dog makes a snap at the Judge He pulls his hands away

Ch Torums Scarfe Michael Crufts BIS 2000
2 The dog is clearly unhappy pulling away

Ch Torums Scarfe Michael Crufts BIS 2000
4 The dog is growling mouth partially open he means it

Incidentally, the Professional Handler of the Best In Show Winning Kerry Blue at Crufts 2000, was Michael Coad.
The dog's usual Handler - Geoff Corish - (Mr Coad's partner), was Judging West Highland Whites at the show. Do all of the Judges dine together and socialise in the restaurants and hospitality lounges at the NEC when Crufts takes place? Yes they do.

I have long campaigned against Professional Handlers being allowed to judge, no secret in this. It is unethical and can lead to accusations of Venality.

Another Occasion where the so called experts can see that a dog is lame and say nothing.
This time it was at the breed judging for Staffordshire Bulls at Crufts 2013.

Frank Kane ('Expert All rounder and BIS Judge at Crufts 2012') was at the Staffordshire Bull Terrier ring with aTelevision Crew commenting on the breed.

Look at the two videos below. You can see clearly that the bitch BOB winner is lame. The Male dog that is sound on the move loses out to the bitch. There is very little video footage of the bitch moving in the breed, it has been edited out.

What did 'Expert' Kane say about a lame BOB winner? Absolutely nothing.
However, there was much more footage of the lame bitch in the Terrier Group and Frank Kane the BIS Judge at Crufts 2012 finally commented about it; but, only after his co presenter mentioned it otherwise presumably he would have said nothing again.

Could it be; " You can fool some of the people all of the time and it's those who you need to concentrate on. " (George W Bush).

One Irate spectator was so incensed after the breed judging said this: Click Here ( It will take a couple of seconds to load.)

Staffordshire Bull BOB Crufts 2013
Crufts 2013 Terrier Group Click on the YouTube Logo
For time slider - mark and play from 32.22

Go To Top Of Page

Change In Policy For Judges Awarding Challenge Certificates
In Second And Third Breeds

26 March 2015 13:00

The Kennel Club General Committee has announced a change in policy for judges who are approved to award CCs in one breed and go on to award them in a second and third breed.

In addition to the existing requirement for judges to have a minimum of 5 years' judging experience of any subsequent breed they intend to judge, it will also become mandatory to attend and pass at least one breed specific seminar for each of the second and third breeds for which they are nominated for approval to award Challenge Certificates. This will apply to all questionnaires received on or after 1st January 2016.

The updated policy for awarding CCs to second and third breeds will require a judge to:

  • Have completed a minimum of 5 years' judging in the breed between their first judging appointment and the date of their proposed appointment to award CCs
  • Have awarded CCs to at least one other breed
  • Have judged the required number of dogs for this breed
  • Have attended at least one breed specific seminar and passed an examination and/or assessment (aside from in exceptional circumstances) for each of the breeds, run by a breed club in accordance with the relevant Kennel Club Code of Best Practice.

The General Committee is aware that, within some breeds, breed club assessments and/or exams are not always readily available. Breed clubs are urged to ensure that these events are open to all interested parties and held on a regular basis.

Caroline Kisko, Kennel Club Secretary, said: "The Kennel Club has listened to the views and comments of those breed clubs and breed councils that have, when completing breed club opinion forms, highlighted the importance of breed specific seminars in ensuring that all show judges have a clear understanding and sufficient knowledge of the breed.

"The Kennel Club believes that this change in policy will maintain the highest possible standards of knowledge for all judges, and is in line with one of the KC's key strategic objectives, to encourage the development of all those concerned with dogs through education and training."

Go To Top Of Page

Bullshit By The Kennel Club And An Utterly Useless Vulnerable Breeds List

On February 8 2015 the Kennel Club put out this statement:

"One of the Queen's favourite breeds of dog, the Pembroke Welsh Corgi, is at risk of disappearing from our streets and parks after being listed as a vulnerable dog breed by the Kennel Club for the first time in the breed's history. The low point means that the breed is now officially on the Kennel Club Vulnerable Native Breeds list, which includes those native dog breeds with 300 or fewer puppy registrations annually, meaning they fall below the minimum number needed to ensure that a breed's population is sustained properly.

Caroline Kisko, Kennel Club Secretary, said: "The Pembroke Welsh Corgi is one of the country's most iconic dog breeds and so it is worrying to see the breed dip to a historic low and become one of our vulnerable breeds for the first time ever. "We compile a list of Vulnerable Native Breeds in order to raise awareness of some of our oldest, and historically best loved breeds of dog, that are struggling to compete with newer breeds that are more fashionable.

[ Does the Kennel Club think that they alone are the only Club that registers this breed? The useless Vulnerable Breeds List doesn't do any thing for the breeds that are on it. The Kennel Club regurgitate Bullshit like this whenever Crufts is due or Discover Dogs is coming up. Why do I say that the Vulnerable Breeds List is useless? Simple. How can they class a breed as 'Vulnerable' when they allow breeders in these breeds to endorse their litters; 'Progeny Not Eligible For Registration'.

Surely, someone with even a tiny bit of common sense at the Kennel Club should realise that if they put a breed onto their list of 'Vulnerable Breeds' they should immediately ban 'Endorsements' If not it is a complete contradiction!

I e-mailed the Kennel Club's Chairman [Professor Steve Dean] and all of his press office members about this practice of Endorsing breeds that they class as 'Vulnerable'. What did they say about it? I never had a single reply or acknowledgment about my concerns. "Our Kennel Club; and Your Kennel Club" are words Deano likes to use. What a load of BOLLOCKS!


Professor Sampson said this in an article about 'Vulnerable Breeds':
"A concerted effort by breeders to breed more dogs is required to reverse the trends of the last few years. This doesn’t mean producing greater numbers of puppies from the same old dams and sires, it means increasing the number of dogs and bitches within the breed who become parents in their own right. Existing experienced breeders should try to persuade and encourage new owners who buy puppies from them to have at least one litter from the puppy. In this way breed numbers will increase and so will the parental base from which future generations are produced. This will go some way to stemming the current loss of genetic variability."

Doesn't the Kennel Club realise that Professor Sampson actually worked for them; moreover, did they [the arrogant Hierarchy] ever listen to him?

Ronnie Irving (former KC Chairman) in reply to Jemima Harrison [Pedigree Dogs Exposed Program] when asked about the implications of 'Inbreeding' said this; " I'm not having a bunch of Scientists tell me how to breed dogs...[sic] " ' says it all really.

Go To Top Of Page


Go To Top Of Page

 Soviet Finland – the Aftermath of the Helsinki World Dog Show

The Finnish Kennel Club arranged the World Dog Show in Helsinki, Finland a couple of months ago. It was so proud because the operation functioned quite nicely.  At the same time it was frustrated because cooperation between breeders and owners got out of control, according to a board member.  One might ask, what control, whose control.

Obviously, when dogs had already been brought and costs born, the opportunity was used for mating whenever possible.  We all know that travelling with a dog is expensive, shipping sperm is expensive and a bit vulnerable procedure and, thus avoiding that cost should just make common sense. To some of us preferring natural mating over insemination is an issue.

Well, Finnish Kennel Club has now after the World Dog Show chosen to apply meticulously and selectively its complicated rules which lead into a situation where a non- Finnish terrier is fantastic breeding material all the way to the borders of Finland, its frozen sperm would continue to be so, but in Finland the same terrier is disqualified and thus its pups together with a Finnish dame will be registered as not suitable for breeding. The moment the dog is out of Finland, it becomes fantastic again. How does this logic contribute to the health and well –being of terriers.  Or in other words a boat trip starts from Stockholm to Helsinki towards east. The Sire and the Dame are introduced in a cabin. They need a bit time and the boat crosses the national border. The pups are not breeding quality anymore. Had they been a little bit more into it, we would have gotten wonderful breeding material. The same dogs, the same genes. Please, someone, explain to me. I am only an attorney.

Soviet Finland is a nick name given to Finland in the 1970’s and the reference was to a careful ear of the procedures of the Soviet Union and its decision making cultures. They were understood to include nomenclature, complicated rules which require special exceptions which in turn allow favoritism.

Those of you who were in too close contact with Finnish breeders, think carefully. Did IT really happen in Finland or is there same haze.

For more information contact: Tina Taivaloja, Helsinki, Finland

Go To Top Of Page

Changes to the Kennel Club's dog and bone number

21 October 2014 00:00

The Kennel Club and Petlog's phone numbers have changed in order to ensure best value for money for customers.

The phone number changes, which are effective from today (20th October), will see the Kennel Club switch to geographical numbers from the existing non-geographical numbers starting with 0844 or 0870.

The change will mean that all customers will only be charged the standard rate for calls, regardless of whether they call from a landline or a mobile. This is different to the current non-geographical numbers, which are charged at a standard rate by the Kennel Club, but which may be subject to additional charges from mobile network providers.

The old numbers will remain temporarily in use but customers calling these will hear a recorded message advising that additional charges, beyond the standard rate, may apply and will be given the option to redial using the new numbers.

The new Kennel Club numbers are:




Kennel Club Main Number

0844 463 3980

01296 318540

Petlog Main Number

0844 463 3999

01296 336579

Petlog Lost & Found (Reunification

0870 606 6751

01296 737600?

.Go To Top Of Page

Terrier Club of Devon and Cornwall Show

Hi Tony, could you please do me a "big favour" and advertise on your Terrierworld website our forthcoming Terrier Club of Devon and Cornwall Show. We are now one of the very few all terrier clubs that are still managing to hold two quite successful shows a year and our next show which is being held on 19th October 2014 happens to be our "Diamond Jubilee" (60 years) show. We have a lovely lot of specials and prize money donated for that show which is being held at Culm Valley Sports Centre, Cullompton, Devon. The judges are as follows:-

Staffordshire Bull Terriers (6 classes) John Onufryk (Josonu) sponsored.
Border Terriers (6 classes) Mrs Mary Small (Tilomoray) sponsored by the Southern Border Terrier Club
Westies (6 classes) Miss Mich Dale (Lynnsto)
22 Terrier Breed classes, Mrs Jennie Griffiths (Karamynd)
21 Terrier Breed classes, 11 Variety classes and Best in Show etc Mrs Sue Seabridge (Sujoncla)

Schedules can be downloaded from Arena Print. Unfortunately our Website author who was Mrs Jan Shuttleworth has left this part of the world and now lives in Scotland, so our website is not now being updated.

Trusting you can do this for me.

Jean Rundle

Hon Secretary

.Go To Top Of Page

The Owner of the only Clumber Spaniel at Blackpool Ch show refused to accept the Best Of Breed award because she did not want him to undergo the high-profile breed veterinary check.

The Only Way To Get The Kennel Club To Have A Proper Discussion About This Practice Is If All Best Of Breed Winners In These High Profile Breeds Refuse To Accept The BOB Award At CRUFTS. Only Then When They Have Breeds Missing From The Groups Will The KC Be Dragged To The Table For Intelligent Debate. No Amount Of Wet Talking Will Make The KC Do Anything Unless Their Show Is Targeted. Why Is This? Because The KC Is Not A Club For Exhibitors, That Is A Smokescreen. The Real Kennel Club Is A Freemason Lodge And All Of The Important Decisions Are Taken In Secret.

In 1961 Pesident John F Kennedy Said This:

"The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know."


.Go To Top Of Page

Kennel Club Reminder On Judges’ Critiques

[ Terrier World has been naming and shaming Judges who fail to have a written Critique published as is required by
The Kennel Club. We have been naming and shaming them since 2010. Has the Kennel Club finally read the 'No Critiques'
page on Terrier World and extracted their fingers out of their constipated arseholes? ]
(Read No Critiques)

The Kennel Club would like to remind judges at Championship and Open breed club shows that a written critique for the first two placings in each class must be submitted to at least one of the weekly United Kingdom canine journals.

The Kennel Club has been made aware of instances of judges submitting critiques to other outlets, including Facebook pages, assuming this complies with Kennel Club Regulations, and would like to remind all judges of the correct procedure as stated in Kennel Club show regulations, which is as follows:

Regulation F(1)22d

'All judges at Championship Shows and Open Breed Club Shows must produce a written critique for the first two placings in each class, and will dispatch these to at least one of the weekly United Kingdom Canine journals.'

The Kennel Club has published a set of FAQs which cover the most common questions addressed to the Kennel Club by both exhibitors and judges in regard to show regulations, which can be viewed at and respectively.

Caroline Kisko, Kennel Club Secretary, said: "Whilst the vast majority of judges are following the correct procedure, there have been instances of critiques being submitted to various places online, including Facebook pages and club websites, rather than to either one of the weekly dog papers which should be the case.

"Judges are welcome to add their critiques to social media and other outlets but must also remember to send them, preferably first, to either Our Dogs and/or Dog World as required by Kennel Club regulations."

The Kennel Club's regulations can be found at

.Go To Top Of Page

AKC Not Doing Enough To Avoid Exaggeration Says Ronnie Irving

The former Chairman of the Kennel Club Ronnie Irving who was arguably shoved out of his tenure as Chairman after bringing the KC to its knees and costing it hundreds of thousand of pounds in lost Sponsorship and all the rest of it, has criticised the American Kennel Club (AKC), accusing it of complacency. He is also the main protagonist who helped and encouraged the professional handler Geoff Corish with his 'Meteoric' rise up the judging ladder. The American Kennel Kennel Club do not allow Professional Handlers to Judge or anyone living in the same house as them to judge. An award for the thickest 'Brass Neck' in the History Of The Kennel Club must surely go to Ronnie Irving.

Writing in the American magazine Dog News he claimed the AKC had done ‘virtually nothing’ to urge its judges not to reward exaggerations and make health and welfare the most important criteria.

His remarks follow a TV programme on pedigree dogs and breeding ethics which criticised the AKC and the fancy, stating that looks were considered more important than health and welfare, and that shows concentrated on form, not function. Many breed Standards, the HBO film implied, caused health problems.

Afterwards the AKC made known its annoyance that parts of the interview had been omitted, and summoned support from those involved in the hobby, saying it wanted to take a proactive approach, promote good breeders, eliminate bad ones and defend breed Standards.

They also called on people to stand up for its work mission and dogs.

Some months ago Mr Irving used his column in Dog News and claimed that the AKC was not doing enough to persuade the world that dog shows were ‘a definitive force for good’ and that under AKC guidance judges should pay particular attention to canine health. On that occasion he said that judges needed to be instructed that they had a duty to penalise features and exaggerations which could be considered detrimental to the soundness, health or wellbeing of the dog.

He warned that if the AKC did not act it would lead itself vulnerable to criticism. He wrote this month that his prediction had come true.

"I had absolutely no feeling of satisfaction when I saw that my prediction had recently turned out to be only too true with the programme criticising the club for allegedly allowing detrimental breeding practices and for refusing to alter Standards or ‘create an environment where show judges are told to promote health as strongly as other features’,” he wrote.

The AKC’s response and fighting stance after the programme was commendable, he said, but it was preaching to the converted, and he asked whether it would pass muster with the pet-owning public.

The AKC’s response was in ‘sharp contrast’ to that of the Kennel Club’s after Pedigree Dogs Exposed, he wrote: "And I have to admit that a large number of the purebred dog community here in the UK think that the KC went too far in giving concessions to those who criticised the world of dog shows. Just look at the initial reaction to the vet checks when they were introduced at Crufts in 2012. These have now become for most, though not all exhibitors in the UK, just a normal part of what happens at dog shows throughout the year.”

The AKC’s reaction to the programme was ‘completely in keeping’ with its chief executive Dennis Sprung’s reaction to the vet checks, Mr Irving went on. Mr Sprung stated strongly that he would never allow ‘this wrongful practice’ to take place in America.

It was all very well for the AKC to argue that its breed Standards do not belong to it, that they belong to the breeds, Mr Irving went on.

"It is even arguable, though I think it stretching credibility to the limit, to say that if everyone sticks to breeding dogs that fit the breed Standard, then no dogs will suffer and all of them will be in perfect health. But that is no excuse, in my opinion, for the AKC to be complacent. It is no excuse for the fact that the AKC does virtually nothing on any of its websites or publications to exhort judges not to reward exaggerations and instead to give paramount regard to dogs’ health and welfare.”

Surely it is possible for the AKC to include in its guidelines for writing breed Standards’ that clubs should avoid using clauses which might encourage exaggerations which could be detrimental to health or soundness, he said.

"Would it not help – or at least be good for the reputation of the AKC – if it made some reference to preserving and even improving canine health and to avoiding breed exaggeration when it gives instructions to its judges,” he asked.

"If the AKC wants to make it easier for its representatives to counter future criticism in negative TV shows it should surely make a few concessions even if only to do some of the minor things suggested above.

"It surely ought to lead the way in making it clear at every opportunity in its documentation and on its website that it believes that health has to be important to breeders and judges and that detrimental exaggerations of any kind have to be penalised. If it does not do so, how can it really argue with justification that it is leading and is doing everything in its power to make sure that show dogs are indeed ‘happy healthy dogs’?”

.Go To Top Of Page

The Kennel Club AGM took place at the Curzon Cinema in Mayfair on Wednesday of last week.

A total of 155 KC Members attended in person and approximately a further 300 took part by submitting proxy votes on the issues which were circulated before the AGM. The main decisions reached and announcements made were as follows:

Registration fees are to be increased from £15 to £16 (we understand this is to be effective from 1 January 2015)
Registration fees for Assured Breeders are to be reduced from £15 to £14

The printed version of the Kennel Gazette, which was discontinued on cost grounds from 1 January this year is to be brought back. The KC General Committee is to discuss the future direction of the revived publication at its next meeting. This proposal had been opposed by the KC General Committee

Proposals to streamline the method of approving people for membership of the KC, and to reduce the current joining fee were not agreed. These proposals had been opposed by the KC General Committee

The Kennel Club's new building further along Clarges Street is to be ready for occupation by August next year. Costs of the development are in line with budget

All eight KC General Committee Members up for re-election were returned to office as follows: Ann Bliss, Steve Croxford, Paul Harding, Anne Macdonald, Annette Oliver, Meg Purnell-Carpenter, Pat Sutton and Keith Young

The KC currently has 1,324 paying members of whom 69 are based overseas and it has 69 Honorary or Honorary life members
Two new Honorary Life Members were elected under the rule that such a facility is granted after 40 years of paid membership. These were Julia Iles-Hebbert and Pat Rhodes

Coat testing is to be brought back in a revised format which will ensure that it is carried out fairly and effectively
The Dog Show Promotion Working Party has conducted surveys and is developing ideas aimed at widening and reinvigorating dog shows

Work with the FCI to agree the terms of a proposed mutual recognition of judges continues and the General Committee has agreed to the principle of mutual recognition of systems for training judges. The working group is to agree criteria for a sustainable working agreement with the FCI

The KC is working with Defra and its own IT team to ensure that after compulsory microchipping in 2016 pedigree dog breeders will be able to register their puppies and then register their chip identification by a single registration process on both the breed register and Petlog

Every ABS breeder's premises must be visited and assessed and the additional resources to do this are now in place
The fact that Eukanuba is up for sale will not affect the staging of Crufts 2015 in any way.

Question on the ABS

It was asked whether it might be sensible for ABS Members who were also Licensed by Local Authorities to be automatically approved as ABS Members without further KC Inspection. The Chairman replied that the KC would prefer this to be the other way around. Namely that Local Authorities should use the services of the ABS Scheme to inspect for the purposes of their licensing system and thus, for those ABS Members who wanted it, to be licensed automatically.

Asked what was the current situation on the £1.5 million interest free loan made to the Animal Health Trust two years ago, the response was that its repayment was still due early in 2015 and that it was still in the front of everyone's minds as to how this would be repaid.
hose within the KC responsible for organising Discover Dogs were congratulated on the event making a small surplus, it being extremely difficult to organising events of this kind without incurring large losses.

.Go To Top Of Page

The Kennel Club Is Unequivocal In Its View

In a statement a KC Representative said; ‘We Are Genuinely Shocked’ by a TV programme about a contest offering dog cloning as its prize.

The club said cloning jeopardised dog welfare and that the ethics involved were questionable.

The £60,000 Puppy: Cloning Man’s Best Friend, which was broadcast on Channel 4 this week, revealed that the ‘prize’ had been won by Rebecca Smith whose 12-year-old Dachshund Winnie had been cloned to produce ‘mini-Winnie’.

The competition was staged by South Korean company Sooam Biotech Research Foundation to publicise its cloning techniques – which cost its customers £60,000. The company said the high cost of the cloning procedure is so the money can go towards the multi-millions spent on developing the technology.

These views are shared by the British Veterinary Association (BVA), which said that cloning should not be ‘commercialised’ and Dogs Trust which thought the practice unnecessary.

The KC said the competition trivialised cloning.

"We are genuinely shocked at the concept of the competition and the trivialisation of this issue, as we believe most caring dog owners will be,” said secretary Caroline Kisko. "This is an issue of particular concern to us. We are strongly against the principle of cloning as it jeopardises dog welfare and runs contrary to our objective to promote in every way the general improvement of dogs.

"People may turn to cloning when faced with the loss of a beloved pet and the need to replicate the emotional bond they have with their dog, but unfortunately this comes at a price and the price is the welfare implications involved.”

Cloning involves invasive procedures which include surgically implanting the embryo into the bitch used to carry the clone, Mrs Kisko said.

"Because of the poor success rates this procedure may be repeated multiple times, in many different bitches, in order to produce a successful outcome,” she said. "Furthermore, the dog carrying the embryos will have to suffer the effects of unsuccessful pregnancies such as losing embryos and newborns.

"It’s important to remember that cloning can only replicate genetic material and that cloned animals will most likely develop different personalities and be a very different dog to the one cloned. In addition to this there is a high probability of abnormality in the puppy if things go wrong.

"The idea that the emotional bond with a dog who has died is being put above the welfare of the dog or dogs involved in producing the cloned pet is appalling. The ethics involved in this are undoubtedly questionable and we would urge people to take a stand against the practice.”

Dogs Trust said the cloning of dogs was unnecessary and ‘most certainly should not be offered as a prize in a competition’.

"We accept that owners considering cloning are often committed dog lovers, but we cannot condone such expensive processes to produce just one dog when major animal welfare charities are heavily committed to structured and expensive neutering programmes to prevent many thousands of healthy stray or abandoned dogs being killed each year,” a spokesman said.

"We are also concerned that the owner of a cloned dog may have unrealistic expectations. The cloned dog is unlikely to be an accurate mirror image of the donor in temperament and behaviour which may well lead to disappointment and a risk of abuse to or abandonment of the dog.”

BVA president Robin Hargreaves said it was difficult to see how the benefits of cloning outweighed the risks.

"We believe that cloning should not be commercialised in the UK,” he said. "There may be many motivations for people wishing to clone their pets but it is important that people are aware that cloned animals will not have the same personalities and behaviour as the original animal.

"The process of cloning involves a healthy surrogate animal which is not in a position to give consent, undergoing procedures – for instance implantation and caesarean section – which are not for the animal’s own benefit and which may have health and welfare implications. In that context it is difficult to see how the benefits could outweigh the potential risks.”

Prof Steve Dean [Kennel Club Chairman] likens the practice to linebreeding which, he says, employs ‘a diluted form’.

"Without this relatively coarse attempt to produce clones we would not have the breeds or types of dog we have today,” he writes. "Of course, our attempts are nothing like as precise as what has been achieved in the laboratory…

"Very many people over time have attempted to repeat a mating to effectively produce a clone of a much loved, successful or attractive dog with perceived advantages. OK this is not an exact science but the objective is much the same, albeit that outcome is often unsuccessful.”

Even if you repeat a mating the progeny are rarely identical or highly similar to previous results, Prof Dean went on. And with cloning the donor cell contains maternal ribose nucleic acid (RNA) which differs from that of the dog to be cloned. And some inherited diseases are embedded in the RNA.

"In addition, environmental factors which influenced the growth and development of the original dog will differ with the clone, so learned behaviour, growth and development will be different,” he said. "In short it is likely that, in concert with the legions of people who have sought to reproduce a much loved companion by selective breeding, the owner of this cloned dog is likely to be disappointed in the result. Her dog will look very similar without doubt but there will almost certainly be subtle differences – and perhaps some not so subtle – that will irk or disappoint.”

.Go To Top Of Page

Will this be another farce? Breeders in the UK are 'Circumventing' the rules all of the time! Working dogs my arse!

Docking and the removal of Dew claws has been outlawed in the Republic of Ireland with an exemption for working dogs.
Will this be another farce? Breeders in the UK are 'Circumventing' the rules all of the time! Working dogs my arse!

Breeders in the UK are still having their litters docked under the pretence of the 'Working Dogs' exemption. And, Vets are aiding and abetting this practice, presumably the more whelps they dock the bigger the fee. Why do I say this? The answer is a simple one. Why is it - even if you do work a dog - do these breeders have to have all of the litter docked? Then of course the one that they have had docked (Because the litter are all docked) just so happens to turn out the best one for showing too.

Crufts too was a sham regarding 'Docked Dogs'. There was dozens of docked dogs in attendance there; surely the 'Knowledgeable' Incumbent Chairman and his predecessor at the Border Terrier ring saw them too? Further, will the KC drop the entrance fee for Crufts and thus allow 'Legally Docked' dogs to enter? And the answer is never...they will in no way give up that revenue. Should it ever happen though, the real big loser will the 'Falkirk Fat Man' and the end of his 'Docked And Denied' Supplement...Loadsa Money...

It has become an offence [Now In the Republic Of Ireland] for ‘any lay person to perform any procedure on a dog for cosmetic reasons, with no exception’. It is also an offence to show any dog who has had ‘a cosmetic procedure, or any other illegal procedure performed upon them since March 6. Docked dogs or those who have had their dew claws removed before that date can be shown.
Vets can no longer perform these procedures ‘except in very limited circumstances’ such as therapeutic reasons – for instance, to treat existing illness or injury when there is no other option. However, vets can dock dogs ‘of certain breeds’ if it is to be used for working and meets ‘other criteria’ such as written proof from a gamekeeper or shoot organiser that the dog will be used for working or pest control, or the owner has a firearms certificate. The dog must be identifiable by its microchip.

This will bring it in line with Northern Ireland, Great Britain and most of Europe.

.Go To Top Of Page

Breed Judges For Crufts 2015 Have Been Announced By The Kennel Club.
Two Professional Handlers Who Live Together (Partners) Are Judging Three Breeds From Two Different Groups. Study The Names Of The Judges For All Four Days And You Will Recognise Them As Judging There Year After Year; Most Of Them Put Up In Hotels In The NEC Complex At Our Expense.

Afghan Hounds (D) Espen Engh (Norway); Afghan Hound (B) Susan Rhodes; Basenji Dr Ron James; Basset Fauve de Bretagme Rod Price; Basset Griffon Vendeen (Grand) Jan Pain; Basset Griffon Vendeen (Petit) Renaud Buche (France); Basset Hound Malcolm Ellrich; Beagle Christine Lewis; Bloodhound Sue Emrys-Jones; Borzoi Joy Mahoney; L/h Dachshund Marianne Nixon; Min L/h Dachshund Jeff Horswell; S/h Dachshund Jane Naylor; Min S/h Dachshund Andrea Callow; W/h Dachshund Val Foss; Min W/h Dachshund, Helen Caple; Deerhound Per Iversen (Norway); Finnish Spitz Zena Thorn-Andrews; Foxhound Dr Ron James; Greyhound Jenny Dove; Hamiltonstovare Jenny Dove; Ibizan Hound Paul Singleton; Irish Wolfhound Goran Bodegard (Sweden); Norwegian Elkhound Michael Quinney; Otterhound Linda Worthy; Pharaoh Hound Jenny Startup; Portuguese Podengo (Warren Hound) Zena Thorn-Andrews; Rhodesian Ridgeback Gill Lawless; Saluki Keith Thornton; Sloughi Pam Catchpole; Whippet (D) Molly Head; Whippet (B) Bitte Ahrens (Italy).

Bracco Italiano (TBA); Brittany Tricia Grime; English Setter Linda Harris; German Shorthaired Pointer Jenny Jennings; German Longhaired Pointer Di Hammond; German Wirehaired Pointer Norma Ellis; Gordon Setters Patsy Hollings; Hungarian Vizsla Stephen Hollings; Hungarian Wirehaired Vizsla Doreen Smillie; Irish Red and White Setter Julia Iles-Hebbert; Irish Setter (D) Gillian Barker-Bell; Irish Setter (B) Sandra Chorley-Newton; Italian Spinone Dr Ron James; Large Munsterlander Val Foss; Pointer Mick Howes; Chesapeake Bay Retrievers Margaret Woods; Curly Coated Retriever Daphne Bailey; Flat Coated Retriever (D) Jenny Donnelly; Flat Coated Retriever (B) Sandra Stevenson; Golden Retriever (D) Sandra Birkin-Green; Golden Retriever (B) Paula Edwards; Labrador (D) Linda Sutcliffe; Labrador (B) Marily Prior; Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever Babs Harding; American Cocker Spaniel Marta Graham; Clumber Spaniel Gina Bowers; Cocker Spaniel (D) Philip Young; Cocker Spaniel (B) Mike Masters; English Springer Spaniel Frank Kane; Field Spaniel Mike Herwin; Irish Water Spaniel Zena Thorn-Andrews; Sussex Spaniel Sarah Sevastopulo; Spanish Water Dog Zena Thorn-Andrews; Welsh Springer Spaniel Hazel Leary; Weimaraner Pam Blay.

Airedale Don Munro; Australian Lesley Crawley; Bedlington Yvonne Greenland; Border Elspeth Jackson; Bull Maureen Hughes; Miniature Bull Sherril Goodwin; Cairn Alan Felters; Cesky Bill Browne-Cole; Dandie Dinmont Ann Harpwood; Smooth Fox Lynn Snow; Wire Fox Lynn Snow; Glen of Imaal Jane Withers; Irish Ann Bradley; Kerry Blue Shaun Watson; Lakeland Nicky Patterson; Manchester Mick Oxley; Norfolk Renee Sporre-Willes (Sweden); Norwich Dorothy Dorkins; Parson Russell Alan Small; [Scottish Geoff Corish - Professional Handler] ; Sealyham Ken Bartlett; Skye Kirsi Sainio (Finland); Soft Coated Wheaten Bob Ross; Stafford (D) Audrey Hubery; Stafford (B) Jim Devine; Welsh Norina Evans; West Highland White Dan Ericsson (Sweden).

Akita Lorraine Webb; Boston Terrier Albert Wight; Bulldog Bill Roberts; Canaan Dog Chris Quantrill; Chow Chow Roy Stafford; Dalmatian Dr John Stevenson; Eurasier (TBA); French Bulldog Graham Godfrey; German Spitz (Mittel) Dr Ron James; German Spitz (Klein) Molly Hunter; Japanese Akita Inu Nicola Duffield; Shiba Inu Helen Burke; Japanese Spitz Margaret Craig-Woodward; Keeshond David Matthews; Kooikerhondje Sheila Rees; Lhasa Apso June Smith; Miniature Schnauzer Carol Daniels; Miniature Poodle Dorothy Dixon;
[ Standard Poodle Michael Coad - Professional Handler]; Toy Poodle Nona Catterall; Schipperke Linda Wilson; Schnauzer Frank Kane; Shar-Pei Mary Deats; Shih Tzu Vicky Grugan;
[Tibetan Spaniel Geoff Corish - Professional Handler]; Tibetan Terrier Gillian Marley.

Alaskan Malamute Chris John; Bernese Mountain Dog Mandy Hearne; Bouvier des Flandres Val Foss; Boxer Sandra Parle; Bullmastiff Mary Jones; Canadian Eskimo Dog David Cavill; Dobermann Lynn Glass; Dogue de Bordeaux Carol Cavanagh; German Pinscher Val Foss; Giant Schnauzer Caroline Wareing; Great Dane Jeff Luscott; Greenland Dog David Cavill; Hovawart John Sharpe; Leonberger Albert Wight; Mastiff Pam Jeans-Brown; Neapolitan Mastiff Pam Jeans-Brown; Newfoundland Gill Barker; Portuguese Water Dog Ben Reynolds-Frost; Rottweiler (D) Norma Window; Rottweiler (B) (TBA); Russian Black Terrier Maureen Smith; St Bernard Frank Kane; Siberian Husky Lisa Tebay; Tibetan Mastiff (TBA).

Anatolian Shepherd Dog Derek Smith; Australian Cattle Dog Zena Thorn-Andrews; Australian Shepherd Meg Purnell-Carpenter; Bearded Collie (D) Wendy Hines; Bearded Collie (B) Joy Crowther; Belgian Shepherd Dog (Groenendael) Linda Collins; Lakenois Mo Glenton; Malinois Stuart Mallard; Tervueren Stuart Mallard; Border Collie (D) Jo Ratcliffe; Border Collie (B) Juliet Mockford; Briard Anne Webb; Catalan Sheepdog Derek Smith; Rough Collie (D) Gwen Beaden; Rough Collie (b) Mrs B Cooney; Smooth Collie Mr G Duffield; Estrela Mountain Dog Jeff Horswell; Finnish Lapphund Sue Dunger; German Shepherd Dog Wayne Vessey; Hungarian Kuvasz Jef Horswell; Hungarian Puli Barrie Croft; Komondor Jeff Horswell; Lancashire Heeler Barry Allison; Maremma Sheepdog Renee Sporre-Willes (Sweden); Norwegian Buhund Zena Thorn-Andrews; Old English Sheepdog Della Oakes; Polish Lowland Sheepdog Mike Furzland; Pyrenean Mountain Dog Toni Jackson; Pyrenean Sheepdog Renee Sporre-Willes (Sweden); Samoyed Jim Hamilton; Shetland Sheepdog (D) Denise Rowan; Shetland Sheepdog (B) Gill Partridge; Swedish Vallhund Chris Millard; Turkish Kangal Dog Derek Smith; Welsh Corgi (Cardigan) Alison Benson; Pembroke John Burgess (Australia).

Affenpinscher Stuart Band; Australian Silky John Burgess (Australia); Bichon Frise Dawn Russell; Bolognese Greta Franklin; Cavalier King Charles Spaniel (D) Ruth Mochrie; Cavalier (B) Pauline Sidgwick; L/c Chihuahua Julie Sparrow; S/c Chihuahua Beverley Sutton; Chinese Crested Julie Hancock; Coton de Tulear Renee Sporre-Willes (Sweden); English Toy Terrier Annette Oliver; Griffon Bruxellois David Guy; Havanese (TBA); Italian Greyhound Per Iversen (Norway); Japanese Chin Ellen Willis; King Charles Spaniel Jenny Stone; Lowchen (Little Lion Dog) Anne Smith; Maltese Sarah Jackson; Miniature Pinscher Peter Jolley; Papillon Roger Chaston; Pekingese Helen Forsythe; Pomeranian Astrid Ogilvie; Pug Nigel Marsh; Yorkshire Terrier Susan Chiswell.

Former KC chairman Ronnie Irving is to judge Best In Show at Crufts 2015

The group judges will be:

Carla Molinari of the Vale Negro kennel in Portugal, known for Afghans, Salukis, Podengos and Portuguese Water Dogs among other breeds;
Chris Atkinson of the Segantii Irish setters and Chesapeake Bay Retrievers;
Martin Phillips of the Jaeva Norfolk, Norwich, Cairn and Soft-coated Wheaten Terriers and other breeds;
Utility: former Crufts BIS-judge Zena Thorn-Andrews, all-breed judge with the Drakesleat Miniature Wire Dachshunds and Irish Wolfhounds;
Bob Gregory of the Spotarton Dalmatians;
Vic Salt of the Woodlyn Belgian Shepherd Dogs;
Stephen Bardwell of the Stewell Yorkshire Terriers and Griffons.

The Obedience Championships will be judged by Sandra Gordon, the Obedience World Cup by Kathy Russell, Agility Championships by Amanda Rodgers, agility Alan Bray and Lee Gibson, and Breeders Competition by Steve Hall.

Heelwork to music Ms G Pink (first judge), second judge TBA; third judge Ms C Moser (Switzerland); Young Kennel Club stakes Jack Bispham, imported register Espen Engh (Norway); and Pets As Therapy stakes final Mark Cocozza.

The judges for flyball, inter-regional obedience, international junior handling competition, new obedience competition and gamekeepers’ classes are not known yet.

.Go To Top Of Page


One In Five Dogs Out Of Control On Walks And Half Cause Embarrassment To Owners

Puppy Socialisation Plan launches to get Britain's dogs back on track!

Almost one in five dog owners admit that they are never or rarely in control of their dogs when out on a walk and half claim to be embarrassed by their dog's behavior in public, according to research from dog welfare organisations, the Kennel Club and Dogs Trust.

The research shows that puppies that weren't properly socialised and introduced positively to new situations in the earliest months of their life [1] are the most likely to give their owners trouble. With 12% of dogs being given away due to easily avoidable behaviour problems urgent action needs to be taken to give dogs a better start in life.

Common problems that owners face on a frequent basis include their dogs jumping at people (29%), their dogs being anxious of being left alone (26%), their dogs being scared of people with facial hair (18%) and their dogs being fearful of household appliances (13%). A further 55% say that their dogs have been known to show antisocial behaviour (such as barking, growling, snapping or biting) towards other dogs, and 35% show antisocial behaviour towards people.

However, the research also showed that dogs who were well-socialised and had positive experiences of other dogs, children, a range of people and noises in the home and outside of it, are significantly more likely to be well-mannered and confident adult dogs.

It showed that dogs that were not well socialised were 25 percent more likely to show antisocial behavior (barking, growling, snapping or biting) towards other dogs and almost twice as likely to show antisocial behavior towards people, than those dogs that had been well socialised as a puppies. On many occasions these antisocial tendencies are driven by anxiety or fear, with dogs that were poorly socialised as pups being three times more likely to show anxiety around new people, and twice as likely to show anxiety around other dogs and new household noises, compared to those that were well socialised.

To help tackle the problem of poor socialisation, the Kennel Club and Dogs Trust have launched the first ever step-by-step Puppy Socialisation Plan for breeders, rehoming centres and then new owners to follow. The plan lays out steps that will build puppies' confidence around everything from household appliances and traffic noises, to new ground surfaces, and a range of people, from those with hats and beards, to children. The breeder or rescue home will work through the first eight weeks, recording each step through a series of diary entries, photos or videos and this is then passed onto the new owner to continue.

Carolyn Menteith, a Kennel Club Accredited Instructor who developed the plan for the Kennel Club and Dogs Trust, said: "The first four months of a pup's life are when a puppy is developing his soft skills - in other words his social behaviours and how he responds to new and novel things. Failure to expose them to a wide range of different experiences in this early period means that they often struggle to deal with new situations later on.

"A lot of the problems that we see in dogs, from aggression to all the behaviours that arise through fear such as noise phobias and separation issues - as well as poor learning skills and many training problems - can be prevented if they are given lots of positive new experiences from the very beginning."

Caroline Kisko, Kennel Club Secretary, said: "We must remember that most behavioural problems in dogs, including aggression, noise phobia, separation anxiety, over-reactivity and learning problems, are not down to the dog wanting to be bad but are often because they are fearful, anxious or struggling to know how they should deal with a situation. This research overwhelmingly shows that putting in the hard miles at the beginning, when it comes to early socialisation and exposure to new experiences, will reap rewards in terms of a dog's future behaviour and state of mind. We trialled the Puppy Socialisation Plan amongst some of our Kennel Club Assured Breeders and both breeders and dog owners who have used it have said that they've never had such calm or well-adjusted dogs. We urge breeders and puppy owners to use the plan so that dogs are happier and more obedient, which will solve lots of problems in the long run."

Clarissa Baldwin, Dogs Trust Chief Executive, said: "One of the major reasons that dogs are handed in to rehoming charities such as Dogs Trust is behaviour issues - in many cases easily avoided behaviour issues. Our specialist training & behaviour staff work hard to help dogs with such problems and most are successfully rehomed as a result. The Puppy Socialisation Plan is used across our network of 18 rehoming centres and we encourage new owners to continue the plan once their four-legged family member is home to ensure they remain as happy and well-socialised as possible.

"Dogs are expected to fit into many different family units which could include any combination of adults, children, dogs, cats and much more. They will have to accept the often loud and unpredictable sounds of their new homes; they will have to learn to be left alone when we can't take them out; they need to learn not to herd children, chase the cat, knock over granny, steal the Sunday dinner, or threaten the postman, or anyone else! It's up to us, as their carers, to provide them with the early groundwork in order to cope with all the varieties of life."

To find out more about the Puppy Socialisation Plan visit

[1] Dog owners were asked whether their dogs were well socialised and happy in most new situations when they first came into their home or not well socialised, fearful and anxious in most new situations.

.Go To Top Of Page

The Kennel Club Has Responded To Complaints About The BOB SBT At Crufts 2013

Below is the result of your feedback form. It was submitted by (email:) on Wednesday, March 13, 2013 at 10:51:14
breed: Staffordshire Bull
comments: This is not my breed but I would like to say that I was appalled and amazed to see the Stafford bitch that was lame in the group also lame in the class judging. The bitch was put up against a younger but sound dog.

Loads of people have noticed this. This looks like incompetence or corruption and all done under the gaze of Frank Kane.

I have no vested interest as this is not my breed but can anyone explain what was going on in the Stafford ring?

submit: submit
[You should then complain to General Committee For Crufts and also email Frank Kane for his opinion. ] Ed.
{The above was submitted to Terrier World March 13/2013}

The Kennel Club has decided that there was insufficient evidence that the Staffordshire Bull Terrier best of breed at Crufts 2013 was lame when she was being shown.

The KC received complaints that Bill and Jo Blacker’s Ch Crossguns Memphis Belle was not sound during the breed judging of bitches by Jan Hunter and when she was made BOB by Mrs Hunter and Archie Bryden.who judged the males.

Ten months later - this week, complainants received this letter from the KC: "The General Committee considered the complaints received following the judging of Staffordshire Bull Terriers at Crufts 2013 which suggested that the winning bitch had been lame when exhibited in the open bitch class, the bitch CC and best of breed.

"The Committee took these complaints very seriously and considered the available evidence over a number of months. "However, it was of the view that there was a lack of sufficient evidence to conclude that the dog had been lame during the breed judging and the case has now been closed with no further action to be taken.

"All complainants and the judges involved have received correspondence stating the committee’s decision.”

Memphis Belle, who was six at the time and is the bitch CC record holder, was brought out of retirement after two and a half years to be shown at Crufts.

The Blackers have still declined to comment.

Go To Top Of Page

Resignation - Reinstatement - Eight Committee Members Axed

JILL Broadberry has resumed her position as secretary of East of England ch show.
Mrs Broadberry resigned over a month ago with dog show chairman John Orbell citing as the reason that she wanted to spend more time with her family, but admitting that she had been ‘under a terrific amount of pressure from all sides’.

However, it was announced that Mrs Broadberry had agreed to take up the post once again following a committee reshuffle in which, it is understood, two people stopped being members.

A few weeks ago Mr Orbell said the society was in the process of appointing a successor to Mrs Broadberry – who took over as secretary after her mother, former secretary Pearl Crocker, died in 2007 – and that a name had been put forward, but things moved in a different direction subsequently.

The society said that the 2014 show would have a new format and would be incorporating Just Dogs Live once again over the weekend of July 4, 5 and 6 at the East of England Showground. Just Dogs Live took place for the first time in 2009, and again in ’10 and ’11, but was not staged last year or this.

Keith Dalton, managing director of Showground Services Ltd who now run events for the East of England Agricultural Society, said: "In recent years the championship dog show has been moved around to accommodate the requirements of the East of England Show, but with that show no longer being run in its old format we have much more flexibility and more space available to grow the dog show.

"Reuniting these two events over one weekend will be terrific for all dog lovers. We have a new organising committee, have retained the show secretary Jill Broadberry and chairman John Orbell, and plan to make the whole event more successful.”
Mr Orbell said: "After two difficult years we are so pleased that the Kennel Club and the Agricultural Society have found a long-term solution. Just Dogs Live was always very successful and popular and it was hugely disappointing when it was curtailed in 2012.”

KC secretary Caroline Kisko said: "We are delighted to throw our support behind the reinstatement of Just Dogs Live, which was such a success previously. Anything that provides an opportunity to showcase the joy dogs bring to our lives is to be applauded.
"We wish organisers continued success in 2014.”

Eight members who were axed from the East of England ch show committee have said they feel disappointed at the ‘curt and public method’ of their dismissal.

Only six of the previous 14 members are still on board, it is understood, and new people are to be recruited to take their place.
The committee members who were asked to leave are Sheila Atter, assistant show manager Ben Bennett, Wendy Cross, Ian Ganney, chief steward Carolyn Roe, Vic Salt, Sue Terry and Adair Torbet.
"While wishing the new committee well we are nevertheless very disappointed at the curt and public method of our ‘dismissal’,” a spokesman for the eight said.

"We would like to point out that we are not employed by Showground Services Ltd but have collectively over many years given our time, energy and canine expertise to the society without any form of reimbursement in terms of travelling or accommodation expenses.
"Our intention has always been to do our best for the exhibitors and the dog show world in general.”

Jill Broadberry had agreed to become secretary again following her resignation and that her decision to do so had been swayed by a committee reshuffle in which, chairman John Orbell said initially, two members of the committee had been asked to step down.

A spokesman for the committee said that the first they had known about Mrs Broadberry’s resignation, her decision to return and the reshuffle had been by reading the canine press. On Friday the eight received a letter from East of England Agricultural Society chief executive Jeremy Staples saying they were off the committee and a new committee had been formed.
"It came as a complete surprise to the dog show committee who knew nothing of these events,” said a spokesman for the eight.
"Show Ground Services Ltd has been involved since March 2013 and the championship dog show in July was run by them. One of their members had been attending committee meetings from September 2012. Mr Orbell is a director of Showground Services.

"In August a meeting was requested with Mr Staples by some members of the committee to discuss various points. It was suggested to him that ‘Just Dogs Live’ had been talked about by the committee at an earlier meeting in 2013, as the dog show committee thought it would be beneficial to the society to bring it back to coincide with the championship dog show. Mr Staples agreed saying he also thought it a good idea and that he would take this forward when he met KC representatives a little later on. He was due to allay the rumours circulating in the media of financial difficulties.”
In October it was announced that a new secretary was to be appointed shortly.
"The committee meeting scheduled for October had to be postponed as the new secretary could not make that particular date and we were told we would be informed of a new date for the committee meeting,” the spokesman said.
"As no further correspondence was received and time was going by, various committee members phoned Mr Orbell to enquire when a committee meeting would be called. Everyone was concerned because of the need to make preparations for the July 2014 show. Some judges were asking if approval had yet been received as there had been no communication from the society. The dog show committee is aware of the ‘collective responsibility’ expected by the Kennel Club and felt they needed to be proactive… Despite numerous enquiries no committee meeting was called.”
In his letter to the eight, Mr Staples said that ‘after consultation with the KC’ the board of the Agricultural Society had agreed to move the management of the ch show to the society’s Showground Services Ltd, which would be forming a new ch show committee ‘tailored to their requirements’.
"It falls to me to stand down the current championship dog show committee of which you are a member,” he wrote. "For clarity, the KC is fully supportive of this move and for the licence to remain in the name of the (society).
"On behalf of the society I would like to take this opportunity of thanking you for making the championship dog show the success it is today.”

Mr Orbell has kept his position and Alan Wards is still show manager. Mr Orbell would not disclose the reason why the choices had been made.

"There was a very specific reason but I am not prepared to disclose what that was,” he said.
He said he was not certain of numbers but that about six of the committee had been invited to join the new one.
"It is in the gift of the Showground Services Ltd to appoint the committee,” he said. "I was anxious to ensure that Jill reconsidered her resignation and at the same time the society was concerned about matters.”
He was asked whether he felt that the deposed committee members had been sacrificed to keep Mrs Broadberry as secretary.
"I know what you’re saying – it does look like that,” he said. "But I think I would reserve my comment on that until after the meeting of the council tonight.”
He admitted that the letters would have come as a shock to the committee members being axed.
"The board of the society through their chief executive indicated that it would be done that way, and I am a mere member of the society council and not on the board,” he said.
He does not believe there will be less input to the ch show from ‘dog people’ as a result of the move.
"Any gaps in the committee will be filled with dog people,” he said. "I would like some new blood, but I’m not certain what the society’s contribution will be.”

The KC said: "We would expect the society to operate within its constitution. We would not endorse any action that would contravene the society's rules with regard to the appointment and removal of committee members. However, we will be as supportive as we can be to maintain the East of England show in the calendar and are happy to work closely with the Agricultural Society in its vision to promote the positive aspects of dog ownership generally and pedigree dogs in particular.”

Go To Top Of Page



Commenting on reports that rabies has been confirmed in the Netherlands in two puppies from Bulgaria, British Veterinary Association President Robin Hargreaves said:

"This is deeply worrying news and far too close for comfort. It must be a wake-up call to UK authorities to ensure that enforcement of pet movements into the UK remains a priority.

"We have been raising concerns with the Government that the changes in legislation last year had significant unintended consequences in boosting the number of puppies and kittens coming to the UK for sale.

"Although the pet travel scheme is not intended to cover commercial movements, the fact that animals can enter the UK at a younger age has meant that people are abusing the legislation for this purpose with potentially grave consequences.

"The Government must review current enforcement of the legislation and be certain that we have the right measures in place to protect the UK's rabies-free status.

"The news from the Netherlands should also be a serious wake-up call to potential pet owners who must always ask about the animal's background and ask to see it with its mother."

Go To Top Of Page

Britain Betraying Man’s Best Friend As ‘Dog Ghettos’ Fear Arises

  • 42 per cent of dog owners worry they will be forced into overcrowded 'dog parks'
  • Almost one in three say their area underperforms when it comes to dog friendly credentials
  • Businesses are losing out on the 'hound pound' as more than half of dog owners say they would use local shops and services more frequently if they were dog friendly
  • Kennel Club launches its Open for Dogs Week (30thSeptember to 4thOctober) to encourage businesses and workplaces to reap the rewards of trialling a dog friendly policy

Almost half of Britain's dog owners fear they could become marginalised by society and forced into restricted areas, as more and more places are clamping down on dogs and their owners across the UK.

The Kennel Club has found that man's best friends aren't necessarily being treated as such, and has released the results of a survey of over 2,000 dog owners[i] for the launch of its Open for Dogs Week this week. The survey found that 42 per cent of dog owners in the UK fear that they will be forced into a small number of overcrowded dog-friendly parks as local authorities close their public spaces to dogs by issuing draconian dog control orders.

Since the start of 2011, the Kennel Club has formally responded to more than 70 dog control order consultations, indicating a decline in the number of places which welcome dogs. Almost one in three dog owners say that their area performs under par when it comes to its dog friendly credentials and 40 per cent say that the attitude towards dogs has got worse when it comes to places to go, meaning dog owners face frustration when trying to take their dogs out with them for the day. A quarter report that shops that were previously dog friendly are now less so, and almost one in five say the same of pubs.

This is a worrying trend which is likely to have a knock on effect for Britain's businesses, many of which may suffer a loss in business and miss out on the valuable so-called 'hound pound'. Kennel Club research has shown that dog owners are almost twice as likely as those without a dog to regularly visit their local shops and stores, with a quarter saying that they frequent them, and more than half of people with dogs would be more likely to use local shops and services more frequently if their dogs could go with them. In addition, dog owners were found to spend 22 per cent more a month on eating out and drinking in pubs and restaurants than non-dog owners, meaning that dog friendly businesses are reaping the rewards.

Lee de Villier, who runs the Old Sergeant pub in Wandsworth, South West London, said: "Letting dogs into the pub has been nothing but good for the business for us. Both our dog owning and non-dog owning customers love it and it has improved the atmosphere of the place as a whole.

"Being dog friendly helped us to secure the award of Best Community Pub in the Great British Pub Awards in 2012, as we consider dogs to be an integral part of the community, as many people do. We get lots of positive feedback from customers and often get people enquiring about the pub on Twitter because they have heard that we are so dog friendly."

Caroline Kisko, Kennel Club Secretary, said: "It is a worry that, as more places ban dogs, more often than not unnecessarily, owners around the UK will be pushed into restricted areas with their pets which just won't be big enough to cater for the demand.

"We refer to dogs as being man's best friend, but as a country we don't seem to be showing this, as we increasingly turn our backs on dogs and stop them from spending time with their owners when out and about in public.

"An increase in dog bans and places becoming less dog friendly gives way to a whole new set of issues, including putting dogs' welfare at risk as owners are forced to leave their dogs in cars, or tied up outside shops and pubs, putting them at risk of being frightened or stolen.

"The Kennel Club wants to see the UK being as faithful to dogs as they are to us, and we are encouraging businesses and workplaces across the UK to open their doors to dogs for the week to experience the many wonderful benefits that being around dogs can bring."

Open for Dogs Week is dedicated to encouraging businesses and workplaces across the UK to trial a dog friendly policy and to experience the many wonderful benefits dogs bring, which include raising levels of serotonin, the so-called 'happy hormone', increasing workplace productivity, and appealing to a potential new market through the millions of dog owning households in the UK.

To find out more about Open for Dogs Week, or to join in, visit

Show Secretaries Must Accept Entries That Are Late/Not Received At Shows Whether The Exhibitor Has Proof Of Postage Or Not. Only The Kennel Club Can Decide If A Dog Should Be Disqualified

I wanted to raise the question for discussion about Professional Handler Mr Geoff Corish and his entry at two Championship shows. These being Border Union Show and Blackpool Champ show. He arrived on both occasions for Open Dog in the Dandie Dinmont Terrier Breed classes and gained DCC and BOB both times.

However, the dog was not shown as having entered in either of the show catalogues, guess they show proof of posting each time to the secretary???.

I can also remember this happening at least a couple of times last year. They must have a very unreliable postal system in their area, most of us enter online nowadays.From Fed up with this happening.

[I have been sitting on this for a while and I didn't have the time to respond - my wife has been ill in hospital and I spent most of my time there.]

The ruling is that a Show Secretary must ask an Exhibitor for proof of postage. Even if they do not have this on the day they are still allowed to exhibit. (Regulation F1/9/c) As I understand it, then it is up to the Kennel Club to investigate the proof of postage.

Having said the above, I would be as pissed off as you are when the 2013 Crufts Best In Show Judge, Professional Handler Geoff Corish arrives at the ring with a dog that is not entered in the catalogue at two consecutive shows and wins the CC and Best of Breed on both occasions. Whenever there is a whiff Sulfur in the air the same name always crops up.

The Dog in questions belongs to a Mrs Tinsley. Now you could ask who it is that is having the problem with their entries not being received. If it is Mr Corish that is entering the dog, it doesn't seem very professional to me if post is going astray and you do not change your post box or enter online. And, if it is the owner that is entering the dog the same applies. Because this isn't some frail old dear that may be getting confused; Mrs Tinsley runs a successful Boarding Kennels and surely uses a computer to run the business.

I do hope that the Kennel Club investigates this matter properly and comes to a conclusion that will be informative and truthful for all of the Dandie Dinmont exhibitors.


Increasing the number of CCs allocated will not encourage more people to shows..

The KC says the number will still be linked to the entry figure at shows.
The allocation of CCs is an emotive subject, said KC Chairman Steve Dean in a written reply to a letter from KC member Jean Lanning, in which she is dismayed at the loss of 78 sets of CCs for 2016 saying exhibitors needed to be encouraged to enter shows, not deterred.
"Over the last two years the General Committee has been very careful with its consideration of the CC allocation, in one year adding CCs to the available pot – a KC adaptation of quantitative easing – and the deferral of a reduction of CCs in the following year,” he said.
"Both these options were used to attempt to mitigate the effect of declining entries. It is worth noting that during this period the Committee also allocated additional sets of CCs, but nevertheless overall entries still fell at championship shows.”
The argument of allocating CCs to all breeds at all shows, ‘while superficially attractive’, was not as straightforward or as logical as it would first appear, he said, asking:
Would all show societies be able to cope with a full allocation?
Are there enough judges to support a full allocation in all breeds?
Is it fair to allocate the same number of CCs to a breed which attracts average entries of more than 100 and a breed which attracts average entries of less than 20?
Is it right that exhibitors in numerically-small breeds should have more opportunities to be awarded a CC, qualify for Crufts and gain junior warrant points than breeds where more dogs are exhibited?
"There are many numerically small breeds from which dogs achieve group and best in show awards, but this only demonstrates the fairness of the system and their success is not dependent upon winning a CC. "However, to be fair to all breeds, the allocation of CCs cannot be based on the quality of a small number of exhibits in a particular breed or breeds. The General Committee has recently examined the statistics and concluded that the number of CCs must continue to be linked to the entries at shows.
"Instead we should be asking instead ourselves what we can all do to persuade, entice and encourage new puppy owners to enter shows, and to think through that first or second experience and what can be done to support them and give them reasons to continue exhibiting.”
In her letter Miss Lanning said that taking away CCs caused clubs to lose money.
"Those involved with the organisation of such shows are already feeling disenchanted,” she said. "To take away more CCs will only serve to demoralise them further.
"As president of the Great Dane Breeders and Owners Association I have been sent the information regarding the removal of one set of CCs for the breed. I cannot but ask, ‘What difference will it make to Danes or any of the other breeds affected other than to further reduce exhibitors’ enthusiasm?”
Entries were ‘seriously down’– even in breeds still considered the more popular ones – she said, and the downturn in the economy must have some bearing on it.
"It is not so much about the cost of showing but about the ‘return’ in success and enjoyment people get from the time spent,” Miss Lanning wrote. "People have such a wide choice of leisure activities, and we will only continue to attract people to our ‘sport’ if they enjoy it.
Those living in the South were now travelling to the Continent for the weekend to compete in two or three shows, she said, and could still be back at work by Monday.
"Over the past two years, whenever I am judging in Europe, I see the number of UK exhibitors increase all the time. When one considers the high cost of entry fees compared to ours and the expense of travelling one has to ask, ‘What is the attraction?”
Miss Lanning cited an exhibitor who lives near her who has enjoyed success with her dog in the UK but has not shown here for 18 months.
"As a junior he won a CC and a couple of reserves, but then he could not get past two big-winning dogs,” she said. "Then someone suggested she went to a French show. She and her husband love their new way of showing dogs; they have made new friends, are able to see all the good European dogs and have also gained some overseas titles for their dog.
"More of our exhibitors are discovering how easy it is to show on the Continent – it is a whole new way of life for them.”
So why take away CCs, Miss Lanning asked.
"Quality and quantity have nothing in common; looking at most of the big winners of groups and BIS you can see that they have almost invariably come from numerically small, even vulnerable, breeds. Wire Fox, Lakeland and Welsh and Irish Terriers, Pekingese, Kerry Blues, Petit Basset Griffon Vendeen and Bouviers repeatedly come through from very small entries and go to the top – and have done for years. We have a big winner from the popular breeds but they are the exception which proves that quality does not suffer in anyway when a breed has a small pool of dogs being shown and bred from.”
In his reply Chairman Dean said: "Maybe there is something to be learned from the European show scene. It may be worth exploring how shows are promoted to the general dog owner in Europe and what other mechanisms are in place to encourage new owners of pedigree dogs to exhibit at shows.
"We would be interested to hear from those who regularly attend and/or exhibit at European shows regarding what their experience is about how continental shows encourage new exhibitors.”

The KC's Latest Faux Pas

Dear Sirs,

I would like to comment on the KC's latest faux pas in the world of showing. Namely the reduction of CCs at Championship shows. Once again the KC is taking the completely wrong tack on a problem of its own making.

By reducing the allocation of CCs it will cause Societies to put on fewer classes or remove the breed altogether. This will reduce the chances for exhibitors to enter at the show thus causing fewer entries. This will, in turn, cause the KC to further reduce the CC allocation and thus the entries will decline further ending up in a downward spiral until there is no entries at all.

What needs to be done about this? Well first of all the KC needs to acknowledge that since the inception of the JWP it has tinkered too much with the rules governing what can be judged, and by whom, at OPEN show level. It needs to go back to the pre JWP rules wherein a society could schedule whatever classes it felt necessary and select whatever judges it wanted to officiate in those classes.

This means that the KC would have to get rid of the stupid average of 4 per class rule which will allow Open show societies to schedule more classes, especially in the minor breeds. It will also have to remove the restrictions on the number of classes a person can judge allowing them to not only judge more than three classes but also AVNSC and varieties, this will encourage more people to take up judging and give more chances for them to actually judge. This will have a threefold effect on shows insofar as it will give exhibitors more choice of classes to enter, more incentive to enter more dogs and more choice of judges to enter under.

The above changes would encourage a greater participation in the sport and encourage more people to start on a showing career. By encouraging more people to show at Open Show level this will, in turn, encourage more people to enter at Championship Show level thus reversing the current trend. After all you can never encourage more people to buy your product if you reduce the opportunity for them to buy it, i.e. by reducing the opportunity to enter at shows you are actually encouraging fewer people to enter.

Secondly the reduction in CC allocation should be abandoned altogether. In fact the KC should ensure that ALL Championship Shows have CCs on offer for ALL breeds. This will increase the entries at shows because there will be more chance for breeds to challenge for these awards.

In the short term it is true that some CCs will be contested by a small number of entries but, over time, this will increase. As people realise that there is more on offer they will start entering more. Conversely the same is true if the allocation is reduced, fewer people will have the opportunity to win therefore fewer people will enter.

Thirdly there needs to be some way of regulating the judges at both Open and Championship Show level. Too often the same judges are seen doing the same breeds giving little variety in judging options. Also there is the perceived, in my view correct, notion that too many of the top judges do not judge fairly (e.g. face judging, not judging to type, putting up the same dogs as others etc. - the list can go on), this discourages people from entering under them.

What to do about it? Well at Championship shows perhaps there could be some sort of system whereby there is a questionnaire on the back of the benching card. This would take the form of questions such as: Did you think the judge awarded the places fairly?, Did the judge give equal consideration to all exhibits?, Did you think the judge conducted themselves in a fair and even manner?. The completed cards could be placed in a box at the show and assessed later.

If the judge got a lot of negative comments then at their next appointment a neutral, incognito observer would assess their performance and if they found it lacking the judge would have to take further training before being allowed to officiate again. If they still, after all this, were found to be not doing their judging properly they would lose ALL their accreditation and have to start at the bottom again, i.e. attending KC seminars, breed seminars and judging at Open shows to get their numbers of dogs, just as any new judge would.

This would have several benefits insofar as most judges would be aware that not only are the exhibitors assessing their skills but ultimately the KC is also. This would ensure that they would be, as far as possible, judging to their best ability without favour or bias. It would also give the exhibitor more chance to make their opinions on particular judges known and acted upon and, ultimately, give them more confidence in the appointed judge.

Judges officiating at Open show level is a different problem. Many are novices or have little judging experience and show this in the way they judge. Before any person is invited to judge they should, as a minimum, have completed all the KC judging seminars, attended a Breed Specific seminar for the breed they wish to judge, judged at Matches and/or Limit Shows and have stewarded at least three days. This will both give them experience in the breed, the rules and ring expertise as well as giving the exhibitor confidence in knowing that the judge has, at least, the basic skills.

Once such judges have gained experience in their chosen breed, say after judging it at 4 or 5 shows, then they would be permitted to judge other breeds within that group if they wished. Following on from that once they have judged at least five breeds in a group they would be entitled to judge both AVNSC and varieties within that group only. Group judging would remain the prerogative of a judge that has awarded CCs as would Best in Show.

The above is only suggestions but, in my opinion, a viable way forward for the show scene today. There may be alternatives to it and/or amendments and tweaks but it is a template for the way forward in these difficult times. I open this up for discussion and hope that the showing public, the Breed and Show committee members AND the KC take head of the views of the grass roots of the Dog Show Fancy.

Yours sincerely,
Stephen Clayforth.

Go To Top Of Page

No Longer A Sceptic

At long last the Data Base for Pedigree Dogs has been made available by the Kennel Club.

