Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Dragon Vets Thread
Following further communications with Dragon Vets, we were requested to remove the complete thread since the complaint is subject to an investigation which could result in further action.
The full thread has been saved and will be available for reposting if it becomes appropriate.
We have taken this action since the legal advice was that we could very well be open a costly legal action. Having already spent several hours on this today, I can afford neither the time more the money to get engaged in a law suit.
Site member Dave Morris spent seven years fighting McDonalds. I guess I don't have his stamina!
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
No, John, no! People can say anything they like on their own blogs if they're prepared to go to court.
The best legal opinion available says that since HoL is unmoderated, I'm not liable for comments posted by people other than me until such time as I have an issue brought to my attention. Once that happens I am liable in addition to the poster. So, to be honest, I'd rather say that people are willing to post anything within reason - and I refer you to my comment of a couple of minutes ago.
-
Permalink Reply by John D on
-
I think that is what I said ?
I think I said go ahead but just be careful ?
-
Permalink Reply by 0rp5ggnv1hwus on
-
Hi. Just a reminder that I am Russell, the owner and Principal of Dragon Vets.
Well!
I have received the report of the investigation into the matter by my Clinical Director. You will find the unfolding of events very interesting. There is always more than initially meets the eye, don't you find!
We must, of course, respond firstly to the complainant and this post must remain just a teaser for the time being. I will publish the objective report and my take on it in due course and look forward to your interpretation of events.
'Curioser and curioser' is something I read once.
-
Permalink Reply by cara howard on
-
I would think it more professional and appropriate to respond to the person who made the complaint, directly and in a personal manor before posting flippant and goading comments on a public forum.
Remember, there was a huge amount of distress caused that sparked this.
-
Permalink Reply by William Booth on
-
Yeah, I have to say, regardless of the facts of the case, I'm not warming to the approach taken by the proprietor here..
-
-
I'm not sure a report carried out by the practice in question without having asked any additional questions or sought additional information from the complainant can ever be described as 'objective' anyway.
-
-
I'm with you on this.
-
Permalink Reply by Malc B on
-
Russell, in light of your previous insistence on the observance of legal niceties by this site, I trust you have considered the data protection and libel implications of your post. I understand your desire to present your version of events, but speaking for myself I would be most uncomfortable using your surgery’s services if I thought there was a risk you would make posts such as these without my consent, or indeed without first giving me an opportunity to review them and comment. On which note - if, as it appears, you have not yet given the customer an opportunity to comment on your ‘objective’ report, is your posting this ‘teaser’ not precisely the same as the conduct of the original poster which you decried?
-
-
Agreed Malcolm. I am the original complainant and have not seen this report or had any contact today from Dragon regarding it. One rule for one, one rule for another it would seem.
-
-
Did you ever get to see the report Cara ?
Not seen it published as promised.
-
-
Hi John,
Yes I saw the report eventually. As expected they feel they acted in the right way, and claim that in response to my question about how an injury visible to the naked eye of the RSPCA vet wasn't picked up, that as I wasn't present when the kitten was examined (my partner was though) that perhaps they were unable to examine her to see properly due to distress. Luckily the RSPCA vet was able.
It was littered with spelling mistakes and both mine and my partner's name were wrong throughout - not even close the right names, to the point where I had to question if they were even talking about our case. Apparently the names and address details faxed to the RSPCA were also wrong. Attention to important detail lacking clearly.
I'm not surprised to be honest, but I stand by my decision not to have any of my pets under their care even more so now, after the above and the cocky, goading nature of posts on here by the owner. Highly unprofessional and inappropriate.
It is a great shame as I have very publicly recommended them for many years, an example of this was also presented to them. But I simply can't anymore.
-
-
I would have thought that they would have to seek my permission to publish the report anyway, under data protection laws?
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
