Time to re-think the Dangerous Dogs Act


11:30 am - March 2nd 2010

by Kate Belgrave    


      Share on Tumblr

1518__450x450_20091218_gr3-greenwich-snow-056-vv2-1000 Calls for changes to the Dangerous Dogs Act are becoming strident and oh-so-political (step forward Kit Malthouse). I’ve been working with the Dogs Trust and other groups on this article about the act and perceptions of dangerous dogs:

I’ve owned dogs all my life: labradors, retrievers, yorkies and a large, lovable, hairy number whose father could have been anything. “Wow,” people would say when she walked past. “What’s that?” I have a pit breed dog, see. I wanted to give a good home to a dog that might otherwise not have found one.

It’s been nearly 20 years since the dangerous dogs act made it into law – and to the top of our (rather competitive) rankings for misguided legislation. Neither people, nor dogs have come out in front with the DDA: those who know and care for dogs and people are – well, baying for change.

The number of dog-on-human attacks has not altered for the better in 20 years. Some argue the numbers are worse, and others say they’re the same. Nobody says they’ve dropped. The world of dog attack statistics is a maelstrom of politics, misinterpretation, inaccuracy and hysteria: we’ll try to unpick the numbers as we go on.

The act has been no picnic for dogs, either: with its emphasis on banning breeds (the pitbull type terrier, the Japanese Tosa, and the rarely-seen-here-anyway Dogo Argentino and the Fila Brasileiro) the DDA has succeeded mainly in contributing to the global destruction of the reputation of dogs that had – particularly in the pit-type dog’s case – a great history as favoured companions and champions. They were never bred for conflict with people, as we’ll see.

By virtue of their illegality, they’ve become attractive to a small number of dog owners who like the thought of a canine fiend.

They’re thrown into pits for illegal dogfights (I know three rescue dogs, Ace, Tazz and Channa, who were rescued from owners who used them as pit bait. Their new owners walk them in Greenwich park, where we walk our dog).

Another irony of breed specific legislation like the DDA is that it is difficult to be specific about the breeds it aims to ban.

There’s no breed standard for the animal the DDA describes as the “type known as the pit bull terrier”. There is just a bunch of dogs that might look the part, and have pit-type DNA.

There is, in other words, good reason why it’s a waste of time trying to decide a dog’s personality on the basis of its face, but that is what BSL wants to do.

None of which is to say that pit type dogs haven’t killed and injured in the last 30 years, because they have. It’s just that their type is the least of it. They don’t come out of the box as uberkillers with special fangs and an innate inclination to go batshit.

Bloodhounds (used to track and kill slaves and convicts), German Shepherds and Dobermanns (associated with Nazis), Rottweilers, St Bernards, huskies and labradors (starving, ill treated sled dogs) have all been accused of the same over the years.

* * * * * * * * * *

As Malcolm Gladwell put it in his seminal New Yorker article on the dangers of generalisation, ‘a pit bull is dangerous to people, then, not to the extent that it expresses its essential pit bullness but to the extent that it deviates from it.’

So it is that the Dogs Trust is lobbying all three political parties to shift the DDA’s emphasis. They wants all dogs microchipped at point of exchange, so that dogs can be traced to original breeders – the trust is working with local authorities on a UK wide chipping campaign.

They also want doggie Asbos – the early identification of dogs and owners that have begun to cause trouble, and compulsory obedience training, neutering, and leads and muzzles for problem dogs.

The Communication Workers Union, which represents postal workers (6,000 of whom are attacked by dogs each year) and keeps numbers on dog attacks, is of like mind. ‘We’re very much of the ‘it’s the deed, not the breed’ point of view,’ says spokesman Karl Stewart. ‘And we’d agree that the DDA’s emphasis on breeds has missed the point somewhat.’

The CWU wants the DDA changed to allow prosecution of owners whose dogs attack on private property. At the moment, the law only targets people with dogs ‘that are dangerously out of control in a public place,’ which isn’t terribly helpful for posties, who by law must deliver mail to all addresses.

——————
A longer version of this article, featuring interviews, is over at Kate’s blog.

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
Kate Belgrave is a regular contributor to Liberal Conspiracy. She is a New Zealander who moved to the UK eight years ago. She was a columnist and journalist at the New Zealand Herald and is now a web editor. She writes on issues like public sector cuts, workplace disputes and related topics. She is also interested in abortion rights, and finding fault with religion. Also at: Hangbitching.com and @hangbitch
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Blog ,Crime

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


I guess if you had a kid, and that kid had been mauled to death by a dog, you might feel differently on the matter.

And if your kid had been raped by a black person, maybe you would be racist against black people. It doesn’t mean you would be correct in your prejudice, though.

Equating black people with dogs, I see.

It’s one thing to be prejudiced against a human.

It’s another to want to control animals who pose a threat to the safety of all humans.

@ Blanco – poor trolling effort, try reading the article before commenting.

The mere appearance of pit-type DNA doesn’t pose a threat to “all humans” (are they some sort of Bond villain-esque superweapon?), or even some humans. Did you read further than the headline?

What’s the reason for neutering of ‘ASBO’ dogs being included on the list of objectives? Is this because you believe that their ‘dangerous’ nature is in their genes and could be passed on, or just because owners who’ve warped one dog into bad behaviour aren’t likely to raise good puppies, or something else?

@6

It is my understanding that neutering a dog “calms it down” somewhat and diminishes the potential for violence. I could be wrong though.

Very sensible post. Of course, you could apply a similar argument to gun ownership. There is remarkably little evidence that the new strict liability laws on them have reduced shootings, but they have made it very difficult for sports pistol shooters to practice.

#6 Not being a dog person I’m sure someone will correct me if I’m wrong, but my understanding is neutering can calm some dogs. If it works it’s certainly a better option than putting them down.

Mr Pill, Tim: Ah yes, thank you. I had heard the same thing, but had forgotten it in the intervening years (I’ve lived with several dogs, including a couple of bull terriers, but never owned one myself).

@11 LOL Martin, u r the king

@Denny – re: neutering – it’s widely accepted among vets and animal welfare experts that neutering (especially if done early) plays a significant role in controlling dog aggression (it also stops them roaming). I have a Denver (I think it was) study that shows dogs involved in serious and/or fatal attacks are about six times more likely to be male, and nearly three times more likely to be intact (ie, not neutered).

The stopping puppies aspect of neutering is also important – not much point breeding from these dogs given there are so many without homes as it is. Every time we go to the park, we meet another dog that has been rescued from a bad situation – latest one is a pit breed that was found starving and chained to a roundabout somewhere. I’ve never bred from dogs anyway – all my dogs are neutered at six months.
Just want to make one point to all, especially given the 1st comment on this thread – I wrote this article from this perspective because I DO care about safety, not because I don’t. I don’t want to be attacked by an out of control dog, or to see my kids or beloved young niece and nephews torn apart by someone’s crazy pit. I wrote this article because the DDA has done little to change the numbers, and because kneejerk politicking isn’t improving the situation one iota. Playing and preying on people’s fears to win votes does not – and has not – made us safer. The DDA is nearly 20 years old, and here we all still are, worried about our kids and reading stories about fatal attacks on little kids. It’s precisely because I want that situation to change that I’ve done this work.

cjcjc that’s a BEAUTIFUL dog. gimme

“I have a Denver (I think it was) study that shows dogs involved in serious and/or fatal attacks are about six times more likely to be male, and nearly three times more likely to be intact (ie, not neutered).”

I think there could be a correlation/causation problem there. Idiots who want to raise a vicious dog will buy a male one, to accentuate their own ‘undoubted’ masculinity (I’m just guessing most of these problem owners are male, going on personal experience). The same kind of people also probably won’t want to emasculate their dog.

Not that I’m against neutering in general – the world has too many pets being bred, as over-full dog and cat homes prove.

Yep, that’s exactly right, Denny – that’s why these Asbos would include compulsory neutering (for the dog…). Having a dog with knackers the size of church bells is definitely part of the status thing and leads to all kinds of problems, particularly on the urban scene. I’m pretty sure that at least two of the recent fatalities in the UK were caused by intact males.

“compulsory neutering (for the dog…)”

Hahaha, if only we could have a more direct approach… :-p

Of course, you could apply a similar argument to gun ownership.

But what if some mad scientist created a breed of pit bull that can use a machine gun?

Isn’t there a saying, about dogs being like their owners? It’s so obvious, I can’t believe legislators could have overlooked it.

And I wonder if neutering would be as effective in human males…seems like human aggression and violence is a much bigger problem than dogs.

“But what if some mad scientist created a breed of pit bull that can use a machine gun?”

Easy, we ban science. Far too dangerous.

‘And I wonder if neutering would be as effective in human males…seems like human aggression and violence is a much bigger problem than dogs.’

I believe testosterone inhibitors are already prescribed for some sex offenders. But I think keeping violent offenders in prison is rather more reliable approach, rather than cutting people’s balls off. I am always surprised how the feminist left is especially concerned about violence against women, and yet this never coalesces into the obvious solution: keep convicted violent offenders in prison until they have exited the demographic age group in which they are likely to pose a threat to people.

I’m trying to work out if the underlying logic of the proposed solution is that dogs are accountable to an extent for their own actions, and therefore need to be regulated on this basis, or that owners cannot be held accountable, and therefore government action needs to be taken to regulate them. Either way the falacy ‘something must be done’ means more regulation seems to be in force. How would this be funded? By a dog tax (encouraging people not to register…)?

My understanding is that dogs, as property, are regarded as the possession of the owner, and that therefore any action by a dog is accountable for by the owner (thus a dog can be a dangerous weapon for the purpose of assault). Before proposing complex systems of registration, why not consider whether we are ensuring that owners are taking proper accountability for their actions? My guess is that currently they are not.

22. selwyn marock

Wonder if someone could assist with some statistics I can give the no’s for USA.

In 2008 in the whole USA Fatalities caused by dogs(all breeds) upon humans……………………………………………………………………………………..16
info supplied by CDC(Canine Disease Centre)

For the same period Murders human upon human……………………………..16000
Info supplied by the FBI.

Could someone help me with similiar comparisons for the UK,it would be appreciated.
smarock10@yahoo.com

23. DisgustedOfTunbridgeWells

They also want doggie Asbos

Do they also want everyone to carry a plastic bag?

24. selwyn marock

Kate a well written article and you say it very much like it is.My views are just a tad more radical.

smarock10@yahoo.com

Substitute Lion, or Tiger for the word dog and would the author be happy to have people keeping Lions next to his house.

I don’t blame the dog, just in the same way I would not blame the Lion.

26. selwyn marock

Sally I do understand your concern about Lions and Tigers walking up and down your Main St.But 2 posts up I requested some info regarding dogs etc, I just require some figures maybe you could help.

smarock10@yahoo.com

Hi Selwyn,

The next piece I write on this will include a close look at numbers, but the numbers I have so far are:

– five people (all children, I think) killed by dogs in the UK since 2006 (this number may just be for child fatalities).

Attack numbers are more difficult to pin down, because there isn’t a central collection point for numbers, and the ones we have are hotly disputed. The CWU estimates half a million attacks every year, but others say that the word ‘attack’ covers all manner of issues – not just attacks, but bad scratches from playing with dogs, infected wounds people get when playfighting with their dogs, scratches they get when their dogs knock them down or accidentally swipe them with a nail, etc

As I say, I still have work to do on this. You’re right to say it seems to be much easier to find numbers for the US.

Sally – not sure that I get you, but I’ve had a go – I guess that if we’d spent tens of thousands of years domesticating lions as we have dogs, bred them down a size or two, and taught them to feel full-up on a daily can of Chum, then yep – probably I would be ok with the neighbours having a couple. Would depend a lot on the neighbours, though. They’d need to be good lion owners, and remove their lion’s balls.

” probably I would be ok with the neighbours having a couple. Would depend a lot on the neighbours, though. They’d need to be good lion owners, and remove their lion’s balls.”

But that is the problem in a nutshell.

Some of these people can’t look after their own children never mind a dog. What I am saying is that if people kept Lions and one got out onto the main street and killed a passer by there would be calls to ban Lions. It is only because we regard dogs as domesticated that we look at them differently. But they are still animals with animals instincts, and some of them are very dangerous.

Yep, see where you’re coming from, Sally – thing is, there’s something like 8m dogs in the UK (some estimate 10m), and most of them never do anything wrong. The great majority don’t do anything wrong.

Having a doggie friend is one of the great pleasures in life, if you like that kind of thing, and I personally don’t want to get to a point where we ban everything simply on the basis that it might one day cause a problem. Much better to deal with the small number of people who cause the problem. The link between owner and dog behaviour is well proven.

Dogs involved in fatalities very often have given indications that they’re not being treated well, and are heading towards very aggressive behaviour – the example I quote in my longer article on my site is of a near-fatality that the council I worked for was involved in – and it turned out people had made at least 11 complaints about the dogs that nearly killed the girl I talk about.
By focusing on breed – especially when there’s no real reason to do so – we allow the emphasis to shift from owner to dog. People have been screaming about pit type dogs for about 30 years now – they’re demon dogs with special heads and superpowers and they race about the street like great white sharks on a hunt, looking for people to slaughter – well, no, actually. They don’t. But by focusing on such wives’ tales, we’ve failed to address the real point – owner behaviour. So here we are, 20 years after the DDA, with little kids still being killed, and pit type dogs all over the place despite being banned, and places like Battersea filling up with abandoned pit type dogs, and nothing useful happening at all for anyone. The whole idea of the DDA was to remove so called dangerous dogs from the streets, and indeed the planet – possibly as you suggest. Problem is – it hasn’t happened. Time to think of something new. Banning all dogs shouldn’t have to be it. Why deny ourselves the pleasure of dog ownership because of the behaviour of a tiny few?

30. selwyn marock

Kate thanks for that,am aware that there very few figures available,the reason I beleive apart from incompetence,the politicos do not want to admit that there is in fact no pandemic of pitbulls running around mauling little old ladies and little children apart.If there are only 5 cases in almost 5 years,more people have been killed by bee-stings.In the USA 3000 people drown per annum relate that to 16 dog fatalities it is not even a percentage,Sally should be far more scared of going near water.
Getting back to the 5 children ,one of these cases I do remember vividly,the Elly Lawrensen affair,here I have always contended there were 2 Victims ,the little girl Elly and Reuben the 8 month old pitbull ,both lost their lives tragically.The Perpetrator was the Uncle an in and out of jail drug-dealer whose hobby was dog-fighting.He ha been feeding this puppy Anabolic Steroids to make him stronger and more vicious.To add to this it was new years eve and we all know how the Brits enjoy their fireworks,if this was not enough the uncle gave Reuben a bad beating on the night in question ,this apparently is quite common amongst dog-fighters to raise the aggression levels.Uncle had a small charge laid against him some small infringement of the DDA and had to pay a 5 quid fine.
In the UK they may as well legalise dog-fighting,the courts are wasting their time and taxpayer’s money trying these cases,the punishments are a joke.
smarock10@yahoo.com

31. Charlieman

@31 selwyn marock: There is a problem within the UK that aggressive people buy tough looking dogs as a status symbol. Some choose to use them as weapons or as fighting dogs rather than pets. Kate Belgrave’s dog walking friends, no doubt, have rescued dogs from such abusive scenarios. Violence is most commonly associated with the the non-canine end of the dog lead.

“Tough looking dog” is normally only a problem, however, with an abusive owner. We can assume that our predecessors owned tame dogs before they painted on cave walls.

Alas, there are lunatic dogs, owing to genes, that need to be put down. Owing to inbreeding, there are examples of traditionally placid breeds that cannot serve as family pets.

32. selwyn marock

Charlieman,I do not disagree with much of what you say,1 question ,Why are the brave UK cops not arresting and putting in jail the dog-fighter’s and the same applies to these gangsters that are ,using, a Malthouse expression “Weapon Dogs” to intimidate why are these criminals not being arrested and jailed.
Instead the politicos and the cops spend their time going after the Law-abiding Citizens and their family pets.
I have 2 staffies who are presently sleeping on my bed,my old guy is 12 years old,he has never done anything wrong,nor has his 5 year old daughter.Why should a bunch of neo-Nazi Politicians and their Stormtrooper cops have the right to break down my door and arrest these 2 living creatures for the purpose of Murdering them.
I thought that ended in 1945 when Hitler was defeated.
smarock10@yahoo.com

“EVIL CAN ONLY SUCCEED WHEN DECENT HUMAN BEINGS DO NOTHING”-Edwin Burke

34. selwyn marock

I totally disagree with Mr Godwin.BSL or the Dangerous Dog’s Act of 91 are laws created by Adolph Hitler,and the implementations by the the Nazis and now the Current Nazis is absolutely identical barring he created his Genocidal Attacks against 2 legged and the current against 4 legged.Both sets of Politicos were motivated by political gain.
When anybody has punitive measures taken against them for their race,gender etc.or is criminally charged and is Guilty until found Innocent,this is Racism.The very basis of Law in the once first world countries like UK,USA and Canada “You were Innocent until proved Guilty.
No Mr Godwin I disagree.
smarock10@yahoo.com

35. selwyn marock

Denny I could not resist

The word ‘politics’ is derived from the word ‘poly’, meaning ‘many’, and the word ‘ticks’, meaning ‘blood sucking parasites’.
Larry Hardiman

smarock1o@yahoo.com

The ticks probably came in on Sally’s lions.

Weirdest troll ever.

I think the use of dogs as weapons by gangland thugs is a good argument for some action to at least control the sale.

Not all dog-wielders are grumpy late-30s middle class feministas who love their doggy-woggies and wouldn’t ever let their little diddums maul a human being.

True Blanco, but the majority of dog owners (the overwhelming majority) are responsible decent owners who look after their dogs and look out for both them and the others around them.

There is a tiny minority, frequently grouped in more deprived areas but not exclusively so, who treat their dogs badly and encourage them to fight.

Dogs are a domesticated species, and will take their lead from the ‘pack leader’, their owner. If the owner is an areshole and encourages them to be aggressive, they’ll be aggressive.

But as part of their domestication, many many dogs are instinctively protective of humans generally and children specifically. It takes specific human action to condition a dog to be dangerous to humans.

When Jennie had a dog set on her by a BNP tattoed thug, that didn’t change her opinion of her own pet dogs, it was the thug that was to blame, and probably ought to be subject to restrictions on dow ownership. The exact same breed of dog is kept by a neighbour across the street, and that dog is lovely and gets on well with ours.

Regardless of whether you want to ban all dogs or not, it’s a political impossibility within a democracy–sensible legislation that actual deals with the minority of dangerous animals (and their owners) is what is needed; Kate’s completely right on that score.

@23: “Could someone help me with similiar comparisons for the UK, it would be appreciated.”

@26: “Substitute Lion, or Tiger for the word dog and would the author be happy to have people keeping Lions next to his house.”

I hope this helps with comparisons:

“An annual profile on homicide offences, to be published [in January 2009], will show there were 784 victims of murder, manslaughter and infanticide in England and Wales in 2007/08. That is a three per cent increase on the 759 offences the year before and up five per cent on the 748 committed in 1997/98.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/4273125/Murder-and-manslaughter-rate-increasing.html

On crimes of violence, the results of an international study by the UN were reported in 2005:

“A UNITED Nations report has labelled Scotland the most violent country in the developed world, with people three times more likely to be assaulted than in America. England and Wales recorded the second highest number of violent assaults while Northern Ireland recorded the fewest.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1786945,00.html

I’m told that lions can be tamed though few believe lions can as a rule be kept safely as domestic pets without strict regulation. But try this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNv2A4Kfx4k&feature=related

Some kind of legislation to keep dogs away from letterboxes would satisfy me.

42. So Much For Subtlety

A gem of an article. Actually liberal for a change.

17. soru – “But what if some mad scientist created a breed of pit bull that can use a machine gun?”

That’s nothing, wait until they have frikken laser beams on their heads.

Sally, I would be perfectly happy to live next to people keeping lions or tigers. If they were responsible owners.

39. Blanco – “I think the use of dogs as weapons by gangland thugs is a good argument for some action to at least control the sale.”

Really? I hear they also like low-slung trousers and BMWs. Let’s ban them too. I am sick and tired of laws that impose undue burdens on law abiding people. If gangland thugs are the problem then let’s jail more gangland thugs. Why do the rest of us have any case to answer at all? Frankly I can’t stand pit bulls, but my sister-in-law used to raise them and I don’t see her selling crack on the corner. Nor do I see why I can’t own one if I want. It is not as if leaving the gangland thugs out but taking away their dogs is going to make them decent people.

“Not all dog-wielders are grumpy late-30s middle class feministas who love their doggy-woggies and wouldn’t ever let their little diddums maul a human being.”

Yeah but so what? Salt of the Earth, grumpy, middle-class, middle aged feministas who love their doggie woggies.

43. selwyn marock

Blanco I agree with your opening statement,Puppy mills should be controlled especially where Greyhounds and Pitbulls are involved,regarding drugdealing gangsters they should be arrested put in JAIL and the beautifull doggy-woggies should be sent to rehab and then adopted out to some sweet grumpy 30 year old feminist.
Would that not be a happy ending for all concerned.

Blanc would you mind passing our joint good idea onto Kit Milkshake for consideration.

smarock10@yahoo.com

44. selwyn marock

Bob Thanks for the info,it certainly should give Blanco and Sally something to worry about.
What I find disgusting your reference to Scotland and there violence,recently they released a Terrorist who blew up a plane killing 270 people including women and children,they sent him back to Libya to a Heroes welcome,their reason “Compassionate Grounds” the same week they are holding a family pet that has done nothing wrong,they are trying to prove he is a pitbull WOW what a revelation the dog’s family has run petitions with 1000’s of signatures ,protests etc “zero compassion” from the Scots.
In Northern Ireland those Terrorists released 2 Cop-Killers they shot and killed an off duty cop and his colleague in cold blood,Sinn Fein released these 2 murderer’s becaused they had shown “Remorse” in the same period they have been holding a little Staffie named Bruce for now nearly 3 years,they are spending thousands of pounds of taxpayer’s money keeping this injustice in court.
Now how can anyone have confidence in governments of this Caliber,they have proved they are just bloody spiteful and stupid.
smarock10@yahoo.com

45. selwyn marock

Bob Thanks for the info,it certainly should give Blanco and Sally something to worry about.
What I find disgusting your reference to Scotland and there violence,recently they released a Terrorist who blew up a plane killing 270 people including women and children,they sent him back to Libya to a Heroes welcome,their reason “Compassionate Grounds” the same week they are holding a family pet that has done nothing wrong,they are trying to prove he is a pitbull WOW what a revelation the dog’s family has run petitions with 1000’s of signatures ,protests etc “zero compassion” from the Scots.
In Northern Ireland those Terrorists released 2 Cop-Killers they shot and killed an off duty cop and his colleague in cold blood,Sinn Fein released these 2 murderer’s becaused they had shown “Remorse” in the same period they have been holding a little Staffie named Bruce for now nearly 3 years,they are spending thousands of pounds of taxpayer’s money keeping this injustice in court.
Now how can anyone have confidence in governments of this Caliber,they have proved they are just bloody spiteful and stupid.
smarock10@yahoo.com

46. B to the L

Blanco:

“I guess if you had a kid, and that kid had been mauled to death by a dog, you might feel differently on the matter.”

For anybody to take your comment seriously they should FIRST consider what chances there are of a child being killed by a dog in the first place. You see in reality children are much more likely to be killed on roads in cars or bikes or even at home in bathtubs. So if you choose to IGNORE the multitudes of other things which are much more likely to kill children, then you DON’T even have a sincere argument if you think banning dogs is going to save children.

