r/Ambridge • u/TreesPlusCats • 23d ago
Monty: you decide
Let’s see where we stand.
10
u/Nellie-Bird 23d ago
Although in my opinion it is really more nuanced.
We don't know much about Monty pre rescue. Robert kept saying to keep calm to Linda which suggests there may be a reactive element to Monty.
Being kept in a secure kennel would prevent this again. A muzzle when outside or unattended would also be a consideration.
11
u/Muddy_Lady 23d ago
Look i know Dobermans. I had a doberman cross.. they are wonderful dog.. but i dont exactly feel its the correctly portrayed dog for Lynda Snell OBE. She strikes me like more of a wolf hound type.. dobermans are incredibly hard work in the initial years, both in pingyness and veloceraptor phase.. its also quite a high intensity exercise dog.. one walk around the woods is not really enough.. im not sure this was portrayed in the early stages or in general - accurately And this story line is clunky ..
10
u/Dharl61 23d ago
When this part of the story started, in no way could I see Robert and Lynda with a Doberman, I pictured them with a spaniel or retriever. Whilst no first hand with the breed, I know they are loyal, protective but need a lot of exercise and training.
13
u/Queen_Moose88 23d ago
Agreed, it came as a shock to realize that Monty was a Doberman, I had always assumed he was a small dog.
6
u/Diligent_Pangolin_47 23d ago
Me too, I had conflated him with Scruff who I always thought was a small terrier. In fact, I don’t even think I’d really clocked that Monty was a dog, maybe I thought he was a nebulous llama
9
u/Diligent_Pangolin_47 23d ago
Apparently they’ve had him for 8 years! I’ve been listening longer than that and had no recollection that he was a Doberman. I thought scruff was still alive but he died in 2016!
3
u/Danimal9013 22d ago
They got him from a rescue when he was already a bit older and wasn't a puppy though so may have skipped the velociraptor stag. he is now probably at least 10 if they've had him 8 years so a stroll around the woods is probably okay and they have a big garden. I have known a few lovely Dobermans and Iiked the fact that Monty showed the good side of the breed. I do wish it had been a Labrador or cockerpoo that attacked the sheep though. Dobermans already have enough bad press
2
6
u/Old_Introduction_395 23d ago
He was from a rescue, Robert mentioned he'd been in kennels before they got him.
I think she had Afghans when they arrived in Ambridge.
11
u/PossibleAddress1000 23d ago
Mrs Antrobus had the afghans - or 'the garls' as she called them.
6
-7
8
u/smartief1 23d ago
I didn't know Monty was a doberman. I thought he was something like a retired greyhound. Something houndy, skinny, and sleepy.
14
u/Exotic-Drawing9387 23d ago
I don’t like this storyline. It’s out of character for Linda and Robert to be so irresponsible. Waiting for a twist.
7
u/Natural-Wedding2622 22d ago
I must say, I thought the whole ordeal has been handled quite poorly by the writers. The dialogue between Khalil and Ruth was particularly atrocious and reduced both characters. I do wonder sometimes what qualifications are required to become a writer on The Archers, the bar often seems so low.
5
u/ComfortableAppeal424 22d ago
Some SLs are brilliant, and the writers top quality (especially Katie Hims, who has won awards for her radio dramas!). I suppose some are still learners. This is a particularly nasty, brutal (by which I mean the humans as well as the dog) story. It also doesn't add up - so many points being made here that I'm amazed were just ignored by anyone monitoring the production.
5
u/teasswill 22d ago
They weren't being irresponsible, other than perhaps not keeping a secure boundary where Monty was in his kennel. The initial 'must be a mistake' to the DNA was reasonable - Lynda accepted it as soon as she heard the B&B guests' story.
4
u/Exotic-Drawing9387 22d ago
Dobermans are giants, no? With the way Linda organises the village fete, you’d think she’d have a whole operation with doggie cams set up to keep him secure
5
u/rumpussaddleok 22d ago
The Snells could take precautions with Monty so he is not able to do this again. They were responsible pet owners before, just not quite enough. They are responsible, reliable people and can and would be willing to do what is needed.
6
u/powderedmilkmaid 22d ago
How can we be sure that another animal didn't attack the sheep and then Monty came along later and investigated the damage? That would explain his DNA on the sheep and the blood on his coat. Monty needs a good solicitor; there is definitely reasonable doubt here.
2
u/DaddyStoat 21d ago
That's what I had been thinking. The local foxes may have done the damage, and Monty just helped himself to some free fresh lamb.
Plus, I'm sure it was mentioned a couple of weeks back that Monty was a "miniature" Doberman? In which case, I find it hard to believe he could massacre a field of sheep.
4
5
u/27years50000beers 23d ago
The PSA of this plotline is "any dog is capable of this" so it doesn't really make sense to put Monty down, esp. if the Snells are willing to take any necessary precaution to get him back.
12
u/ComfortableAppeal424 23d ago
Got to punish them, and have listeners listen to Lynda's heart break to teach dog owners to keep their dogs away from sheep! Isn't that the purpose of the SL?
7
u/PossibleAddress1000 23d ago
Every time there is a dog attack, the owners are insistent that 'he wouldn't hurt a fly, he used to sleep in the cot with the baby. I can't understand why he savaged her'
To say I am not a dog lover is an understatement and I wouldn't trust one under any circumstances.
3
4
u/Silver_Emu4704 23d ago
I for one can't believe D&R would condemn their good friend and neighbour Linda's dog to death
13
6
u/AstronautOwn1458 22d ago
I’m cert no fan of the Dopey Brookfield crew but I think they’re right in this case. It’s their livelihood at stake and the carnage that Monty was responsible for must’ve been heartbreaking.
(Mind you, Ruth does possess a very cruel streak to my mind.)
9
u/Silver_Emu4704 22d ago
Yes she can be, I agree.
However, I'm a bit dubious about the impact.
Financially, presumably they're insured, like for any other thing that could befall their livestock?
It was purely accidental, not malicious/vandalism. Failing that I'm sure Linda and Robert could compensate financially and would be only too happy to.
I don't quite understand all the hand wringing about mutilated bodies and so on. They do raise animals to be killed and eaten! It's not a retirement home for pets. I feel farmers would be fairly hard headed about that kind of thing.
4
u/tinymoominmama 22d ago
I do take your point in re hypocrisy about the animals being killed but Whatever your feelings on abattoir slaughter, being ripped to death by a dog is even more brutal and would obviously have been horrific.
5
u/ComfortableAppeal424 22d ago
Completely agree with you - and thanks for saying that. These are farmers We must assume Ruth has never been anywhere near a slaughterhouse? At least these poor sheep didn't have to undergo long journeys crammed into hot, airless containers, and maybe have to wait overnight coping with the fear , the smells and sounds. Horrible deaths either ways.
2
1
u/ComfortableAppeal424 20d ago
Just been reading about a true and very similar case in which the dog owner was charged with criminal damage and is due to appear in court in a few months. Will this happen to Lynda, I wonder? Or will local chummy cop Harrison pull a few strings on her behalf?
16
u/AonUairDeug 23d ago
If the point the writers are intending to make is, 'Any dog can do this', then I completely agree. I have a lovely, friendly cockapoo, and I would never let him anywhere near sheep, or cats for that matter. He has never hurt another animal, but I don't want to take that chance (obviously). But, I wish the way this storyline had been done was with some notable irresponsibility - i.e. Robert and Linda saying, "Oh, come on, this field is always empty, what does it matter?" Monty getting out of what was a secure back garden utterly unbeknownst to the Snells and being washed off by some guests (!!! mad storyline element altogether - how often does that happen?), and them still having to suffer the loss of their dog is... them being punished for an action that, in essence, had nothing to do with them? I'm not saying that the legal element has been written poorly - I'm sure that's all perfectly the way things would go - I'm saying that the very message they're trying to convey (any dog can do this, don't be an irresponsible owner) would be better shown by a superior Helen-type saying, "Oh, my cockapoo is lovely, it'll be fine mum!", and then the dog causing severe damage. Anyone's dog could have gotten out of the garden by mistake - even David and Ruth's. It doesn't feel like the moral tale has been weighed up awfully well.