DeerhoundLurcherMan 997 Posted March 27, 2013 Report Share Posted March 27, 2013 (edited) Bring on the ill-conceived and badly thought out laws Mr.Cameron!! Growing calls to ban certain breeds, seize and cull dogs,re-introduce the dog license(?), God knows what other knee-jerk reactions they might think of !! I appreciate the need to try to prevent this kind of attack and, of course my sympathies extend to the girl's family, but how do you legislate against the tattoed fuckwits who seem drawn to these breeds ???? Simple......you bring out mandatory insurance policies and good old fashioned dog licenses............no insurance you lose your licence.....own a dog without a licence your banged up. Same as cars.....if you want to own a Ferrari and live in a big city your premium is ridiclously high......if you just want a bog standard run around your premium is low..................same theory applies to high and low maintenance dogs. Doubt it would ever happen but makes perfect sense to me. I would fully support something like this....... I'm not a fan of paying for things like insurance or TV licenses. But yea, for a small fee I would happily oblige. And a fee for re-homing a dog!!!!!! Would stop dog dealers and puppy farmers....... Edited March 27, 2013 by DeerhoundLurcherMan Quote Link to post Share on other sites
j j m 6,481 Posted March 27, 2013 Report Share Posted March 27, 2013 god that is shocking rip Quote Link to post Share on other sites
neems 2,406 Posted March 27, 2013 Report Share Posted March 27, 2013 Bring on the ill-conceived and badly thought out laws Mr.Cameron!! Growing calls to ban certain breeds, seize and cull dogs,re-introduce the dog license(?), God knows what other knee-jerk reactions they might think of !! I appreciate the need to try to prevent this kind of attack and, of course my sympathies extend to the girl's family, but how do you legislate against the tattoed fuckwits who seem drawn to these breeds ???? Simple......you bring out mandatory insurance policies and good old fashioned dog licenses............no insurance you lose your licence.....own a dog without a licence your banged up. Same as cars.....if you want to own a Ferrari and live in a big city your premium is ridiclously high......if you just want a bog standard run around your premium is low..................same theory applies to high and low maintenance dogs. Doubt it would ever happen but makes perfect sense to me. I think they'd kick the arse out of it,some old woman with a pet staff gets told pay £500 a month because they're dangerous or it gets put to sleep. way too easy to abuse imo. I'd rather owners were just directly responsible for dogs,like this woman should be done for manslaughter. and if your dog bites a person and does some damage GBH,or kills another dog when off lead animal cruelty and criminal damage. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DeerhoundLurcherMan 997 Posted March 27, 2013 Report Share Posted March 27, 2013 Bring on the ill-conceived and badly thought out laws Mr.Cameron!! Growing calls to ban certain breeds, seize and cull dogs,re-introduce the dog license(?), God knows what other knee-jerk reactions they might think of !! I appreciate the need to try to prevent this kind of attack and, of course my sympathies extend to the girl's family, but how do you legislate against the tattoed fuckwits who seem drawn to these breeds ???? Simple......you bring out mandatory insurance policies and good old fashioned dog licenses............no insurance you lose your licence.....own a dog without a licence your banged up. Same as cars.....if you want to own a Ferrari and live in a big city your premium is ridiclously high......if you just want a bog standard run around your premium is low..................same theory applies to high and low maintenance dogs. Doubt it would ever happen but makes perfect sense to me. I think they'd kick the arse out of it,some old woman with a pet staff gets told pay £500 a month because they're dangerous or it gets put to sleep. way too easy to abuse imo. I'd rather owners were just directly responsible for dogs,like this woman should be done for manslaughter. and if your dog bites a person and does some damage GBH,or kills another dog when off lead animal cruelty and criminal damage. £500 pound a month!!!!!!! It wont cost that much dopey... Prevention would be much better than punishment in this case. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
neems 2,406 Posted March 27, 2013 Report Share Posted March 27, 2013 Bring on the ill-conceived and badly thought out laws Mr.Cameron!! Growing calls to ban certain breeds, seize and cull dogs,re-introduce the dog license(?), God knows what other knee-jerk reactions they might think of !! I appreciate the need to try to prevent this kind of attack and, of course my sympathies extend to the girl's family, but how do you legislate against the tattoed fuckwits who seem drawn to these breeds ???? Simple......you bring out mandatory insurance policies and good old fashioned dog licenses............no insurance you lose your licence.....own a dog without a licence your banged up. Same as cars.....if you want to own a Ferrari and live in a big city your premium is ridiclously high......if you just want a bog standard run around your premium is low..................same theory applies to high and low maintenance dogs. Doubt it would ever happen but makes perfect sense to me. I think they'd kick the arse out of it,some old woman with a pet staff gets told pay £500 a month because they're dangerous or it gets put to sleep. way too easy to abuse imo. I'd rather owners were just directly responsible for dogs,like this woman should be done for manslaughter. and if your dog bites a person and does some damage GBH,or kills another dog when off lead animal cruelty and criminal damage. £500 pound a month!!!!!!! It wont cost that much dopey... Prevention would be much better than punishment in this case. the point is it would be abused. Most pet owners treat dogs like children,if policy was 'pay whatever the insurance companies say or we put your dog down' the insurance companies will take advantage. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Blackbriar 8,568 Posted March 27, 2013 Report Share Posted March 27, 2013 Bring on the ill-conceived and badly thought out laws Mr.Cameron!! Growing calls to ban certain breeds, seize and cull dogs,re-introduce the dog license(?), God knows what other knee-jerk reactions they might think of !! I appreciate the need to try to prevent this kind of attack and, of course my sympathies extend to the girl's family, but how do you legislate against the tattoed fuckwits who seem drawn to these breeds ???? Simple......you bring out mandatory insurance policies and good old fashioned dog licenses............no insurance you lose your licence.....own a dog without a licence your banged up. Same as cars.....if you want to own a Ferrari and live in a big city your premium is ridiclously high......if you just want a bog standard run around your premium is low..................same theory applies to high and low maintenance dogs. Doubt it would ever happen but makes perfect sense to me. I think they'd kick the arse out of it,some old woman with a pet staff gets told pay £500 a month because they're dangerous or it gets put to sleep. way too easy to abuse imo. I'd rather owners were just directly responsible for dogs,like this woman should be done for manslaughter. and if your dog bites a person and does some damage GBH,or kills another dog when off lead animal cruelty and criminal damage. £500 pound a month!!!!!!! It wont cost that much dopey... Prevention would be much better than punishment in this case. the point is it would be abused. Most pet owners treat dogs like children,if policy was 'pay whatever the insurance companies say or we put your dog down' the insurance companies will take advantage. AND there are a lot of people who drive without insurance Quote Link to post Share on other sites
paulus 26 Posted March 27, 2013 Report Share Posted March 27, 2013 Why should anyone be forced to take out insurance because of someone elses actions all dogs should be the sole responsibility of the owners, from puppy to death, if they no longer want the dog for what ever reason they they should be responsible for having it pts, not rehomed sold etc, no need for rehoming centres or never ending begging adverts for £3 a month. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
B.P.R 2,798 Posted March 27, 2013 Report Share Posted March 27, 2013 Heard this on the radio... Said the girl came into the house with pies in her hand and the dogs jumped up for the pie, one latched onto her throat and the others joined in.... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Millet 4,497 Posted March 27, 2013 Report Share Posted March 27, 2013 Not that it matter's but where does it say anything about a pie and how does anyone know she was attacked through the dog wanting a pie as the dog would of surely eaten it anyway.. ..i don't think we have the true story yet but what a horrible painfull way to go for a young girl.. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DeerhoundLurcherMan 997 Posted March 27, 2013 Report Share Posted March 27, 2013 Bring on the ill-conceived and badly thought out laws Mr.Cameron!! Growing calls to ban certain breeds, seize and cull dogs,re-introduce the dog license(?), God knows what other knee-jerk reactions they might think of !! I appreciate the need to try to prevent this kind of attack and, of course my sympathies extend to the girl's family, but how do you legislate against the tattoed fuckwits who seem drawn to these breeds ???? Simple......you bring out mandatory insurance policies and good old fashioned dog licenses............no insurance you lose your licence.....own a dog without a licence your banged up. Same as cars.....if you want to own a Ferrari and live in a big city your premium is ridiclously high......if you just want a bog standard run around your premium is low..................same theory applies to high and low maintenance dogs. Doubt it would ever happen but makes perfect sense to me. I think they'd kick the arse out of it,some old woman with a pet staff gets told pay £500 a month because they're dangerous or it gets put to sleep. way too easy to abuse imo. I'd rather owners were just directly responsible for dogs,like this woman should be done for manslaughter. and if your dog bites a person and does some damage GBH,or kills another dog when off lead animal cruelty and criminal damage. £500 pound a month!!!!!!! It wont cost that much dopey... Prevention would be much better than punishment in this case. the point is it would be abused. Most pet owners treat dogs like children,if policy was 'pay whatever the insurance companies say or we put your dog down' the insurance companies will take advantage. Why should anyone be forced to take out insurance because of someone elses actions all dogs should be the sole responsibility of the owners, from puppy to death, if they no longer want the dog for what ever reason they they should be responsible for having it pts, not rehomed sold etc, no need for rehoming centres or never ending begging adverts for £3 a month. Same reason as you have car insurance, accidents happen... I'm not really up for it obviously who wants to pay out for anything like that. For me its not about the insurance, or the licence which gnasher16 suggested. Its about coming up with a solution to stop irresponsible people owning potentially dangerous dogs... And I'm just saying if it would work, I would support it. And I think a fee for re-homing it is much more reasonable than having it pts. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
paulus 26 Posted March 27, 2013 Report Share Posted March 27, 2013 Bring on the ill-conceived and badly thought out laws Mr.Cameron!! Growing calls to ban certain breeds, seize and cull dogs,re-introduce the dog license(?), God knows what other knee-jerk reactions they might think of !! I appreciate the need to try to prevent this kind of attack and, of course my sympathies extend to the girl's family, but how do you legislate against the tattoed fuckwits who seem drawn to these breeds ???? Simple......you bring out mandatory insurance policies and good old fashioned dog licenses............no insurance you lose your licence.....own a dog without a licence your banged up. Same as cars.....if you want to own a Ferrari and live in a big city your premium is ridiclously high......if you just want a bog standard run around your premium is low..................same theory applies to high and low maintenance dogs. Doubt it would ever happen but makes perfect sense to me. I think they'd kick the arse out of it,some old woman with a pet staff gets told pay £500 a month because they're dangerous or it gets put to sleep. way too easy to abuse imo. I'd rather owners were just directly responsible for dogs,like this woman should be done for manslaughter. and if your dog bites a person and does some damage GBH,or kills another dog when off lead animal cruelty and criminal damage. £500 pound a month!!!!!!! It wont cost that much dopey... Prevention would be much better than punishment in this case. the point is it would be abused. Most pet owners treat dogs like children,if policy was 'pay whatever the insurance companies say or we put your dog down' the insurance companies will take advantage. >Why should anyone be forced to take out insurance because of someone elses actions all dogs should be the sole responsibility of the owners, from puppy to death, if they no longer want the dog for what ever reason they they should be responsible for having it pts, not rehomed sold etc, no need for rehoming centres or never ending begging adverts for £3 a month. Same reason as you have car insurance, accidents happen... I'm not really up for it obviously who wants to pay out for anything like that. For me its not about the insurance, or the licence which gnasher16 suggested. Its about coming up with a solution to stop irresponsible people owning potentially dangerous dogs... And I'm just saying if it would work, I would support it. And I think a fee for re-homing it is much more reasonable than having it pts. and there is the problem, everybody thinks that money is the answer to everything Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mad al 146 Posted March 27, 2013 Report Share Posted March 27, 2013 well I think it's about time breeders, legit or otherwise, of ALL breeds where held accountable for their actions instead of reaping the rewards and not giving a flying fcuk as to who or where their pups go. Make them pay and be more responsible as well as any prospective owners. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DeerhoundLurcherMan 997 Posted March 27, 2013 Report Share Posted March 27, 2013 Not about money....About irresponsible people with potentially dangerous dogs...... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Lab 10,979 Posted March 27, 2013 Report Share Posted March 27, 2013 well I think it's about time breeders, legit or otherwise, of ALL breeds where held accountable for their actions instead of reaping the rewards and not giving a flying fcuk as to who or where their pups go. Make them pay and be more responsible as well as any prospective owners. Hows that going to work.?.....your giving a pup to someone, its up to them to look after it and raise it correctly, hardly your fault if they turn it into some sort of killing machine. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
paulus 26 Posted March 27, 2013 Report Share Posted March 27, 2013 Not about money....About irresponsible people with potentially dangerous dogs...... anything can be potentially dangerous so do we insure, control and legislate against everything or just the ones the press and politicians finds atractive to them, heres some things that kill more people every year worldwide than dogs do obeisity lightening texting hippo`s airplanes volcano`s sharks falling out of bed (average 450 per year in the usa) bathtubs icicles (100 per year in russia) hot dogs (70 per year) jelly fish Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.