Government over reaction again, this time attack dog owners

Unnecessary bureaucracy and/or rules&regulations imo.

I don't know how it is in the UK but here we already have silly things like dog tax issued by councils, dog owners get enough **** already.
Also the majority shouldn't pay for the actions of a minority imo.
 
Last edited:
So what happens if the **** round the corner with the **** of a dog doesn't get insurance? They have resources to chase him and 'fine' him? Even though he'll be on benefits anyway :S

Seems rather pointless as the legit owners that will most likely be semi-respectable will pay the insurance for **** all.

I'm not biased at all. Only dogs we have had are border collies.
 
Jonny ///M said:
So what happens if the **** round the corner with the **** of a dog doesn't get insurance? They have resources to chase him and 'fine' him? Even though he'll be on benefits anyway :S

Seems rather pointless as the legit owners that will most likely be semi-respectable will pay the insurance for **** all.

I'm not biased at all. Only dogs we have had are border collies.
Click to expand...

this exactly, all of it.
 
At least it might lead to a more responsible overall English dog ownership, possibly. Every **** and hit mrs around here seem to have some kind of angy looking creature on a leash. I have a dog (well, he's not mine, but never the less, the premium would be paid) and I see a difference tbh; between a pet and a brazen chested weapon on a lead. Unfortunately some people seem to see so called dangerous breeds as council estate masculinity symbols. I'm all for tighter breeding/ownership regulations, and much tougher penalties for owners when dogs attack or threaten.
 
benneh said:
At least it might lead to a more responsible overall English dog ownership, possibly. Every **** and hit mrs around here seem to have some kind of angy looking creature on a leash. I have a dog (well, he's not mine, but never the less, the premium would be paid) and I see a difference tbh; between a pet and a brazen chested weapon on a lead. Unfortunately some people seem to see so called dangerous breeds as council estate masculinity symbols. I'm all for tighter breeding/ownership regulations, and much tougher penalties for owners when dogs attack or threaten.
Click to expand...

I am all for the latter but if this insurance was brought in then you'd pay it and the other bell ends who cause the trouble wouldn't!

Punish everyone with a 'naughty' dog OR regulate breeding which forces it underground I guess. I'd just keep it as if your dog attacks someone it dies and the owner gets fined and/or not allowed to be in control of an animal.
 
Completely unnecessary for a large part of the population, it's basically chucking money down the drain.

Who exactly is going to 'enforce' it? Are you going to be liable to be stopped on the street every time you go for a walk?

Most 'serious' dog attacks in my area (obviously you know the sort), the dog and the owner are rarely ever found as they scarmper as soon as, how is insurance going to prevent that?

Bring out a law where all dogs -must- be muzzled in public, I'm not a fan of that idea completely, but I can see it being far more enforceable and one I'd support.

As for posties, I'd hope... most home owners would keep their dogs seperate from where he can deliver, even if that means errecting a second fence/gate just to partition the area, making it safe for them, if not, tell the house owner they can pick up the post from the post office instead, they would soon get tired of that.

It would lead the more responsible, to be more responsible and out of pocket for the privilage. It'd lead those who just don't care..to care even less while laughing their head off.
 
Well, if this does what it says on the tin, then I'm all in favour of it, and to quote Billy Hayes from that article, "it can't come soon enough."
 
It would be much better if **** owners and their dogs were reported by their neighbours etc rather than expecting the police to catch them out and about. I suppose that people don't do this for the same reason that they don't come forward when they know who commited a crime, a stupid sense of honour; never grass to the police mentality.

As stated above, the already responsible owners would comply with insurance etc, the ****s would not.
 
Last edited:
I'm sure all the chavs with staffs will be happy to take responsibility for their pets and get this insurance. It's not like you get people driving without motor insurance is it?

This will provide enourmous economic benefit for insurance executives too, who just happen to be mates with the government.
 
scorza said:
I'm sure all the chavs with staffs will be happy to take responsibility for their pets and get this insurance. It's not like you get people driving without motor insurance is it?

This will provide enourmous economic benefit for insurance executives too, who just happen to be mates with the government.
Click to expand...

Yes and of course it is going to be very easy to enforce as dogs carry number plates and chassis numbers.

Maybe they should cast their minds back to dog licenses which where so impossible to enforce they eventually had to get rid of them.
 
As with dog licenses before it and car insurance presently. Responsible people will have it if the law dictates, and the irresponsible won't.

So those who don't deserve it will get penalised and those that do won't.
 
Third Opinion said:
Yes and of course it is going to be very easy to enforce as dogs carry number plates and chassis numbers.

Maybe they should cast their minds back to dog licenses which where so impossible to enforce they eventually had to get rid of them.
Click to expand...

But the majority have been chipped, or should have been anyway.

I own a staffy puppy who is 5 months old and thinks biting you is a game, not hard but we are currently training him and he's doing it less and less. We also decided to not use a harness so his chest muscles won't get stupidly strong and give him that really aggressive staffy stance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom