Does something need to be done about dogs?

StriderX said:
That said I am slightly fearful of the path being trodden here so how long this remains true is sadly a mystery rather than impossible as it should be.
Click to expand...

It's really not a mystery at all. There isn't even an appetite by police leaders to equip every officer with a Taser at the moment, routine arming simply couldn't happen any time soon.

In any case, Britain is one of only a handful of countries that don't have routinely armed police, so the frequent comparisons with the US are disingenuous. We'd be more likely to adopt a model similar to New Zealand if a shift towards routine arming was deemed necessary.
 
StriderX said:
There are exceptions and that's down to personal judgement, thankfully this isn't the US so the police aren't generally armed with firearms so I hardly expect myself to ever be in such a situation unless it's actually serious. That said I am slightly fearful of the path being trodden here so how long this remains true is sadly a mystery rather than impossible as it should be.
Click to expand...
There's a massive difference between the exceptions and the general experience, though.

In basic terms, if the Police feel the need to send several relatively well armed officers to go have a chat with you, it's pretty ******* serious at that point.
However, if it's just PC Gary Groundpounder trying to feel your collar over some law that you actually know better than him then, assuming you're not being/doing something deliberately antagonistic and/or filming a 'audit' for your YouTube channel, feel free to decline all demands and debate it until the cows come home.
 
adidan said:
Maybe go down the German route, owners can held accountable for dog behaviour, even thrown in jail.

It may encourage people to think long and hard about dog ownership, it's training and their responsibilities.
Click to expand...
Not sure homeless people will care about that particular consequence, but otherwise yes the owner should be treated as the suspect.
 
Last edited:
adidan said:
Maybe go down the German route, owners can held accountable for dog behaviour, even thrown in jail.
It may encourage people to think long and hard about dog ownership, it's training and their responsibilities.
Click to expand...
Technically they already are accountable but, like many laws in this country, they're rarely well-enforced and even more rarely enforced with teeth.

Additionally, while some people would think a little bit more about getting a dog as a pet, the criminal scum who ignore bans and either acquire a dangerous dog, or teach a dog to be dangerous still won't give a flying **** about what laws are in place.
 
ttaskmaster said:
Technically they already are accountable but, like many laws in this country, they're rarely well-enforced and even more rarely enforced with teeth.

Additionally, while some people would think a little bit more about getting a dog as a pet, the criminal scum who ignore bans and either acquire a dangerous dog, or teach a dog to be dangerous still won't give a flying **** about what laws are in place.
Click to expand...
Getting locked up may make them think. Unless they're used to being locked up and not care.

More often than not news articles seem to be about 'regular' dog owners though. Although I've not actively paid attention so that may just be a misperception on my part.
 
ttaskmaster said:
Technically they already are accountable but, like many laws in this country, they're rarely well-enforced and even more rarely enforced with teeth.

Additionally, while some people would think a little bit more about getting a dog as a pet, the criminal scum who ignore bans and either acquire a dangerous dog, or teach a dog to be dangerous still won't give a flying **** about what laws are in place.
Click to expand...
I think they might care a little bit if they get locked up for manslaughter.
 
Tragic for the dogs, police dealt with it really well. Lucky they had a trained officer with a shotgun, most forces would have used 556 ammunition and it would have potentially taken a few shots to down them.

Idiot if an owner.
 
adidan said:
Maybe go down the German route, owners can held accountable for dog behaviour, even thrown in jail.

It may encourage people to think long and hard about dog ownership, it's training and their responsibilities.
Click to expand...
As a dog owner I would love this - It infuriates me how many people that own dogs and have absolutely no idea how to train them. It should also be mandatory for all dogs and owners to attend training sessions.
 
Caseh said:
As a dog owner I would love this - It infuriates me how many people that own dogs and have absolutely no idea how to train them. It should also be mandatory for all dogs and owners to attend training sessions.
Click to expand...
I can't remember the programme now, tall northern bloke who trains people's dogs. Dogs Behaving Badly or something?

Anyway, never been a dog owner but it amazes me how if you know what to do and how to do it bad behaviour can be changed, which makes for both a happy owner and happy dog.

But that's the thing, it may just be a few simple things but you have to know what those things are.
 
adidan said:
Getting locked up may make them think. Unless they're used to being locked up and not care.
Click to expand...
StriderX said:
I think they might care a little bit if they get locked up for manslaughter.
Click to expand...
That would be shutting the barn doors after the horse has bolted, and does nothing to stop incidents happening in the first place.
Similarly, the threat of jail time has done nothing to prevent murder, rape, drug dealing, theft or any other such crimes, so why would it stop some **** from letting his dog rip a kid's face off?

News articles tend to split their reports between portraying owners as 'regular' in the case of non-Pit Bull types, like a Jack Russell that savaged a sleeping newborn, or as chavvy **** owners if the dog looks like it might be a status/weaponised type.
 
ttaskmaster said:
That would be shutting the barn doors after the horse has bolted, and does nothing to stop incidents happening in the first place.
Similarly, the threat of jail time has done nothing to prevent murder, rape, drug dealing, theft or any other such crimes, so why would it stop some **** from letting his dog rip a kid's face off?

News articles tend to split their reports between portraying owners as 'regular' in the case of non-Pit Bull types, like a Jack Russell that savaged a sleeping newborn, or as chavvy **** owners if the dog looks like it might be a status/weaponised type.
Click to expand...
So do nothing then? Do you have anything to suggest that may help?

Besides jail if you ban dog ownership for people who can't handle them you can take them off them and arrest whoever supplied the dog.

Just spitballing the issue, I'm not claiming to have the answers just trying to think of ways the situation can maybe improved.
 
adidan said:
So do nothing then? Do you have anything to suggest that may help?

Besides jail if you ban dog ownership for people who can't handle them you can take them off them and arrest whoever supplied the dog.

Just spitballing the issue, I'm not claiming to have the answers just trying to think of ways the situation can maybe improved.
Click to expand...
I already suggested cultural manipulation to develop a strong sense of responsible ownership among people, even those who don't actually own dogs, but that kinda got shot down by the "Ban Everything" brigade.
Banning and seizing only deals with status dogs. It doesn't really address those who had every good intention and got a decent dog through perfectly legitimate means, but were unknowingly negligent. It also wouldn't stop incidents, and would just be yet more work for the prosecution.

As with cars, mandatory training and licencing is one step in the right direction. Most responsible owners do some training anyway, so that shouldn't be too much of a problem.
We also used to teach kids in school how to behave around dogs and how to avoid creating or exacerbating dangerous situations, so maybe bring back things like this.

But societal pressure already plays a big role in a lot of peoples' behaviour, so changing that (and it's pretty easy to change) to encourage responsibility and to revile the concept of status dogs would be another effective strategy.
 
Purdy said:
Bully breeds ('definitely no pit mixed in the uk versions') need banned, the uptick in dog attacks is just going to increase.
Seeing a huge amount of these when out walking now with owners out of control.
Click to expand...

Dog of choice for the "unhoused", the drug seekers and the ASBO collectors.
 
ttaskmaster said:
Banning and seizing only deals with status dogs. It doesn't really address those who had every good intention and got a decent dog through perfectly legitimate means, but were unknowingly negligent. It also wouldn't stop incidents, and would just be yet more work for the prosecution.
Click to expand...

Banning drink driving only deals with drunk drivers it doesn't deal with the well-intentioned drivers who drove responsibly but were negligent and also had a crash.

So what? What a pointless argument to throw in FFS! :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom