Posties DEFEND Royal Mail worker who kicked a blind Shih Tzu ‘like a football’ before she died
Postal workers have rushed to defend a Royal Mail colleague who was filmed apparently kicking a blind Shih Tzu "like a football" shortly before the dog died, arguing the footage doesn't tell the full story. The incident has sparked a backlash on social media, with animal welfare campaigners condemning the worker's actions, while some fellow posties have pushed back publicly, insisting the clip is being misinterpreted or lacks context. The row highlights the tension between viral outrage sparked by shocking footage and colleagues' instinct to close ranks around one of their own.
Royal Mail is understood to be looking into the matter, though details of any formal action remain unclear. The dog, described as blind, reportedly died after the incident, intensifying public anger and prompting calls for accountability, while supporters of the worker maintain there were mitigating circumstances not captured in the clip that has circulated widely online.
- Video shows Royal Mail worker allegedly kicking blind Shih Tzu, which later died
- Some postal colleagues have publicly defended the worker involved
- Incident has caused public outrage and prompted a Royal Mail review
New here? Start with this
A Royal Mail worker has become the subject of significant public concern following footage that appears to show them kicking a small dog during a work visit. The dog, described as a blind Shih Tzu, died after the incident, prompting widespread outrage and calls for accountability.
Animal welfare campaigners have condemned the worker's actions, whilst some of the worker's colleagues have publicly defended them, arguing the footage is being misinterpreted or lacks crucial context. The company has confirmed it is investigating the matter.
The situation highlights a broader tension between public judgment based on viral footage and workplace solidarity among colleagues. It has raised questions about what accountability should look like when video evidence circulates online but interpretation of that evidence sharply divides observers.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Those defending the postal worker argue that a short clip taken out of context can never capture the full sequence of events, and that judging someone's character or intentions from a few seconds of footage risks serious unfairness. They point out that colleagues who know the individual and the circumstances of the job may have information the public does not, and that supporting a workmate while facts are established is a reasonable instinct rather than tribal loyalty. They would add that Royal Mail and any relevant authorities should be allowed to investigate properly before conclusions are drawn or a livelihood is put at risk.
The case against
Those condemning the incident argue that the footage itself shows a defenceless, blind animal being struck with considerable force, and that no plausible context could justify such an act, particularly given the dog's subsequent death. They believe animal welfare demands accountability regardless of who is involved or what workplace pressures may have existed, and that closing ranks around a colleague risks minimising genuine cruelty and discouraging victims or witnesses from coming forward in future. For them, public scrutiny and a thorough, transparent inquiry are essential precisely because vulnerable animals cannot speak for themselves.