Thread: Dangerous Dogs

Apologies for this being The Sun, but I thought it gave an interesting insight into just why the Home Secretary's "dog tax" is doomed to failure.

Some very scary reading indeed.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...n-minutes.html

As much as I hate to say it the scrote is right, the crims won't get insurance and it is another way of raising cash. There is already legislation in place for this but as with most things what is lacking is the will and resources to enforce it.

I'm going to make a massive presumption here, that these dogs could number in the thousands, and most estates will have their fair share.

In our Parish News magazine, it was announced 3 dangerous dogs had been seized. This is a middle class village in Surrey!

The resources required for a crack down in just one area must be enormous. RSPCA, enormous amounts of Police Dog Handlers, armed police....

Hasn't this already been done to death in other threads? I'd post a link if I could be arrsed.

Originally Posted by blonde_guy

In our Parish News magazine, it was announced 3 dangerous dogs had been seized. This is a middle class village in Surrey!

There's no such thing as a middle class village, not in Surrey nor anywhere else, and I should know, as I come from one.

That's a surprisingly well-written piece for the Sun.

Originally Posted by Joe_Private

Hasn't this already been done to death in other threads? I'd post a link if I could be arrsed.

Originally Posted by blonde_guy

In our Parish News magazine, it was announced 3 dangerous dogs had been seized. This is a middle class village in Surrey!

There's no such thing as a middle class village, not in Surrey nor anywhere else, and I should know, as I come from one.

How would you define Surrey villages then?

The actual effect (or not) of the new insurance has been done, but this specific story I thought warranted another thread!

They are not so ferocious when stopped literally dead in their snarling slavering tracks with a short pick-axe handle!

An extremely effective close-range weapon.

No such thing as a dangerous dog,just a stupid,dangerous,irresponsible owner,and the dog ends up paying the price!

Originally Posted by BrunoNoMedals

That's a surprisingly well-written piece for the Sun.

That's because it's written by a chav scrote and not by a Sun Journo scrote.

i want the biggest hardest, largest hearted dog i can get.

I will completly control said pooch with comprehensive training, if i can't it will be leashed and muzzled when walked. i'd feel dissapointed that i couldn't control the beast off the lead at the heel.............

I have yet to hear of a golden lab, or a springer spaniel mauling a young kid, it does seem that it is always a certain type of dog owned by folks who choose to wear training suits and live in estates owned by the council who have these dangerous dogs.

Originally Posted by pegasusbranding

I have yet to hear of a golden lab, or a springer spaniel mauling a young kid, it does seem that it is always a certain type of dog owned by folks who choose to wear training suits and live in estates owned by the council who have these dangerous dogs.

Exactly! Nor have I.

Reading that article is quite sickening, these cunts couldn't give a shit about their "pets" welfare, they are just another weapon for our estate souljas

Originally Posted by countymounty

No such thing as a dangerous dog,just a stupid,dangerous,irresponsible owner,and the dog ends up paying the price!

I like dogs and I would agree that there are a large number of pretty stupid owners.
The question that always amuses me is "Is it, the dog, good with children" I usually reply "Are the children good with dogs?"
Leading on from this: I believe that Pit Bull types are supposed to be neutered and/or muzzled at all times?
I was in my local vets a couple of days ago and there was a "Staffie" in there. I would have said that it was a Pit Bull cross. Its conformation was entirely wrong for a Staffie and yet this thing was not muzzled and was causing chaos.
Requiring people to have insurance will not stop people who have dogs as weapons because they do not give two f**ks about anything.
The only time that you want the insurance is when that huge vet bill comes in and, by god, that can be really frightening

The court costs,fines, civil claim costs,and possible destruction of your dog can cost a lot more than vets bills.The vast majority of bites are caused by "pets that wouldn't touch you". Collies,J.R.T's,Akitas,Alsatians are well up the list,Staffie types are low on it,the major difference is the these incidents don't normally make to the Media. How often have you heard of an incident involving a Collie or a Lab.,however,the moment a Rottweiler,Doberman or Staffie type steps out of line,you get headlines such as "DEVIL DOGS!!" The vast majority of incidents are caused by irresponsible owners especilly those whose firm opinion is that "Their dog wouldn't do that!" As for insurance,some companies can/do provide it along with your house insurance. Classifying dogs as dangerous by breed is almost impossible,and extremly expensive to prove in court, punish the deed not the breed is the way forward.Micro-chipping which PROVES owner ship is also a step in the right direction.Data bases holding micro-chip information on dogs already exists e.g. Petlog.

It's all down to how much effort is put into enforcement. Within the current laws/bylaws, Wandsworth has started a very useful programme of recording and chipping all dogs on it's Council estates. Owners who do not comply are evicted.

I kind of agree with the "all dogs" approach - not just so some warped fighting type can get off on a genetic techinicality, but also because an over-friendly dog can still cause problems. One of my kids was scared of dogs for ages after a harmless, friendly, great with kids Labrador, off the lead, next to us at a zebra crossing, unexpectedly gave pushchair-bound toddler a great big lick on the face. Took years to get the child safe round dogs after that.