47. B to the L

Sally:

“Substitute Lion, or Tiger for the word dog and would the author be happy to have people keeping Lions next to his house. I don’t blame the dog, just in the same way I would not blame the Lion.”

I missed this comment the first time round. It is so so stupid to make comparisons of Tigers and Lions to domesticated dog breeds. Especially when the domesticated dog breeds we are usually talking about, like the Pit Bull Terriers, have historically been bred to be very human friendly. Sally there are 10s of thousands of dogs that fit into a Pit Bull phenotype in apartments and houses in the UK that never bite anybody. There are not (unless you want to prove otherwise) 10s of thousands of Lions and Tigers living in apartments and houses in the UK. So how can you even think that is serious comparison?

48. Planeshift

“Really? I hear they also like low-slung trousers and BMWs. Let’s ban them too.”

Not ban them, but we do need tougher enforcement on tailgating.

Recently saw a BMW doing 10mph in a 70 zone – it was an open road with no traffic and the poor sod was confused as he had nobody to tailgate.

Agree with this thread, DDA needs abolishing, and replaced with better laws on animal cruelty with tougher punishments, including life bans on ownership for repeat offenders. Its the owners that are the problem.

The peculiar thing about lions is that some ungrateful beasts, even highly trained and duly celebrated beasts, haven’t always stayed compliant:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nowt9ANKOBM&NR=1

I have no problems with docile dogs, but my partner will refuse to walk through a park if she sees a dog. She was bitten when she was a teenagers and she has been scared ever since.

However, many dog owners are not aware their dogs can have a negative effect on people. Even though, I am not scared of dogs, but I am always weary of walking past one, especially if it a breed that looks a dangerous like the one in your photo. Certainly, I don’t like seing dogs on their own or far from their owners.

Perhaps, your dog club your encourage owners to recall their dogs when they head towards people….

51. selwyn marock

Bob B I am fully aware that not all trained lions have remained “Compliant” but at an educated guess there is a much larger percentage of us “Master Race Humans” that do not know the meaning of being “Compliant” Rapists,Muggers,Murderers,Paediaphiles,Drunken Drivers,Terrorists etc.etc etc.
Should we put the entire Human Race Down,probably would make our planet a better and safer place without all the Bigots whinging.

smarock10@yahoo.com

@52

Perhaps you saw this report a few years ago about a UNO survey:

“A UNITED Nations report has labelled Scotland the most violent country in the developed world, with people three times more likely to be assaulted than in America. England and Wales recorded the second highest number of violent assaults while Northern Ireland recorded the fewest.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1786945,00.html


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Liberal Conspiracy

    Time to re-think the Dangerous Dogs Act http://bit.ly/9GsJsf

  2. Kate B

    @DaveHill Hey there Dave, Kate here from Lib Con. Have done a piece on dangerous dogs act/ Kit Malthouse – can we talk? http://bit.ly/9GsJsf

  3. andrew

    Liberal Conspiracy » Time to re-think the Dangerous Dogs Act: About the author: Kate Belgrave is a regular contrib… http://bit.ly/d9n2TG

  4. Denny

    Dogs Aren't Dangerous, Chavvy Fuckwit Owners Are Dangerous http://bit.ly/a8k0O9 (on @libcon)

  5. Davey Hill

    Liberal Conspiracy » Time to re-think the Dangerous Dogs Act http://bit.ly/93I6Uy

  6. Doggy Train

    Liberal Conspiracy » Time to re-think the Dangerous Dogs Act: Is this because you believe that their 'dangerous' n… http://bit.ly/b7z6TY

  7. Dog Owners Guide : Stop Dog Chasing

    [...] Liberal Conspiracy » Time to re-think the Dangerous Dogs Act [...]

  8. Dillow, Dogs and Death « Bad Conscience

    [...] have a labradoodle. If you want a bull-terrier fighting dog, it’s (in most cases; people like Kate B excepted) because you’re a twat who likes to own a threatening dog. In which case fuck you, and fuck [...]

  9. Computer love « ten minutes hate

    [...] even casual observers will know, passing legislation on the hoof is rarely a good idea and unfortunately ‘doing [...]





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.