It’s barely a slap on the wrist. Purposely not registering your XL Bully dog under the new scheme and then ‘letting’ it attack someone is almost murder imo and the sentence should be reviewed because it’s far too lenient.Conviction for idiocy- attack was an 8 year old boy, back in february:
Bootle mother and son jailed over XL bully attack on boy
The dog caused the boy "catastrophic and life changing injuries", a court is told.www.bbc.co.uk
Does something need to be done about dogs?
- Thread starter Dis86
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,383
£12 for 55 minutes, at all our local ones. That's not exactly tiny.
In fewer than two weeks of providing the necessary exercise, those fields would cost more than the dog.
Doing that, you're more likely to just annoy the dog, prolong the attack and risk losing your foot/ankle.
I would have suggested showing it your Swiss Army knife, as all dogs apparently know what these are and are afraid of them, but even those may also be getting banned before long.
But rather than forcing muzzles on innocent creatures, why aren't you instead forcing those legally held responsible to actually be responsible toward their dogs?
It was never a problem in the past...
Soldato
Why? Why does it hurt you to muzzle a pooch when on public land? Isn't that just being selfish?
Soldato
Yes, but defining the problem doesn't provide a solution. We all know that it's idiot owners that are mostly to blame, but how could you change that? I would suggest that a solution like muzzles is a practical solution whereas training a bunch of idiots how to handle dogs is not. You can't train every dog owner in the UK, but you sure can muzzle all the dogs.
Last edited:
Is not nice for the dog wearing a muzzle.
Its an over reaction and I expect most dog owners would be the same.
Its a move of the goal posts and there's no danger from an under control dog and no need to be on a muzzle.
Is one of those things that would make a difference to my day. Id hate seeing my boy with a muzzle.
People need to start doing their jobs.
Bring back licensing, mandatory insurance, breeding controls and proper animal control.
And most of all - real consequences for people who flaunt/break the rules.
No license? = £500 spot fine, non-negotiable.
No insurance? = £1000 fine, non-negotiable. Can't pay? court appointed bailiffs will take your TV and PS5.
Breeding dogs illegally? = £10k fine, criminal conviction and/or up to 3 months in prison.
Stop ******* about with people, and enforce the rules.
I think the root cause of the current problem, is that there are so many people + so many dogs, combined with pretty much no controls, or common sense rules whatsoever. As a result the problem has gotten worse and worse until there have been deaths.
The only problem with the above, is that it requires people (government) to do work - and that feels like a big problem with this country recently.
Last edited:
No issue with this. And this would hit the owners who are irresponsible and shouldn't have a dog anyway.
Can't afford insurance? Then you can't afford vet bills either and shouldn't have a dog.
You could just mandate insurance. You wouldn't need a licence in that case.
Or a licence comes with insurance and you get a certificate emailed to you with an ID you show an officer.
But it would need to be enforced. Ie, PCSOs etc would have to actually do spot checks. Or people wouldn't bother.. And you'll be in the same situation as now.
Could even have a QR code that gets sent to you that you attach to your lead so police etc could check instantly similar to how ANPR works.
Last edited:
Soldato
The problem is that this would be yet another law which isn't enforced, and punishes those who abide by the law (who already aren't a problem), and doesn't affect those who don't (who are the "problem" it is trying to solve).
There are laws about cleaning up your dog's ****. Responsible dog owners already do this. Irresponsible dog owners don't.
The highway code already states dogs should be kept on a short lead next to roads. Responsible dog owners already do this. Irresponsible dog owners don't.
There are already laws about dogs being "dangerously out of control". Responsible dog owners already keep their dogs under control. Irresponsible dog owners don't.
Introducing a further law requiring muzzles on all dogs in public will simply result in responsible dog owners (who aren't the problem) putting muzzles on their (already under control) dogs, while irresponsible dog owners will continue to not bother muzzling their out of control dogs.
This would only work in one of 2 ways:
Insurance should only be mandatory for 3rd party liability.
or
Coupled with legislation to control insurance costs. Otherwise you end up putting down thousands of dogs which are perfectly healthy & not dangerous, but insurance is unaffordable because of their age.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,383
Any time people see a muzzled dog, they think it's an uncontrollable murder machine. So muzzling every dog will just see them ostracised and eventually banned.
I can already hear insurance companies rubbing their hands with delight at the mere thought and firing up their money printers.
I mean, it's not as if anyone has ever been shafted by outlandish insurance before, right? £6,000 to insure a new driver of a cheap old car would never happen, right?
Besides, insurance is just another hassle that will get ignored by irresponsible owners, and wouldn't do anything to actually prevent incidents.
True. You'd need 3rd party only.
Didn't think of the cost for old dogs.
Got that to come!
Yeah no doubt.
The main problem is irresponsible dog owners.
Even though I agree with the xl bully ban..
I'd rather there was a way to stop irresponsible owners. However, realistically, no idea how.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 29,194
Errrm...what?
Last edited:
Yeah I mean it's not a hard problem to solve, there's more than enough ways to use technology to solve these problems - the hard part is having boots on the ground and muscle to actually enforce the consequences.
It's like I said before - if your house gets turned over by pik3ys, and the police take 3 weeks to show up there's no way we'll ever get proper enforcement of lower level crime.
Nobody in government wants to pony up the money to do anything properly, or do any actual useful work.
I think the best way to solve this with regard to insurance, would be to have a defined start date. So all new dogs born/registered on or after Jan 1st 202x - insurance must be mandatory, all existing dogs born before that date can continue without. I think it would be the only fair way to enact such legislation without the sort of unfairness you refer to.
Soldato
That still wouldn't solve the issue of £££££ insurance premiums when they get older resulting in healthy dogs being put down because the owner can't afford to insure them.
3rd party liability I can completely get behind however
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,383
Things shouldn't need banning or controlling. People should take responsibility for themselves and their general community, and actually be allowed to take responsibility.
Back when my dad was an Army cadet he went on a week-long training camp and had to take along a .303 rifle, supplied by his base unit. He simply slung it over his shoulder and cycled home with it, then later rode the same way to the camp and back. Kids did this all the time, no-one caused trouble, no-one hassled them, nothing bad ever happened.
That level of responsibility for a 14-year-old would be utterly unthinkable in today's nanny-state world!
I'm reliably informed by a very wise man that showing your canine attacker a knife will strike terror into its heart... because dogs instinctively know what a knife is and will be very afraid of it, so you should carry a Swiss Army knife in case you have to stab it in the face or something.
Plenty of people needing work could do the job.
Plenty of private companies c/would run the process.
Plenty of funding generated by licensing fees, as previously examined.
Just got to get some guv'mint to sort some proper legislation to empower such stuff and it's sorted.
Can of worms again.
You'd need something to stop little Six-Year-Old Suzy from being hit with £8-9,000 a year for her Beagle puppy, and factor in all the other bull **** things people would be looking to blame on the dogs, now that insurance payouts and scams are a viable recourse. Couldn't sleep at night and had an accident the next day, because your dog kept me awake with it's barking... Suffered massive mental distress and emotional breakdown from the fear of your dog breaking loose and assaulting me without its' muzzle on...
You can make it mandatory for all dogs from day one, but you'd also have to keep it affordable, reasonable and limited to certain things, otherwise it's just a **** storm with nobody benefiting except the private insurance companies. Great if you're a Tory MP, but useless for the rest of us.
I don't feel comfortable with any dog (over a certain size, it's not like something small can't be swatted away) that has a certain intensity or demeanour to its body language. Comfortable is the wrong word perhaps, but I'm wary of anything that is too forward or over bearing in its behaviour. Most of the time you can tell if a dog is just being overly friendly/playful as compared to potentially a defensive / aggressive state of mind. Some dogs do just sort of... snap though, usually out of some sort of fear response (mistreated by a crap owner at some point in its life).
Even something quite a bit smaller than an XL Bully can potentially drag a fully grown man around if it wants to and a harness as opposed to a collar or a halter can let them use their full body weight. Even a 12-13kg dog can be a proper nuisance, especially if it gets a run up on a longer lead. I still don't think XL Bullies, in general, are the problem. It's some of the owners, but at the same time I do think they're an entirely unnecessary breed created by morons. Our fault, not the breeds.
Last edited: