I doubt his dog is at risk of or capable of doing that. You likely know this.
Does something need to be done about dogs?
- Thread starter Dis86
- Start date
If dog is muzzled and under control this won't happen.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,432
If the Police obtain the details like that then they may be subject to GDPR, and the details inadmissible in court... but if you get them the information they did nothing, so might then be usable?
I can't think of any other reason why they'd do it like this.
Horses are considered livestock and the dog is 'worrying' them.
That means the owner is entitled to blow the dog's head off with a shotgun... Perhaps point this out to the owner, in gruesome detail.
Who said anything about destruction?
I didn't.... and neither did you...
- The dog bit someone and caused injury.
- It was bad enough that someone called the Police about it.
- There was an infant residing at the same property.
This alone is sufficient grounds to classify the dog as out of/not under proper control, and that by leaving it with the owner it presented an ongoing danger to that child.
This applies to ALL dogs, regardless of whether they're a banned breed or not.
There's nothing more you can say, because there's no argument against this.
The Police already had sufficient powers under this Act and did not apply them.
She was wearing a work shirt, for the company she is director of and listed as such on companies house. All info I found was freely available so I doubt GDPR would really come into play.
Read the article - you're too quick to reply with another big sperg out that you miss all the details, the destruction of the dog (or lack of it) was the action in question!
It clearly wasn't sufficient though as they could only ask the owner to do so voluntarily - again, read the article.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,432
Read the law instead - It states quite clearly that officers have the authority to seize any dog, regardless of breed, that they suspect is dangerously out of control and/or presents an onging threat to the public.
They don't have to ask nicely. They don't have to request that the owner voluntarily surrender the dog. They don't even have to witness an incident, they just need that suspicion... and they typically don't need a warrant. They can quite literally just go in and take it.
What they do with it once in custody is for them and their legal advice to determine.
You said, "they didn't have the authority to do anything in November 2023" - They quite blatantly did.
Again you still haven't read the article, if you had you'd have been able to see that they did seize the dog.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,432
And gave it back, yes. I did read it, hence the assertion of their error in judgement.
The fact that someone was worried enough to call the police about the incident is sufficient grounds to qualify as presenting a threat to the public, according to Section 3 of the DDA. The provision further makes it an aggravated offence, as a person was injured as a result.
Again, if the article is correct and the Police did want to destroy the dog, they don't have to ask owners' permission for this.
If you read it then your reply makes no sense as you were banging on about seeing the dog (the thing they did) rather than destroying it!
They do however need to ask the permission of a court - and this is the point that has gone over your head completely, in the case of a banned breed there is a stronger argument for it.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,432
The power to seize the dog also extends to retention, which was what I actually brought up.
So you're insinuating the Police destroyed the dog without the court first determining whether it should?
Of the more recent incident, the article states that "Kent Police was [sic] called at 2.23pm on Wednesday", and the article was published "15:57, 12 December 2024". So barely 24 hours after the incident, the dog is destroyed.
That's an awfully short time for court proceedings.... Even if it were the Wednesday before, that's still not enough time for a court hearing. Application for such a prosecution takes 1-12 weeks, to allow for the building of the defence case. The same for the execution of a Contingent Destruction Order, to allow the owner the 21 days to appeal.
By contrast, where the Police determine the dog presents an immediate or ongoing threat, they are lawfully empowered to destroy the dog or otherwise determine what happens to it thereafter.
Tell me, oh wise Dowie - If you were a cop at the tail-end of 2023 amidst all the cases of XL Bully deaths and you attend a call, whereupon you find a dog looking like an XL Bully that is confirmed as having bitten someone.... one would you decide?
So again, they exercised the power of seizure but did not have to give it back.
Neither did they need owners' permission to destroy the dog if they determine it's a threat.
Again, they seized the dog - that wasn't the issue, it was the owner refusing to destroy it.
No, please go and read the story the dog was not destroyed and went on to attack a baby!
It will however be destroyed now and could have been destroyed previously if it were already on the banned breed list - ergo the original point!
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,432
No, the issue is that they already had the powers to destroy the dog in 2023 and did not.
You're getting your timelines mixed up, despite the detailed explanation.
The baby incident occurred on the Wednesday. By Thursday, the newspaper was reporting that the dog had already been destroyed.
So unless the court worked exceedingly quickly, the Police can and did act without the need to ask them as you asserted.
Read the law - A dog does not need to be on the banned list to incur destruction.
Nope - they'd either need the owner to agree or a court to approve it.
Again read the the article, the owner refused.
I didn't claim it did, the claim is that it makes it easier for that to occur.
Associate
- Joined
- 17 Sep 2018
- Posts
- 1,476
You seem to know allot about dogs. What do you think of the celebrity dog trainers who seem to transform dangerous dogs in short amount of time. The Mexican guy from California seems to be the most famous, but there's the British 1 on Channel 5 too - I can't recollect either name
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,432
The law says otherwise.
This is how some officers are allowed to shoot a dog dead if it is considered dangerously out of control, and have done so as you will almost certainly forget from earlier in this thread.
Again, read the Act - They do not need permission if they judge the dog to be a danger to the public.
You said they didn't have the authority to do anything... and in the same sentence said that, had the breed been banned the threshold for action would be lower, implying that there was indeed something they could have done and banning the breed merely gives them additional powers.
Jeez, you want a law that gives Police powers to deal with dangerous dogs, then take their side when they don't actually use those powers...
I haven't seen the British one, but the Mexican guy is Caesar Milan: Dog Whisperer.
I personally think Caesar is an utter bell-end of the garden variety - He's a good example of how a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. He has no official qualifications in dog training, behaviour or psychology, but he did used to drive a limo for Jada Pinkett-Smith...!!
He does have a grasp of how certain techniques work and he uses a method that is intended to emulate clicker training, albeit backwards and rather poorly at that... But most of his overall approach is geared around rank-reduction and bullying, which only works on a temporary basis and then only with relatively stable dogs. The majority of it is showmanship, semi-scripted reality TV and hence the disclaimers about it not being something people should try at home (because it doesn't work) and not an approved dog training method (because it certainly isn't). Most dogs who need behavioural correction will respond very badly to Milan's methods, and for those in rescue centres suffering from trauma it's the equivalent of kicking them in the head.
I laughed my ass off when he got bitten by a dog that he just said had been made perfectly calm, and whenever I seem him choke-pin a terrified dog to the floor I wish someone would come and do the same to him.
In short, I ******* hate the ****. People like him are why animal cruelty needs more enforcement and more severe sentencing.
Jan Fennell is another who uses similar rank-reduction methods, coupled with some absolute flights of fancy, and I will happily rip her books and her credibility to shreds for you, except that she does it herself in her first book. By her own admission, she cannot control her own dogs, and her special 'Ami-Chien' methods are basically things that dog trainers rejected as bad ideas back in the 1980s. Most of her work is about her girly crush on some once-famous horse trainer, and her efforts to get his attention by trying the same thing with dogs. She's more like Caesar Milan if he were someone's old granny, but her methods will still get clueless dog owners hurt and dogs will suffer abuse at the hands of their owners.
Milan and Fennell seem to have a similar claim, in that their methods work for any dog and if it doesn't then you're just not doing them right.
Pot kettle......?
This is absolutely nonsense.
Stop posting such drivel. If someone puts something openly on Facebook it’s open to anyone using the information.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,432
Have you seen my dog-whispering TV show? No, because I do not profess to be an expert. I have attended dog training classes and spent years reading up on these things, which isn't much but far more than Milan appears to have.
By contrast, I have supported my assertions with the data and studies to back them up - Does Milan do this?
I said 'may', as I didn't know, hence phrasing it as a question!
For example, we're not allowed to use certain customer data even if it is posted publicly on every website in the world - Access does not automatically entitle us to use.
I'm surprised that things like home address are publicly available on Facebook, though, either through privacy settings not being applied or the individual actually posting the details publicly.
That's like claiming the police are allowed to execute people and then showing an example of armed police shooting someone in self-defense - it's totally irrelevant to say the police having a suspected murderer in a jail cell but not enough evidence to prosecute - no they can't just shoot the suspected murderer they've arrested!
Again pay attention to the context, the dog was seized - that would have required court approval or permission from the owner (that an out of control dog in the street, actively posing a threat could be shot is irrelevant) - again they wanted to put the dog down but the ower didn't give them permission ergo it was handed back.
I literally explained this to you several posts back - if it was a banned breed then they have a lower threshold for action ergo could have likely gotten a court order - it's not that difficult to follow but your replies are all over the place so far.
Last edited:
484 replies to this thread states otherwise.