Shocking...

kitten_caboodle · 26 Sep 2006 at 10:20

it appears the two are unconnected.

it's not the grandparents that owned the pub that have been assaulted. They are the parents of the baby's dad. It's the baby's mum's parents that owned the pub and the dogs.

D18241 · 26 Sep 2006 at 11:15

dmpoole said:
I don't care what anybody says about their dogs but they are not to be trusted.
A dog will go back to its roots given the chance and leaving them around small kids/babies is a time bomb.
We'll probably hear stories about dogs being pushed to the limits with kids and never retaliating but eventually they'll turn.
No doubt we'll have somebody saying "We had Rover for 15 years, we rode on its back, put bangers up his bum and lit them, kicked and punched him but he never turned (he's waiting in the next life).
Never ever trust a dog.

totally disagree with you on that, what about the dogs for the blind? people put there lift with them all the time and i bet they would be willing to leave a child with it

Pug · 26 Sep 2006 at 11:52

kitten_caboodle said:
it appears the two are unconnected.

it's not the grandparents that owned the pub that have been assaulted. They are the parents of the baby's dad. It's the baby's mum's parents that owned the pub and the dogs.

yeah we were chatting about this with friends of friends of friends from there, and they say that the girl in the pub with the baby - it was her boyfriend that was with her - and it was his parents pub.

The father of the baby, his parents were arguing about what had happened with neighbours/someone else, and it was the fathers parents (unconnected to the pub owners) who were attacked.

kitten_caboodle · 26 Sep 2006 at 11:54

Pug said:
yeah we were chatting about this with friends of friends of friends from there, and they say that the girl in the pub with the baby - it was her boyfriend that was with her - and it was his parents pub.

The father of the baby, his parents were arguing about what had happened with neighbours/someone else, and it was the fathers parents (unconnected to the pub owners) who were attacked.

aaaaah i see.

Makes sense. Thanks

^TANK^ · 26 Sep 2006 at 16:06

Gilly said:
Absolutely, but if someone is already closed on it not being fact and not willing to discuss or entertain the possibility that their opinion is wrong there's no point debating it He wants to agree to disagree, so there's no point attempting to disabuse him of the notion that his belief is as far inaccurate as its possible to get

Gilly · 26 Sep 2006 at 16:23

^TANK^ said:

Good counterargument

^TANK^ · 26 Sep 2006 at 20:19

What a surprise i cant block you why must you always fish for an argument with people :confused:

.

Gilly · 26 Sep 2006 at 20:23

^TANK^ said:
What a surprise i cant block you why must you always fish for an argument with people .

So you quote a post from 2 pages and over 48 hours previous doing nothing but posting 3 rolleyes smilies at me, adding nothing to the thread after the thread has slipped down the forums and I'm the one fishing for an argument?

What a craaaazy world you live in.

kitten_caboodle · 26 Sep 2006 at 23:00

Not looking good for rotties

Another attack

Bumhucker · 27 Sep 2006 at 00:21

kitten_caboodle said:
Not looking good for rotties

Another attack

I was just going to post that.

Surely two attacks so close together will make people realise how dangerous dogs -especially vicious breeds- can be.

cheets64 · 27 Sep 2006 at 00:33

They should need a Licence, we need a driving licence, gun licence, a rod licence, why not a dog licence, it will stop chavs/uneducated people owning dangerous dogs, I am all for the RSPCA to check up on people with a Dangerous dog licence.