I initially had concerns that the only information accessible would be your own Data. This isn't so. Once you have created a MYKC Account, access is easy - by entering a user name and your password.

The interface is bright and easy on the eye. The three Tabs on the second line of the opening page are the main points of interest:
.'Home' 'My Dogs' and 'Tools And Resources' Home has a number of links to different parts of the Site and also replicates the tab 'My Dogs'. Click on 'My Dogs' and all of the Dogs that you have ever registered with the Kennel Club flow in. Pretty impressive I must say.

'Tools And Resources' opens up a lot of links which are most useful, but the main link is 'Look Up a Dog'. Click on this and you are given unfettered access to the Data Base for all registered dogs. A search box enables you to enter the Breed Name or part of it and the Breed is identified. Enter a part name of a dog for your chosen breed and a list appears. Choose one and a three generation pedigree is displayed. To research further you click on any of the names in the pedigree and this take you further into the pedigree.

Congratulations are definitely in order here to the Kennel Club on a job well done. It was worth the wait.

Whilst this is most welcoming there is a lot of data missing when you click on 'My Dogs'. In my own account; there are a lot of missing dogs - even dogs that I have bred are not listed. So there must still be a lot of work to do.

Tony Manning.
Editor Terrier World.

Go To Top Of Page

[But Will It Be Unfettered Access Like The Finish Data Base?]

The latest free online service from the Kennel Club, MyKC, will give a lifetime of support to puppy seekers, dog owners and breeders, by providing exclusive access to official Kennel Club registration records through their own personalised homepage, as well as unique tools to keep information about their dogs all in one place.

Prior to its official lunch, around 500 demonstrations of MyKC were delivered during Crufts recently. The feedback received was resoundingly positive and the Kennel Club is now working through suggestions put forward by the public at Crufts of what they would like to see included in the future.

MyKC will enable people to find their perfect puppy, keep a personalised online planner for the life of their dog and see its history and heritage come to life. The Kennel Club’s extensive pedigree database is available to view for any registered dog, and owners can look up the registration details throughout their dog’s heritage, such as the parents and siblings. Breeders can see details of their current dogs and their breeding, plus have the ability to add notes to dogs now living with their new owners, helping breeders and owners to stay in touch.

MyKC will also be linked to the Kennel Club’s online Mate Select service, so that health test results and important information about genetic diversity that the Kennel Club records for all registered dogs can be viewed, in order to improve dog health and awareness.

MyKC has a built-in alerts and reminders feature, which will keep busy puppy owners updated on the key stages in their dog’s life, such as when training should start, and enable people to set their own reminders about veterinary appointments and other items in their doggy diaries. There is also a notes and addresses section to keep important contacts, dietary needs and weight information all in one place. It will also be linked to a database of dog friendly venues so that people can find restaurants, hotels, pubs and other public places in their area that will welcome the four legged member of their family.

Breeders, dog owners and puppy seekers were all in full support of the new MyKC system, which aims to help people buy a healthy puppy by putting them in touch with responsible breeders. It will enable puppy seekers to search for members of the Kennel Club Assured Breeder Scheme, who are the only breeders who sign up to put the health and welfare of their pups first and foremost and to allow inspections of their premises to ensure they are following scheme rules.

Denise Parker, Secretary of the British Chihuahua Club Rescue who has tested MyKC said: “It is absolutely fantastic - I love the system and spent far too long playing on it!

“I have already added photographs of my dogs and it’s interesting that I'm allowed to see how many of my dogs which I've sold have sired litters and/or had litters, which enables you to make sure they are not being overused too. I've used the notes to track the birth weights of my recent litters of puppies and will compare it to their adult weights. All I can say is that I'm looking forward to using it a lot more.”

MyKC will be formally launched by the Kennel Club shortly, and those who subscribe to the free service will also get special offers on dog products and services. There are further features for breeders, as litters can be registered online quickly and easily and members of the Kennel Club Assured Breeder Scheme will receive a ‘digital badge’ for their own website, enabling prospective puppy buyers to verify that they are an official member of the scheme. Assured Breeders using the service can also view their accolades and keep up to date with the latest breed specific requirements and recommendations for their breed.

Caroline Kisko, Kennel Club Secretary, said: “MyKC is something we have been planning for years and so it is fantastic to receive such great feedback from everyone.

“The service will help puppy seekers to find puppies from responsible breeders, and allow new puppy owners to enjoy life with their dog to the full. The search engine of dog friendly places and the personalised dog planner will help to ensure that your dog’s social and day-to-day life are organised, and the program makes full use of the Kennel Club’s extensive pedigree records and health data, so that people can see exactly where their dog came from.

“The service will also help breeders to keep a full record about the dogs that they have bred and keep details of any titles that their dogs achieve for any breed, agility or field trial activity.”

Go To Top Of Page

Admission Charges To Be Scrapped At Windsor But Does It Really Matter?

At Crufts Beginning March 7 2013 There Will Be Hundreds Of legally and Illegally Docked Dogs In attendance. Shhhhhh!

Windsor Championship Show is dropping its admission charge at this year’s show allowing legally docked dogs to be shown. Secretary Irene Terry said the decision had been made so that these dogs could take part.

The ‘sheer economics’ of the whole thing had prompted the committee to look again and decide ‘to give it a whirl’, she said.

Entry fees will not increase but car parking will rise from £4 to £5 with visitors or the public paying £10. Catalogues will increase by £1 to £5 in advance or £6 on the day. Caravan spaces will cost £65 instead f £60.

Docked and Denied, the group campaigning to allow legally docked dogs to be compete at shows where admission is charged, was delighted to hear the news. Sharon Pinkerton of the Bareve German Wirehaired Pointers said: "We heard a rumour but didn’t dare believe it was true. All we need now is Leeds, East of England, LKA and Crufts to follow suit.”

Mrs Terry said: "Windsor is exceptional as we have a good public gate because of where we are and because it is a well-known tourist spot.

"We’re not saying we will only do it for this year, we will just have to see how things go.”

Docked and Denied has campaigned for several years to convince show societies there are ways around the law which would allow these dogs to compete at every championship show. In 2011, members MaxineMcCullough and Wendy Oxman asked owners of legally-docked dogs to fill out entry forms for these two championship shows to illustrate how much money each society is losing from entry fees.

Out of more than 20 championship shows, only Crufts and a handful of others charge entry fees and exclude legally-docked dogs.

Windsor was shown to lose in entries, hypothetically, £3,156, Leeds, £3,444, and East of England £3,328, Members of the group then sent letters to the three shows detailing the entry loss, hoping that the societies might find an alternative to the charge.

However, at the time Mrs Terry said the income from Windsor’s public gate exceeded what would have been made from giving it up and allowing in legally-docked dogs.

At the time Mrs McCullough, of the Kimmax German Wirehaired Pointers, said: "Interestingly the other general championship shows do not have the same view. Richmond, Paignton, Bournemouth, Blackpool, Darlington, Bath and Three Counties have all dropped their admittance charge so therefore now allow legally-docked dogs to attend.

"Entries are falling across the board because of lots of factors not just costs. If you look at the overall entry this year of every general championship show the entry is lower than last year. Another discussion for another time, but if legally-docked dogs were allowed and revenue was gained from their entry fees, a forward-thinking society could also gain revenue from other sources. Car parking can and is still charged to the visiting public rather than gate admittance, so there are ways around this if societies were willing to help us.”

Go To Top Of Page

Veterinary Team For Crufts Will Be Responsible For Carrying Out High-Profile Breed Veterinary Checks.

Unlike last year at Crufts when the controversial checks were launched and conducted by two ‘independent’ vets chosen from those who applied by the KC and the British Veterinary Association (BVA), general responsibility for the show and for the checks has now been bestowed on the team under the leadership of chief vet Dr Andreas Schemel.

The Vets who conducted the examinations at last year’s Crufts – Will Jeffels and Alison Skipper – have joined the team after being invited to do so by the KC. At Crufts 2012 Mr Jeffels, who is the vet for the UK Toydog ch show, failed the Pekingese, Bulldog and Clumber Spaniel, and former exhibitor Alison Skipper, who is a vice-president of the Australian Cattle Dog Association, failed the Mastiff, Neapolitan Mastiff and Basset Hound.

In addition to those two and Dr Schemel the team comprises Claire Arrowsmith, Richard Best, Karen Bridle, Heather Briggs, Erik D’Arcy-Donnelly, Sue Finnett, Richard M Furber, John Robson and Sally Turner, who were all on the team last year.

The KC said the team would oversee all veterinary requirements at the show, including the veterinary checks on the best of breed winners in each of the 14 high-profile breeds.

Spokesman Caroline Kisko said that this had been decided by the Crufts Sub-Committee, which had decided to bring arrangements for the veterinary checks back in line with those at other championship shows.

"We’re moving away from the special arrangements we had at Crufts last year,” she said.

When asked how the vets conducting the checks would be chosen each day Mrs Kisko said:

"Presumably it will be whoever is available at the time.”

The KC decided in October 2011 to introduce a veterinary check for high-profile bests of breed and for dogs who have been made up into champions.
The breeds involved are the Basset Hound, Bloodhound, Bulldog, Chow Chow, Clumber Spaniel, Dogue de Bordeaux, French Bulldog, German Shepherd Dog, Mastiff, Neapolitan Mastiff, Pekingese, Pug, Shar-Pei and the St Bernard. The Chinese Crested was removed from the list during last year.

The Vets appointed at Crufts will be looking for signs of ectropion, entropion, corneal damage, dermatitis, breathing difficulty on moderate exercise, lameness and skin disorders.

At Crufts last year and to launch the scheme the KC asked the BVA to provide the vets involved, to ensure the process was ‘open, transparent and fair’; the BVA asked its members to volunteer on the understanding that they would be acting independently and not representing the veterinary body.

Inviting applications, the KC said on its website that experience of having previously undertaken a veterinary role at dog shows would be an advantage but is not essential. But applicants should not be involved with the KC as a judge, exhibitor or dog breeder, ‘or have expressed strong views against the KC and its activities’, it said.

In the end not many applied; and from the information available there were only about three or four, and from those Mr Jeffels and Mrs Skipper were chosen by representatives of the KC and the BVA.

Go To Top Of Page

Kennel Club reaction to draft Anti-Social Behaviour Bill

The Kennel Club has expressed concerns over the proposals relating to dogs in the draft Anti-Social Behaviour Bill recently published by the Home Office.

The Kennel Club has responded to the Home Office Affairs Committee’s call for evidence on the Government’s draft Anti-Social Behaviour Bill which includes an inquiry into the effectiveness of the proposed measures in tackling anti-social behaviour as well as the benefits to individuals, communities and businesses. The draft Bill is based on the policies outlined in the Government’s Anti-Social Behaviour White Paper, ‘Putting Victims First’ which was published last year.

The dog related proposals of the Bill outline measures to tackle irresponsible dog ownership and incidents involving individuals using dogs as weapons to cause fear or intimidate as a form of anti-social behaviour. These include the replacement of Dog Control Orders with Public Spaces Protection Orders, the introduction of Community Protection Orders and the replacement of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) with Injunctions.

The Kennel Club has serious concerns regarding the abolishment of Dog Control Orders, which it feels can be used effectively by councils to promote responsible dog ownership when used correctly. It also does not believe that the new proposals outlined in the Bill would be more effective in tackling dog related anti-social behaviour. The current measures in place, including the Dogs Act 1871, Dog Control Orders in the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act and Dog Control Notices currently enforced under the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010 and the Dogs (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) 2011, are believed to be better in dealing with dog related anti-social behaviour.

Caroline Kisko, Kennel Club Secretary, said: “Whilst we appreciate that steps are being taken to address the issue of irresponsible dog ownership in regard to anti-social behaviour, we would like to see a clear plan for reducing anti-social behaviour incidents related to irresponsible dog ownership and measures that would target individual dogs and owners and not penalise the responsible dog owner. The Kennel Club feels this could be best achieved through Dog Control Notices, currently in place in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and being considered in Wales.

“On two occasions, following the consultation and on publication of the Anti-Social Behaviour White Paper, the Kennel Club contacted Lord Henley, the then Minister of State for Crime Prevention and Anti-Social Behaviour Reduction, to express concern over the proposals and request a meeting to discuss the issue further.

“We were assured by Lord Henley that his department would be hosting a working group for stakeholders to discuss these concerns before any further announcement was made, but this seems to have fallen by the wayside. This is very disappointing when many interested organisations could have provided useful insight and solutions to some of the issues currently causing concern within the Bill.”

The Kennel Club’s response to the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill can be found at

Go To Top Of Page

End Of Year Review - KC Declares Health Testing Making Positive Impact

At the end of the first year of vet health examinations for Best Of Breed winners from the 14 high profile breeds, the figures show that of the 345 examinations that took place this year (up to and including LKA), 330 dogs were passed fit to gain the BOB award and appear in their group, with only 15 examinations resulting in the dog being failed on the day. This represents a 96% pass rate and is an indication of the overall standard of health presented from the dogs involved.

Since the introduction of the checks, exhibitors have consistently come forward, with only six potential candidates choosing not to present their dogs for the health check and therefore not claiming their BOB.

Four breeds have a 100% pass rate; a further six recording only 1 failure across the breed during 2012.

The health checks, which have caused some controversy since they were introduced, are intended to ensure that representatives from those breeds with known visible health issues, that are judged fit to receive BOB, are free from the specific identified problems or issues and are fit for function.

Kennel Club Chairman, Steve Dean said: “We are very aware of how difficult the introduction has been for many of the breeds, where breeders and exhibitors have seen it as a spotlight being shone unfairly on a small number of breeds. However, I think that these statistics show without doubt that the results have been overwhelmingly positive. We are all aware of the media scrutiny that pedigree dogs and their breeders are under today and it is incumbent on all of us involved to do whatever we can to ensure good health in the dogs that go on public display in the show ring, and even more importantly, that this reflects the health of those that breeders place in companion homes.

“Over this initial period the co-operation from the high profile breeds, alongside the evolving consistency of the checks and the continuing programme of educational events, has all contributed to a regime in which all parties can have confidence. It is clear to see that we can be very proud of our pedigree dogs and of the breeders who put so much into ensuring the long term health and welfare of their chosen breeds.

“The active involvement of the HPB health co-ordinators and the exhibitors has been vital to the success so far. We know that it has taken great courage for exhibitors to put themselves and their dogs on the line, some of them on many occasions. The results prove again and again that their dogs are fit for function.

“For me another important element has been to see the vets involved becoming aware of how healthy the dogs are that are coming through for the examinations and how this is challenging some views of the general health and wellbeing of ‘show dogs’ as opposed to the ‘pets’ they usually meet.

“The programme will not stand still; it should and will continue to evolve and develop to meet the needs of pedigree dogs. The Dog Health Group is closely monitoring the scheme to see how best to take it forward and there will be changes as time goes on. As part of that monitoring process we have welcomed all feedback from those in the high profile breeds and from other breeds as well, and this is all currently being assessed by the Vet Check Review Group.”

The Kennel Club also underlines that the high profile breeds list is not static. Summer 2012 saw one breed removed from the list and the Dog Health Group will continue to monitor breeds across all the groups to ensure that the list remains a relevant and useful tool in working on long term breed health.

The Kennel Club held two Healthy Eye Conformation Seminars in July and a further one in October, at which Professor Sheila Crispin MA VetMB DVOpthal and Professor Dean presented to veterinary surgeons, high profile breed exhibitors, breed club representatives, breed health coordinators and judges.

Vicky Collins-Natrass, breeder of Kezia Bulldogs, who attended the seminar, said: “The talk was much more relevant to the breeder than previous sessions, with detail given in a way that was easy to understand and to apply to your own breed. Professor Crispin was excellent and Steve Dean's presentation made it all tie in with the high profile breeds examinations.

“It was good to hear Steve Dean himself say that despite the publicity of how unhealthy show dogs were, of the small number of failures, most of these were on eye-related issues, and not as might have been expected in our breed, in breathing and movement – I think this is a definite achievement.“

John Goodyear, who attended the seminar in October and will be conducting the veterinary checks at Manchester in January, said: “The general tone of the seminar was very constructive and helped to clarify some misunderstandings over some issues surrounding the checks for those attending.

“When I carried out the checks at Birmingham last May, the process was still very new and there was definitely a degree of negative feedback from exhibitors who weren’t clear as to what to expect. I look forward to fulfilling this same role at Manchester and feel that this will be a good indicator as to whether the Kennel Club has been successful in getting its message out to exhibitors.”

Judges of the fourteen high profile breeds and veterinary surgeons have been invited to a High Profile Breeds Education Day on Thursday 7th February 2013, which will showcase the health work that has been undertaken by breeders and the progress that has been made.

Representatives for each breed will have a dedicated breed booth, where they will be able to highlight the health initiatives that have been undertaken, and an area will be provided so that breed representatives can provide commentary on the movement in their breeds. Each breed representative will bring along dogs that have good characteristics and that have moved away from exaggerations, and those that show conformation or movement problems that are still faced within the breed.

Go To Top Of Page

The Chairman Of The KC’s Disciplinary Sub-Committee Fined And Warned

A member of the Kennel Club who is also the Chairman of the KC’s Disciplinary Sub-Committee has been fined and warned for impugning the decision of a judge.

Wilson Young, who is chairman of the KC’s Disciplinary Sub-Committee and the Field Trial Sub-Committee and a member of the General Committee, was reported for his behaviour at the International Gundog League (IGL) open stake in July.

Jean Brown, a B list judge, was officiating and reported Mr Young – an A list judge – to the KC for his attitude on that day and subsequently.

The dispute arose after Miss Brown told Mr Young his Pointer had missed a bird available on the beat which she had asked him to pick up. He disputed that there had been a bird and spoke to other people about the matter, allegedly on the phone and in person, making remarks that Miss Brown said she was unhappy about.

The KC formed a special ad hoc sub-committee to deal with the matter, comprising General Committee members Mike Townsend, the KC’s vice-chairman, Graham Hill and Tom Mather, which sat on December 19.

Miss Brown’s complaint – which was called an ‘objection’ by the KC – was that Mr Young had breached regulation J9b13, ‘… those taking part in field trials shall not openly impugn the decision of the judge…’, and J14b, under ‘fraudulent or discreditable conduct at trials’, ‘if evidence is placed before the General Committee to its satisfaction that undue influence has been exercised by any person, or that any improper means have been adopted to obtain or interfere with the appointment of a judge or the participation by any dog at any trial under KC regulations, the General Committee may require all correspondence and evidence in connection with the case to be produced in order that it may deal with the offenders under rule A42...’.

The ad hoc sub-committee upheld J9b13 but not J14b, fined Mr Young £50 and warned and censured him.

The allegations before the committee was that Mr Young: had questioned and challenged the decision of Miss Brown that his dog had committed an eliminating fault in missing a bird; gathered opinion from the gallery of spectators and guns as to whether they had seen the bird in question and that he then returned to Miss Brown in an aggressive and threatening way to further query the decision; continued to discuss the decision beyond the incident with many people, and said Miss Brown was dishonest and had lied; and had said to the A panel judge on the day, Carol Brown, that he wondered how she would complete the evaluation form, which, in the view of Miss Brown, was an attempt to prejudice future appointments as well as the possibility of an appointment to the A panel in the future.

Reporting its findings the ad hoc sub-committee said: "We carefully considered Miss Brown’s objection, all statements received and Mr Young’s response to the allegations and found that although there was conflicting evidence as to the way in which Miss Brown’s decision was challenged, it was agreed that Mr Young had impugned her decision and therefore upheld the objection to the breach of regulation J9b13.

"The sub-committee did not consider there was any corroborating evidence to support the allegation that the questioning of Miss Brown’s decision was done in an aggressive manner. Nor did it consider there was any corroborating evidence to support the allegation that Mr Young used or attempted to exercise undue influence to interfere with the appointment of a judge or that he said Miss Brown was dishonest and had lied.

"In reaching this decision the sub-committee directed that Mr Young be warned and censured for challenging Miss Brown’s decision and be reminded that such behaviour was incompatible with his position as an A panel judge.”

He was also fined, and Miss Brown’s £35 objection fee was returned to her.

Miss Brown is Setter and Pointer Field Trial Secretary for the Dukeries (Notts) Gundog Club, and Setter and Pointer Field Trial Secretary for the Irish Setter Association of England and the Setter and Pointer Club. She has also been a member of the IGL committee for many years. Her legal fees accrued in bringing the complaint against Mr Young are understood to be nearly £1,000.

The KC has declined to comment, but in a letter to Miss Brown’s solicitor in October its secretary Caroline Kisko said there were two ways in which a complaint could be handled, depending on its nature and the gravity of the allegations: either by the relevant sub-committee or under regulation A42 to the Disciplinary Sub-Committee.

She said that in this case the Field Trial Sub-Committee carried the remit to determine the breach of such regulations but that due to the timings involved the case would not have been heard until that sub-committee’s February meeting. Mrs Kisko wrote that ‘the prospect of waiting until February 2013 for a determination on this matter is not acceptable’, and that the ad hoc sub-committee was to be formed, which would also consider whether rule A42 penalties were appropriate.

Mrs Kisko said that Mr Young had been elected chairman of the Field Trial Sub-Committee in September – after the incident at the July stake – and that the sub-committee had not been told that there was a complaint pending against him.

Mrs Kisko wrote: "… Mr Young is being treated in the standard manner as a respondent to the complaint. There will be no involvement by Mr Young at any stage in the adjudication of the matter.”


Go To Top Of Page