Islington Council v. Diesel the Dog

By Julie PH Last edited 126 months ago
Islington Council v. Diesel the Dog

First Kilo the Cat, now Diesel the Dog – call it animal cruelty, antipathy, or apathy, it all incenses us just the same. Below we mete out armchair justice (and reveal why our law career never got off the ground).

The Facts: A June 22 fire in a flat above their home left the Driscoll family, including healthy 5-year-old golden retriever Diesel, without a place to live. Islington Council found the family emergency housing in east London – in accommodation that doesn’t allow dogs. When, based on this restriction, the Driscolls refused the accommodation, an Islington Council official is alleged to have told them that the dog should be put down.

Islington Council say: that no such remark was ever made. Furthermore, there’s a housing shortage in the borough, so the Driscolls should accept what they’ve been offered and put Diesel in a kennel until other arrangements can be made.

Diesel’s family say: that Diesel is, in fact, a member of the family and that, as a rescued dog, separating him from his humans would be particularly cruel.

We say: Can anyone really be so callous as to suggest that a family that’s just lost all its possessions to fire should also put the family dog to sleep? We certainly hope not. Even if the allegation is exaggerated, we’d like to see a bit more sensitivity among Islington officials. We can appreciate the challenges that must come with trying to accommodate the housing needs of many different families, but in a nation of dog lovers, is this request really so unique?

Londonist verdict: We hereby sentence Islington Council to a year of cleaning up after Diesel’s poo, walking him at least twice a day, and rubbing his belly for as long as he damn well pleases.

Image courtesy of claudecf’s Flickrstream under the Creative Commons Attribution license

Last Updated 11 July 2008