Dogs not related to attack

Leila Reinhard, Hout Bay

Imagine our surprise when we received our copy of the Sentinel News and there on the front page was a picture of my dogs attached to an article about a dog attacking children on Hout Bay beach (“Dog attack on beach”, Sentinel, October 21).

How dare you print a photo of our dogs in the Sentinel without our consent?

We hugely object to them being photographed and used as part of an article of that nature. Both of them are family dogs and the Boston is a puppy. Do you realise that people don’t always read articles properly? We don’t wish our dogs to be attached to such an event, as at a mere glance it intimates that they were the perpetrators of the attack.

Then from a journalistic point of view your facts in the article and the photo you chose to print are totally contradictory. The picture was taken after 6.30pm on our evening walk, when dogs are allowed to be free and off a leash on the beach. This picture also intimates that we were somehow walking illegally on the beach with our dogs off the leash which is totally incorrect.

We insist upon a retraction, apology and at very least a response printed that states “in no way at all were the dogs in the picture involved in the attack” and “these dogs were photographed off the leash legally” on the beach.

* We’d like to assure Ms Reinhard that no malice was intended. The photograph was taken to illustrate the new signs on the beach, and certainly not to implicate her – or her dogs – in any illegal activity.
We regret any inconvenience or upset caused by the use of the picture – Chantel Erfort, Editor