Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 3,833
- Location
- London
Nope, just branching out from his usual dogging interests.
Government over reaction again, this time attack dog owners
- Thread starter digipeep
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 3,833
- Location
- London
We keep big cats in zoos. People keep big dogs in their homes
We eat slaughtered animals everyday and you're upset by muzzling them for 30mins a day?
I think the combination of mechanisms we have is suitable.
We have the tort law including vicarious liability (if anybody harms you in the course of their duties of employment, the employer is liable for their torts).
We have the insurance mechanisms already discussed.
These primarily cover accidents, so I think your issues lie with losses stemming from intentional 'torts' such as from assaults or theft. These lie more squarely in the ambit of the criminal law. The actions are stigmatised and the consequences made more severe than those within civil law. So in addition to compensation that may be available, the wrongdoer is held to account by the state.
You may have thought of me as seeming very pro-government recently, but my responses are a result of my circumstances - I study law and I will (hopefully) one day be a solicitor. I have great faith that the system as a whole is fair for I have not yet found anything that I would consider to grossly undermine it.
I think you got your maths wrong, it is 0.061% isn't it?
Not really sure what this legislation is going to solve other than making all dog owners pay for the actions of a few dog owners. Is that right or fair?
And?
That's entirely different, yes it's 'cruel' in a sense, but at the end of the day those animals are brought up to be slaughtered, and hopefully in as painless a way as possible.
What the hell has that got to do with anything? We don't have Mad cows running around chomping people do we?
Unfair, unequal or not, it is a simple economic reality.
Pursuing people in the courts costs money. Putting people in prison because they can't pay a debt costs money. Hell, even putting people in indentured servitude against their will probably costs more than they would earn.
It's like the provision that insurance companies, if they wish, can elect to pay a sum of damages themselves to a client if they think it's cheaper than the legal costs of pursuing another party. Is that 'fair'? Is it morally right? No - but it is sound economic sense. If you are struggling to recover £x, why spend £y so then you have to spend £z to recover £x+y?
Which is where, of course, compulsory insurance steps in - it means that those who are 'too poor' to have any form of meaningful responsibility, now are able to at least contribute somewhat.
The point is that the practical reality of the situation is not necessarily the place for rigid adherence to lofty principles, but rather to finding a solution that mostly works for mostly everyone without being too detrimental - every positive idea has a corresponding negative byproduct - want rigid adherence to the concept of 'equal responsibility'? Then the concept of indebted servitude of sorts is arguably inescapably linked to it
Last edited:
We keep big cats in zoos. People keep big dogs in their homes
its not about the size, ive been bitten by next doors cat while trying to get into my car, surely they should have to be insured as well?
So you don't think that the difference in personal responsibility between (for example) an uninsured millionaire and an uninsured individual on income support is acceptable?
From my position, it appears that you are moving towards more and more law enforcement because it is to your (likely) benefit, which would make sense, it is how things are going to be taught after all. I can't say I agree with much of what you are saying, but that might be down as much to philosophical differences as anything else.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 3,833
- Location
- London
Well, if the incidents of cat damage are costing the victims significant amounts of money to resolve - then yes!
Edit: Same reason urban foxes should be culled, killing the local pets / wildlife.
Edit: Same reason urban foxes should be culled, killing the local pets / wildlife.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 8,725
- Location
- UK
I support the sentiment, but it is a massive waste of money.
If the law cannot stop people breeding illegal dog breeds (and these people are usually living in council houses, and in a feat of irony they sell these illegal pups on the doorstep of the RSPCA or PDSA - ultimately where the dogs will need to get treated), then they cannot make sure every dog is chipped and recorded.
If the law cannot stop people breeding illegal dog breeds (and these people are usually living in council houses, and in a feat of irony they sell these illegal pups on the doorstep of the RSPCA or PDSA - ultimately where the dogs will need to get treated), then they cannot make sure every dog is chipped and recorded.
A simple attachment of earnings would suffice, in many cases, just make it an attachment against income and include benefit payments as a source.
Will it make life hard? Yes, that's kind of the point. Making things harder is part of the restitution. Whether that takes monetary form or alternative forms is the question.
The system needs to be changed, because the above thinking is part of the reason why there is an underclass who generally believe they are untouchable, in many ways, they are.
No, that's not where compulsory insurance really kicks in, that's where taxation kicks in. Be honest and call it what it is. Any government mandated payment is a tax on something. The problem comes when the tax burden (as with motor insurance) is put on the law abiding and can be ignored by the very people who necessitate the requirement for it.
This problem is not to protect the individual against risk, because many people do not have the risk in the first place, it is to create a compensation fund.
Do you really think this is the best solution to the problem of a tiny minority who either can't or won't take responsibility for the dog, or who deliberately misuse their dog? I don't. I'm not necessarily opposed to some change (I do think, for example, that the dog licence should be brought back, because I do know several people who are just completely unsuitable to own the dog they do), but this isn't the right path.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Jan 2009
- Posts
- 4,325
With the amount of chavs using dogs as weapons and just generally bad dog owners I support that.
The amount of 15 year old chavs walking around like they've soiled themselves, in a kappa tracksuit with a pitbull is ridiculous.
What do the parents think them want it for, lets be fair here, it's not to get cuddly with.
I support this new insurance thing, might stop chavs getting dogs.
The amount of 15 year old chavs walking around like they've soiled themselves, in a kappa tracksuit with a pitbull is ridiculous.
What do the parents think them want it for, lets be fair here, it's not to get cuddly with.
I support this new insurance thing, might stop chavs getting dogs.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 25 Oct 2004
- Posts
- 9,078
I dont support this idea at all, all it will do is penalise legit dog owners as the scum of society will never pay up.
A better solution would be to introduce a compulsory dog licensing system, where you MUST have a license to own a dog and to get a license you would need to go to the appropriate dog handling course.
No license = No Dog.
Legit owners will comply, those that don't risk having their dogs taken away. The license could almost be treated like a "driving license" carry it with you at all times and failure to produce a valid license could be a criminal offense.
It would also be wise to have all animals "tagged" with the owners license number via chip so the owners can easily be traced.
No chip = no dog!
A better solution would be to introduce a compulsory dog licensing system, where you MUST have a license to own a dog and to get a license you would need to go to the appropriate dog handling course.
No license = No Dog.
Legit owners will comply, those that don't risk having their dogs taken away. The license could almost be treated like a "driving license" carry it with you at all times and failure to produce a valid license could be a criminal offense.
It would also be wise to have all animals "tagged" with the owners license number via chip so the owners can easily be traced.
No chip = no dog!
61 divided by 100,000 is 0.00061, unless my calculator is playing up...
And yes I think it is fair because it achieves the objective of compensating the victim at a small, unburdensome cost to everyone else.
If there really are 8 million dog owners, if they pay merely £1 a year, thats an £8 million pot for compensation.
In what circumstance? In a road accident? The end result is the same - the innocent party is compensated regardless and the uninsured driver is be prosecuted by the state.
It is a philosophical difference I assure you. You can label me with being pro-law for my own pocket, but I assure you that isn't the case.
Your calculator is fine, you've forgotten something about percentage calculation...
So 8 million people are required to pay for the consequences of the action of a few thousand? You think that is fair?
What about the fact that the innocent party can also sue for damages in both cases, but that action will have a much greater impact on the wealthy than on the poor? Or alternatively that the MIB can sue to recover the costs of their compensation payout which will again have a much greater impact on the wealthy?
The law does not give equal treatment in these cases.
I'm honestly not sure if that is better or worse.
Not after you pay the costs in the scheme, the running cost, the staff costs, the cost of the paper work, my guess there would be less then 2m left?
That mean we can cull the cats as well then given the amount of birds they kill?
Dolph said:
Yet you also ardently argue against means-testing of fines, even though with fixed fines, the impact on a wealthy individual is far less than than on a less wealthy individual?
Back OT - I suppose it's whether you consider pet ownership a 'right' or a 'privilege' - much like car ownership. You aren't 'forced' to own a pet, so why should there not be a cost, shared amongst those who also choose to own said pet, to pay for the group responsibility towards others.
As was intimated earlier - can't/won't purchase compulsory pet insurance? Have your pet taken away. The only downside is you can't exactly just crush pets like you would a car, but perhaps a portion of the pet insurance could also go towards funding shelters or suchlike.
Last edited: