D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
This is kind of close to a guns don't kill people line.
I mean, if a ravenous maneating tiger was being walked down my road, I wouldn't be saying it's not the tiger that's a threat, it's the owner!
Do you want to discuss boring politics? (223 Viewers)
- Thread starter mrtrench
- Start date
I mean, if a ravenous maneating tiger was being walked down my road, I wouldn't be saying it's not the tiger that's a threat, it's the owner!
D
Deleted member 9744
Guest
How do you do that though? As Northern Wisdom says this feels like the pro gun argument.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Nine stone of muscle is not a small thing to control!
TomRad85
Well-Known Member
When it's a dog people get ridiculous and sentimental in a way they don't about any other type of animal. People like having cats as pets but funnily enough we tend to avoid the ones big enough to rip our throats out.
Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
TomRad85
Well-Known Member
Mike Tyson is the only person I can accept owning a Tiger. It just makes sense to me, like why wouldn't Mike Tyson own a Tiger?
Evo1883
Well-Known Member
Not going into the is it the dog is it the owner thing , but what I will say is maybe the legal age to own a dog should be 21
At the moment it's 16
I do believe ownership is a massive issue , alot of people that own these type of dogs are absolute mongrels themselves
At the moment it's 16
I do believe ownership is a massive issue , alot of people that own these type of dogs are absolute mongrels themselves
TomRad85
Well-Known Member
Well yeh when looking for a family pet, do you choose the Labrador, the Border Collie, perhaps this nice mongrel from the dogs home?... or this beastly looking murder machine? Fact is its both the breed and the owner as very few responsible people would entertain owning one.
Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Well I'm not going to claim to be an expert but numerous organisations that are have been pressuring the government for years to take action and have been ignored.
I tend to side with the likes of the Dogs Trust, Kennel Club, RSPCA, SPCA, British Vets Association and Blue Cross, among others, who have all said breed specific legislation is ineffective. In fact what we're seeing now with this breed literally proves their point.
Even the governments own research says this line of action is not effective. In 2018 they commissioned independent research into breed specific legislation found it had led to an increase in dog attacks and also found that arguments in favour of maintaining it were not backed with any evidence. In fact the only effect they could find any actual evidence of was that the legislation had led to the unnecessary destruction of good-tempered dogs.
If anyone is genuinely concerned about peoples safety then you want an effective solution not a knee jerk response. As I say, ban this breed, which lets face it you barely heard a word about a couple of years ago, and then the problem will just move elsewhere.
Don't really see the parallel with the gun argument, guns are designed & manufactured for one thing and everyone in that industry knows that's the case. The same can't be said of a living animal, if you're going to push the line that they're being breed for only one reason then you're supporting the case against breed specific legislation as people campaigning against that have for years been trying to get something done about poor breeders.
D
Deleted member 9744
Guest
I totally get your point about the risk of turning knee jerk reactions into legislation. This is particularly a problem with the sort of populist policians we have, who care about being seen to be dealing with something rather than actually doing so effectively.
However, I genuinely do wonder why anyone would want a dog like these except for its aggressive features. And I guess my question stands of how do you effectively tackle irresponsible dog owners who are in effect in possession of something that presents a real risk to members of the public? This is where the gun analogy comes in.
Was a 60 yr old
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
You clamp down on the source, ie the breeders. It’s completely unregulated at the moment and breeders largely fall in to two categories. There’s responsible breeders who will require multiple visits, checks on the suitability of yourself and your home as part of a long and in depth process before they will consider selling you a dog. There are others that will answer your enquiry with ‘how quickly can you get here with the money’
I agree that there absolutely needs to be a crackdown on rogue breeders and legislation needs to be much tighter.
However for this particular breed that would be too late, and so it needs to be banned.
"So far this year, almost half of injuries from UK dog attacks were by the breed, which make up about 1 per cent of the UK’s dog population."
However for this particular breed that would be too late, and so it needs to be banned.
"So far this year, almost half of injuries from UK dog attacks were by the breed, which make up about 1 per cent of the UK’s dog population."
The concern is we follow a “it’s too hard to fix so let’s leave it approach”. No idea why any normal person feels the need to have an animal the weight of a small human and the ability to rip someone’s throat out.
I mean apart from to go with the man baby zipless tracksuit obviously
I mean apart from to go with the man baby zipless tracksuit obviously
stay_up_skyblues
Well-Known Member
8,500 hospital admissions for dog bite injuries in 21/22. No idea how many of these were in public but it is completely unreasonable to require muzzling by law in public places? Appreciate it penalises the bulk of dog owners and dogs but for the amount of injuries (and seemingly increasing deaths) I don’t think it far fetched
I’d also make a dog owner strictly liable for death, damage and injury caused by their dog. In the same way a farmer is for damage caused by straying cattle. Currently it only applies to dangerous dogs based on the breed list or previous characteristics.
I’ve dealt with hundreds of dog bite claims over the years, many involving innocent children, and it’s always retrospective action taken.
I know a lot of the owners who own the breed in question and similar are unlikely to give two shits about the law but if breaches give grounds to fine and eventually confiscate then it’s worth a go.
I’d also make a dog owner strictly liable for death, damage and injury caused by their dog. In the same way a farmer is for damage caused by straying cattle. Currently it only applies to dangerous dogs based on the breed list or previous characteristics.
I’ve dealt with hundreds of dog bite claims over the years, many involving innocent children, and it’s always retrospective action taken.
I know a lot of the owners who own the breed in question and similar are unlikely to give two shits about the law but if breaches give grounds to fine and eventually confiscate then it’s worth a go.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
You can’t make people liable other than what’s in a standard insurance policy that’s just daft
stay_up_skyblues
Well-Known Member
As is the case now it’s up to the dog owner to take out liability insurance to cover them. You’d lose the defence that it was unforeseeable that the dog would attack someone. Which brings in compulsory third party liability cover for dogs in the same way as cars. All sensible imo.
Evo1883
Well-Known Member
In general its not though
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
Sir kier bravermann
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
Like buying a fascist from Temu.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
A Tory friend of mine said that Starmer would use the conference as an opportunity to 'win over Sky News viewers as opposed to GB News viewers'. Looks like he's right
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Actually yes good point
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Dehenna Davison has resigned as leveling up minister due to a chronic migraine problem. I'm pretty sure this is the sort of thing her and her Tory colleagues would call snowflake behaviour if practiced by a civil servant / NHS / local government worker.
Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk
Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk
JAM See
Well-Known Member
I pulled the 'migraine' excuse to go to Forbidden Planet and get my copy of Watchmen signed by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons.
My gaffer at the time knew I was faking and for months after offered faux sympathy for my condition.
I always feel a twinge of guilt when I encounter somebody who is really afflicted with a chronic condition like migraine.
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
I feel sympathy for her as it can be debilitating, but at the same time it's definitely the sort of thing a lot of Tories would claim was someone being workshy.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Yeah but like being gay if it takes a few of them to experience it to grow some empathy im all for it.
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
Yeah, but trouble is most won't unless they are the ones to experience it.
They might sympathise with their colleague because they obviously aren't faking it, but the lower orders most definitely are, because they're work-shy shirkers.
Like those people that hate foreigners except for the ones they actually know, because they're the good ones but aren't representative of the whole group.
Last edited:
David O'Day
Well-Known Member
i am enjoying Sunak scrapping loads of things that didn't exist
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
The speech Sunak is currently giving is equally as bat shit crazy, irrational, misguided and stupid as the one Truss gave the other day. Such a wholesale change in government policy since the last election surely requires a mandate from the electorate. He’s got to call a GE if this is the direction he wants to go in.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
For those of us not in the room with you, what’s he saying?
David O'Day
Well-Known Member
it's proper batshit
It's also full of things like "We are stopping the banning of boilers" which was never on the cards. Who has even told this is a vote winner?
He's broken