READERS LETTERS

• This horrendous, entirely inexcusable tragedy was first uncovered by GBGB Stipendiary Steward Simon Storey in the course of an unschedled visit to Rebecca Perkins’ kennel. It was his second ‘random’ visit to the kennel in six months as is preferred practice by GBGB stewards. Some established kennels may be visited less – though at least once a year. Kennels of concern, may get monthly visits. In between time, I am not certain on the precise timing, but around four/six weeks before the incident was detected, the kennels were visited by the independent auditors, SCI. They are rated an excellent organisation offering their services  to a wide range of industries and are registered with UKAS. They gave the kennel a clean bill of health.

• It was Mr Storey who notified the RSPCA of his findings and it was his evidence and photographs that were used in the prosectution. I am told that he found it a very tough ordeal but carried out his duties to a high standard of professionalism. It should be noted that in addition to greyhounds, there were several Bedlington Terrriers on the premises, again in very poor condition. These were also brought to the attention to the RSPCA who had, I understand, had no previous interest in the kennel.

• Rebecca Perkins had been training for many years. I am not certain of the precise timescale but believe it was at least ten years at Sheffield having previously trained at Kinsley. There had been no previous issues with her kennels or the condition of her greyhounds which were checked by a veterinary surgeon on regular track visits for racing and trials. Whatever occured -nomatter how inexcusable – was comparatively recent.

• It seems certain that had Mr Storey not visited, a back-up safety scheme would have been enacted. Any greyhound that does not race or trial within 28 days becomes ‘inactive’ by GBGB. A small number of greyhounds (not sure how many) had breached that time and the Sheffield management had attempted to contact her. Despite their concerns, Ms Perkins was able to persuade the track that it was just a temporary difficulty. Had they been aware of a temporary or significant issue, you can be certain that the track would have assisted; they have their own fabulous re-homing scheme. (I am aware of another recent incident whereby the stipendiary steward alerted the management to the condition of the dogs. The trainer’s contract was cancelled and his dogs were all re-homed by the parent company).

• I understand that there were issues raised on social media suggesting ‘if the green form system is so perfect, what happened to the green forms for the dead greyhounds?’ That is a valid point. The green (retirement) form system is not watertight. The Greyhound Board do not have statutory powers to question individuals or search premises. (Though neither do the RSPCA). The Board can blacklist individuals who are believed to be in breach of the rules. However, while individual cases may slip through the net, it seems implausible that it could be done in volume. There are no concerns over the retirement history over the vast majority of retired greyhounds.

So can an incident like this happen again?

Certainly. Inevitably.

There are roughly 475 greyhound trainers. Every so often, something will happen in someone’s life whereby their behaviour entirely changes. ‘The pleasant neighbour’ or ‘quiet kid’ at school commits some kind of atrocity or self harm.

My question to you Ms Tompkins is this.

Even if you assume that we are an uncaring, barbaric industry with no compassion for animals, would it be good business to knowingly allow this type of thing to occur?

For as long as the industry has existed, we have been accused of covering up dopings, cruelty, injuries and dishonesty.

Now, when our drug testing does its job, and our welfare officers do the best to their abilities, the ‘anti racing/fund raising fraudsters attempt to use our own evidence as a stick to beat us with.

Floyd Amphlett – Editor Greyhound Star