Certain posters on here would, no doubt, put it down to them getting their just desserts.

I am sure they will have been insured, but presumably "they" are a charity and really it is the people who donate time and/or money you are referring to when you say "they".

Rescue premises for dogs are few and far between and if this money enables them to build bigger and better premises then that's great.

I think I read that over 100 dogs were injured, I sadly know a bit about vet's bills, and even if that costs only on average £250 per injured dog then that's a quarter of the money gone already.

The places do have volunteers but they do also have paid staff and any wage bill when added up and annualise can very quickly make even £1m look like peanuts.

So I don't think that the money is actually that much compared with what they need.

I don't turn my nose up at beggars but sadly proceed on the basis that it's odds-on no beggar is actually a beggar since the majority either aren't, or increasingly are parts of criminal gangs even if albeit coerced into begging. Either way I prefer to donate anything I might want to give to homeless charities. Which is very easy to do nowadays and of which there are many.

From what I have seen on visits to the city, Manchester could do with a few less dogs.

Rescue premises for dogs are few & far between? Can you expand on that?

I think pets, particularly dogs, are a very emotive issue.

There used to be RSPCA and a couple more in the Bradford area. We got a rescue dog from each one of the non-RSPCA ones in recent years, and both are now shut. Haven't looked recently but so far as I know if not the RSPCA then there's nothing else now except rehoming organisations, but they don't have a kennels like the Manchester fire one.

I don't know about Manchester except what I read after this fire but they reportedly just have another one, which took as many of the dogs as it could.

Do you think they are all over the place, or what, as I don't really get why you asked?

You said places were few & far between when talking about the happenings in Manchester. You didn't qualify it. I can't see how your perception of Bradford is relevant to Manchester, upon which you were commenting & claiming there weren't enough of the type of place that burned down.

Then you appear to have difficulty in either reading, thinking, or both. I said:

... which they are.

I didn't say:

and the context makes it perfectly clear that the comment was a general one, and not restricted to Manchester. I find it hard to see how a reasonable person would think otherwise.

I find it also hard to get the point of it, since if I had restricted the comment to Manchester, it would still, seemingly, be true as according to the reports I have read there is only 1 other similar sized place, and that wasn't big enough to take all the dogs, many of which are having to be 'fostered'.

But I find it harder to work out why a reasonable person would want to derail a thread about the terrible events at Manchester Dogs Home with some bogus and pointless argument about semantics.

Not sure that they actually have a dogs home in Bradford at all, our dog came from the Dogs Trust in Leeds but he was picked up as an abandoned stray in Bradford by the councils dog warden, kept for seven days by the warden service then passed to DT Leeds.

It's not a matter of semantics. Or my reading & comprehension skills.

have you got anything to back up your claim that there is a shortage of these sort of places? Are we now to assume you meant nationally? Or did you mean in Manchester, or Bradford?

Your emotions are getting the better of you, it would seem.