Shocking Dog Attack

[bird 9,594]

 

Never eh Gnash? On Jeremy Vine show Radio 2 today they said over the last 6 years 8 children and 5 adults have been killed by dogs, with the exception of 1 death which involved a jack russel AND a Staffy they were all either Rotties, Staffs, Mastiffs or pit bull crosses. The over all majority of people phoning in wanted either a ban or control on these "dangerous" dogs. Thats the problem with these events other than the tradgic loss of life which is horrific the public demand blood and sometimes they get it..

 

I thought the hunting ban would never be put through but then again

If you so desire.......i,ll have a small wager with you that no Kennel Club registered breed ends up on the banned breeds list anytime soon ?

true Gnash , but i think they may try to bring some kind of law or somthing,that people who breed these type dogs,get control+ home checks . i dot think this will be the end of it .?

[mad al 146]

Licencing them and insuring them will help with who can have them. CRB check sort of thing like mad al said.

 

Why would anyone be against it.?......... Bet you wouldn't if it was your daughter..................

only the greedy breeders would be against it. We have 5 dogs, 4 of them bitches, all spayed/microchipped and the dog we have has been neutered. Been asked loads of times over the years to breed, but we wouldn't because we trust nobody with a life which at birth, is in our hands.

[Outlaw Pete 2,224]

 

 

Every inbred chav scum wannabe f**kin Gangsta out there will now want to be seen hanging around street corners with a leather harnessed Hippopotamus!

heres 2 i made earlier

 

 

 

Christ! That was f**kin revolting! I find it disturbing that you even know where to find such pictures!

[OLD GOAT 6]

RIP

[bwfc 164]

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

Manslaughter only carries a maximum of 4 years,the owner of the dogs deserves a lot longer than that!.

[neems 2,406]

 

 

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

Think your being just a little bit silly there mate ...........how does me eating a hotdog or falling out of bed affect you ?............and whats it got to do with insurance premiums

A high insurance premium for high maintenance dogs will make a young irresponsible idiot think twice about how much he really wants the dog...........thats a step in the right direction....not the answer no..............................but can you imagine how many more deaths there would be on the roads if high performance sports cars could be driven by 17 years olds without having to pay insurance...............the type of dogs mentioned are the equivalent of a high performance sports car......yet any 17 year old in the country can go and get one and take it where they want.

 

 

if Ferrari's cost £200 out the back of every local rag I bet a lot of 17 year olds would be buying them and writing them off,uninsured.

 

And why would forcing people to ensure dogs not be abused by the insurance companies?

[Blackbriar 8,568]

 

 

 

 

 

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 i repeat my objection - as in car insurance, the real idiots, who need it most, don't have it and won't pay for it. So the can is carried by people like us - responsible, law-abiding, decent people not the tattooed fuckwits !!

[Huan72 687]

The problem with the insurance idea is that you would need effective enforcement as it tends to be the law abiding that complies with the rules. For example one of the reasons car premiums are so high is due to uninsured drivers and the only reason there are not more uninsured drivers is because of the consequences of being caught without insurance. it also leads on that this type of individual tends to be the type that would have a dog for the macho image. Very stereotypical I know but the sort of t**t that has a bull breed to increase his street cred without any understanding of the breed may not bother with insurance and would definately not bother if there was no chance of being caught. What has happened here is absolutely dreadfull, may the girl RIP and we are in danger of knee jerk legisaltion. People need to accept responsibility and in my mind keeping the combination and number of dogs so far descibed in the news was an accident waiting to happen. Most of us would know this but there are people out there that would not. This needs a combined approach of enforcement for the moorons and education for those with good intentions. Just a few thoughts and once again may the girl RIP.

[gnasher16 29,664]

The problem with the insurance idea is that you would need effective enforcement as it tends to be the law abiding that complies with the rules. For example one of the reasons car premiums are so high is due to uninsured drivers and the only reason there are not more uninsured drivers is because of the consequences of being caught without insurance. it also leads on that this type of individual tends to be the type that would have a dog for the macho image. Very stereotypical I know but the sort of t**t that has a bull breed to increase his street cred without any understanding of the breed may not bother with insurance and would definately not bother if there was no chance of being caught.

If plod can stop and search for drugs im sure they can stop and ask for insurance documents............if there is none then dog gets taken and your licence is taken for 5 years......break your ban and your in the shovel...simple.

[The Seeker 3,048]

 

Never eh Gnash? On Jeremy Vine show Radio 2 today they said over the last 6 years 8 children and 5 adults have been killed by dogs, with the exception of 1 death which involved a jack russel AND a Staffy they were all either Rotties, Staffs, Mastiffs or pit bull crosses. The over all majority of people phoning in wanted either a ban or control on these "dangerous" dogs. Thats the problem with these events other than the tradgic loss of life which is horrific the public demand blood and sometimes they get it..

 

I thought the hunting ban would never be put through but then again

If you so desire.......i,ll have a small wager with you that no Kennel Club registered breed ends up on the banned breeds list anytime soon ?

Whilst not averse to a small wager I'm not quite sure why you have the convictions that because a breed is KC no restrictions or bans could be imposed

I know this is off topic but hand guns were sanctioned by the home office and were banned within months following Dunblane so why would a breed listed with the KC be such a hurdle?

 

I do however like and support the insurance theory, IMO that would solve a lot of the current issues of dog ownership.

[Outlaw Pete 2,224]

If you so desire.......i,ll have a small wager with you that no Kennel Club registered breed ends up on the banned breeds list anytime soon ?

 

 

I wouldn't bet two bob against you there, Gnasher. Two Rotties " Ate " a nine year old girl, that time. On the beach. Remember that? Had the whole " Pit Bull " thing even reached the Sun / Mail readership at that point?

 

Whatever. That was ages ago. Nothing happened. Rottweiler sales probably peaked for a minute.

 

 

This, latest, case? Mirror, I see, has now run this story. And it's flashing photo's of dogs which one might assume were some of those involved? Hmm. I've seen some APBT's that could be taken for " Staff's ". But few enough SBT's that looked quite like these ones.

 

Then again? Last I knew ~ and we Are talking some time ago here! ~ the KC crowd liked their Staffy's '15" square'. So, street corner massacres wouldn't touch them one bit. If anything? It'd leave them a lucrative vacuum to refill. (Oh. Rather; The 'Responsible Breeders' of the 'Breed Clubs' who finance the KCUK)

 

Can't hurt though, can it, to put it about that the police have had to shoot dead a couple of SBT's, in a private dwelling. Thin end of the wedge nicely placed, there Now we have a media formed precedent for british cops blowing away Staffordshire Bull Terriers. In their owners homes. Sweet!

 

And exactly What were those Staffie's doing, as they were gunned down? Having been, according to all reports thus far, herded out into the back garden, with the 'Bull Mastiff' ones?

[twobob 1,458]

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

no amount of money is going to fetch this poor girl back,so why line some insurance companys pocket.Idont know the answer but it doesnt work with uninsured car drivers they get stopped car taken off em and just get another one same would happen with dogs

[bracken boy 584]

after reading this and that about what can be done and shoud be done can anybody tell me what a dog wardens job duties are?

[gnasher16 29,664]

Whilst not averse to a small wager I'm not quite sure why you have the convictions that because a breed is KC no restrictions or bans could be imposed

Well why havent they been then ?..............Or is it only recently that dogs have started biting people !

[gnasher16 29,664]

no amount of money is going to fetch this poor girl back,so why line some insurance companys pocket.Idont know the answer but it doesnt work with uninsured car drivers they get stopped car taken off em and just get another one same would happen with dogs

Burglars rob houses go to prison then come out and rob more houses..........so what should we do make burglary legal ?................

 

Just because a law is not enforced properly shouldnt mean we give up on the law..............just make sure we DO enforce it properly.