Government over reaction again, this time attack dog owners

[Dolph]

It's not pointless, there are many in this thread that disagree with you. A system of compulsoruy registration is more to be enforced by a fine if it isn't complied to. I really don't see that as a problem. Plus it will provide a pot for those who are attacked by an uninsured dog to gain compensation in the exact same way that we can get compensation if we are injured by an uninsured car.

Whilst it's obvious that keeping a shamu in 'cage' is going to require extreme caution, I do find it mildly amusing that at the same time people are relatively reluctant to accept any potential dangers of certain dog breeds.

I'm starting to get concerned about you, you seem to have suddenly leapt towards a belief that the government needs to control every aspect of people's lives, and that all government interference is beneficial no matter how over-zealous and draconian it is. You seem to be taking the irrational 'preventing one incident is worth punishing millions' insanity that pervades authoritarian governments worldwide, while ignoring the fact that it won't actually address the problem issues.

What changed Nitefly?

 

[Delvis]

Whats wrong with a nice mongrel from the rspca?

Just that, its a mongrel (Joke)

It's just lack of training, ever dog can be taught to walk as calm as anything, just people cannot be bothered to teach the dog themselves and then expect some magical 'class' to do it, then when that fails they point the finger.

 

[Rich_L]

I'm starting to get concerned about you, you seem to have suddenly leapt towards a belief that the government needs to control every aspect of people's lives, and that all government interference is beneficial no matter how over-zealous and draconian it is. You seem to be taking the irrational 'preventing one incident is worth punishing millions' insanity that pervades authoritarian governments worldwide, while ignoring the fact that it won't actually address the problem issues.

What changed Nitefly?

I believe it's called not living in a fantasy world.

Regarding the OP - seems reasonable enough - you are mandated to purchase car insurance to cover the potential damage they could cause - I don't see why dogs should be any different.

If anything, it is making owners take responsibility for their pets

 

[Dolph]

I believe it's called not living in a fantasy world.

Well we've had a government that practices popular authoritarian lawmaking for the last 13 years. Have we actually had much in the way of improvements as a result? I'd put giving up all your responsibilities to the government and passing random laws because they feel good to be fantasy land politics personally...

 

[The IPB]

This will punish the decent dog owners, and the skanks who have the "status" dogs and don't look after or train them properly will just continue as they are now.

How the government fail to see this I don't understand.

Oh yes it's the £££££££

 

[Cyanide]

I'd imagine the majority of responsible dog owners will have their dogs insured anyway (to cover medical costs etc)

This is an utterly pointless and impossible to enforce suggestion from a government that's completely lost the plot. Yet again they're looking to lump costs on to the innocent and let the guilty walk free.

 

[InvaderGIR]

I believe it's called not living in a fantasy world.

Regarding the OP - seems reasonable enough - you are mandated to purchase car insurance to cover the potential damage they could cause - I don't see why dogs should be any different.

If anything, it is making owners take responsibility for their pets

It's far easier to control car insurance though, it's been in place for many decades and covers most of the cars already produced and ones being produced.

Dogs however, there are loads of them already and trying to control breeding of them is nigh on impossible. Let alone any of the other stuff.

 

[Delvis]

I believe it's called not living in a fantasy world.

Regarding the OP - seems reasonable enough - you are mandated to purchase car insurance to cover the potential damage they could cause - I don't see why dogs should be any different.

If anything, it is making owners take responsibility for their pets

Not everyone will get it microchipped...how about all the people who just breed dogs and flog them off....do you think they're chipped? Oh, and look who they're sold to

 

[Delvis]

Dogs however, there are loads of them already and trying to control breeding of them is nigh on impossible. Let alone any of the other stuff.

Heh, it's a good job you can't breed cars eh

 

[InvaderGIR]

Heh, it's a good job you can't breed cars eh

Cut'n'shut.

 

[Rich_L]

The argument that if people can break a law, it shouldn't be a law, seems somewhat counter-productive, as is the 'economic' argument that if criminals can make it hard/expensive enough to be caught, then their activities should be legalised.

As has been said earlier, most responsible dog owners will have insurance anyway - if it deters the irresponsible retards from owning pets, or makes it easier to crack down on them, then surely it is a reasonable suggestion?

Isn't it simply making pet owners take responsibility for the actions of the pet under their care?

 

[Dolph]

Regarding the OP - seems reasonable enough - you are mandated to purchase car insurance to cover the potential damage they could cause - I don't see why dogs should be any different.

If anything, it is making owners take responsibility for their pets

You don't need compulsory insurance to do that, a clear civil liability with the addition of the choice of compensatory or statutory damages for the victim, and then allow insurance to be offered to cover the cost.

Clear responsibility without masses of paperwork and additional jobs for the boys that we can't afford.

 

[Brokeback]

Ban people on benefits from owning dangerous breeds?

 

[Dolph]

The argument that if people can break a law, it shouldn't be a law, seems somewhat counter-productive, as is the 'economic' argument that if criminals can make it hard/expensive enough to be caught, then their activities should be legalised.

That's not the argument, the argument revolves around creating laws that do not actually affect the target of the law, but punish the law abiding instead.

If there are 1million dog owners in the UK, and 200 who misuse their dogs, who should be the target of the legislation and bear the restriction of liberty that results? Which side of that do you think this law falls on?

 

[InvaderGIR]

The argument that if people can break a law, it shouldn't be a law, seems somewhat counter-productive, as is the 'economic' argument that if criminals can make it hard/expensive enough to be caught, then their activities should be legalised.

It's not that simple though is it, enforcing it is impossible, which means almost everyone would be breaking the law, and as Dolph has said, it punishes responsible people and allows irresponsible ones to get off scotfree.

 

[InvaderGIR]

Ban people on benefits?

Fixed.

 

[The IPB]

That's not the argument, the argument revolves around creating laws that do not actually affect the target of the law, but punish the law abiding instead.

If there are 1million dog owners in the UK, and 200 who misuse their dogs, who should be the target of the legislation and bear the restriction of liberty that results? Which side of that do you think this law falls on?

Well said, I was writing something but you put it better than I would have.

 

[Delvis]

The argument that if people can break a law, it shouldn't be a law, seems somewhat counter-productive, as is the 'economic' argument that if criminals can make it hard/expensive enough to be caught, then their activities should be legalised.

That's two different things man?

Car insurance is one thing, that already needs some proper re-inforcement other than 'a few months ban' for having no insurance.

This dog thing is ridiculous...I do believe dogs if brought from proper 'suppliers/shelters/ etc, should be recommended to have chips in, problem is this is naturally an extra cost as usual which people don't always want to pay.

But as I said before, what about all the people who buy dogs off breeders? Who don't chip them?

I know someone who breeds huskies, but they do everything properly, they actually get them chipped, and nutured before they are even sold, and they wil not sell them untill they are a certain age, regardless of money.

 

[Rich_L]

You don't need compulsory insurance to do that, a clear civil liability with the addition of the choice of compensatory or statutory damages for the victim, and then allow insurance to be offered to cover the cost.

Clear responsibility without masses of paperwork and additional jobs for the boys that we can't afford.

Clear civil liability is as useless as the paper it is written on when dealing with impecunious individuals, hence the need for compulsory insurance.

 

[Neolink]

That photo of a dog the BBC always uses its absolutely vile

edit: hahaha they changed it as I posted