|
Post by on May 24, 2023 17:32:08 GMT
They were black dogs.
Shit.
|
|
|
Post by on May 24, 2023 17:33:54 GMT
I think there should also be a campaign to quash the charge of having a dog when disqualified fron owning a dog.
The bloke was clearly just trying to look after vulnerable dogs who would otherwise be at risk.
|
|
|
Post by on May 24, 2023 17:35:32 GMT
I wonder if this was in fact caused by the tories realising they are fucked. Anything goes when it comes to sowing discontent into the population.
Especially the plebs.
|
|
|
Post by on Sept 15, 2023 22:27:22 GMT
There is still a shrine to the dangerous dogs opposite the London boat and I noticed earlier a procession of awful scum presumably related to the other procession of awful scum called the current party in charge.
I do think dangerous dogs and their owners need killing yesterday but one is nervous around the timing.
Hopefully thick people won't be moved too much here.
|
|
|
Post by dogless on Sept 16, 2023 7:03:16 GMT
With the fatality this week in Staffordshire following an attack by two dogs, and the 11 year old girl and two guys attacked in Birmingham by a dog of the same breed, it appears public and political support is gathering behind banning the breed.
Always seems the wrong approach to me, primarily because proving a particular breed isn't straight forward.
The owners and keepers of such dogs should be the targets, not specifically the breed, but we've stepped through the looking glass when a 52 year old bloke is killed on the streets by someone's 'pets'.
Rog
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Sept 16, 2023 8:26:07 GMT
With the fatality this week in Staffordshire following an attack by two dogs, and the 11 year old girl and two guys attacked in Birmingham by a dog of the same breed, it appears public and political support is gathering behind banning the breed. Always seems the wrong approach to me, primarily because proving a particular breed isn't straight forward. The owners and keepers of such dogs should be the targets, not specifically the breed, but we've stepped through the looking glass when a 52 year old bloke is killed on the streets by someone's 'pets'. Rog Someone in the paper was saying they have a bully xl in their home with their 9 month old child, and it is as gentle as gentle can be with the baby. Whether that is an accident waiting to happen I don’t know. I think the important point is that a shitzu or pug is unlikely ever to kill anyone regardless of its temperament, whereas a bully xl could fairly easily if it was in the mood. A law that says nasty ill-tempered aggressive dogs are banned, nice dogs are ok, is never going to work because you can’t tell by looking and a dog’s behaviour can change in an instant. So there are 2 choices, we either ban types of dogs that have the potential and statistical probability to be dangerous, or we wait until someone is injured or killed and then say “Oh dear, arrest the owner and that dog is dangerous, it must be killed”. Stable door bolted after horse departed. Of course society is generally sick when it considers dogs to be more important than other humans, but that is the current state. My dog never shits without me clearing it up. My dog is just being playful. My dog is under perfect control and so doesn’t need to be on a lead in this field of sheep. I hear this all the time but it is fallacy. Bring bag the dog wardens I say! Enforce dogs on leads in public places.
|
|
|
Post by on Sept 16, 2023 9:03:34 GMT
Dog licences.
These scummy XL things are horrible. I like dogs (lurchers mostly) but these big things are just nasty. They look nasty, they have a habit of doing nasty things and they just need getting rid of.
Nobody needs a dog that large which is bred for fighting. It is not appropriate.
Ideally all of these dogs should be confiscated and destroyed.
Well killing would probably be better than destroying them but apparently they do actually get destroyed for some unknown reason.
|
|
|
Post by Aloysius on Sept 16, 2023 9:39:37 GMT
we've stepped through the looking glass when a 52 year old bloke is killed on the streets by someone's 'pets' You make it sound like it's the first time it has happened.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Sept 16, 2023 12:10:30 GMT
Bye Bye Bully, Bully Bye Bye...
|
|
|
Post by dogless on Sept 16, 2023 14:55:30 GMT
With the fatality this week in Staffordshire following an attack by two dogs, and the 11 year old girl and two guys attacked in Birmingham by a dog of the same breed, it appears public and political support is gathering behind banning the breed. Always seems the wrong approach to me, primarily because proving a particular breed isn't straight forward. The owners and keepers of such dogs should be the targets, not specifically the breed, but we've stepped through the looking glass when a 52 year old bloke is killed on the streets by someone's 'pets'. Rog Someone in the paper was saying they have a bully xl in their home with their 9 month old child, and it is as gentle as gentle can be with the baby. Whether that is an accident waiting to happen I don’t know. I think the important point is that a shitzu or pug is unlikely ever to kill anyone regardless of its temperament, whereas a bully xl could fairly easily if it was in the mood. A law that says nasty ill-tempered aggressive dogs are banned, nice dogs are ok, is never going to work because you can’t tell by looking and a dog’s behaviour can change in an instant. So there are 2 choices, we either ban types of dogs that have the potential and statistical probability to be dangerous, or we wait until someone is injured or killed and then say “Oh dear, arrest the owner and that dog is dangerous, it must be killed”. Stable door bolted after horse departed. Of course society is generally sick when it considers dogs to be more important than other humans, but that is the current state. My dog never shits without me clearing it up. My dog is just being playful. My dog is under perfect control and so doesn’t need to be on a lead in this field of sheep. I hear this all the time but it is fallacy. Bring bag the dog wardens I say! Enforce dogs on leads in public places. The third choice, and what I was alluding to, was regulating the people who have dogs. You cannot simply buy a gun because you want one. You cannot simply drive because it's fun. Regulation of owners would be better than regulating the breeds. Rog
|
|
|
Post by fi on Sept 16, 2023 14:59:56 GMT
Someone in the paper was saying they have a bully xl in their home with their 9 month old child, and it is as gentle as gentle can be with the baby. Whether that is an accident waiting to happen I don’t know. I think the important point is that a shitzu or pug is unlikely ever to kill anyone regardless of its temperament, whereas a bully xl could fairly easily if it was in the mood. A law that says nasty ill-tempered aggressive dogs are banned, nice dogs are ok, is never going to work because you can’t tell by looking and a dog’s behaviour can change in an instant. So there are 2 choices, we either ban types of dogs that have the potential and statistical probability to be dangerous, or we wait until someone is injured or killed and then say “Oh dear, arrest the owner and that dog is dangerous, it must be killed”. Stable door bolted after horse departed. Of course society is generally sick when it considers dogs to be more important than other humans, but that is the current state. My dog never shits without me clearing it up. My dog is just being playful. My dog is under perfect control and so doesn’t need to be on a lead in this field of sheep. I hear this all the time but it is fallacy. Bring bag the dog wardens I say! Enforce dogs on leads in public places. The third choice, and what I was alluding to, was regulating the people who have dogs. You cannot simply buy a gun because you want one. You cannot simply drive because it's fun. Regulation of owners would be better than regulating the breeds. Rog How do you propose anyone could do that?
|
|
|
Post by dogless on Sept 16, 2023 15:07:35 GMT
In the same way that regulation applies to firearms or any other type of licence.
I can't just buy a shotgun.
I have to apply, be checked and considered suitable, and acquisition is then licensed and regulated going forward.
I am not suggesting it will happen, merely suggesting it would be my choice.
Why should a local convicted thief and drug dealer be able to just own and abuse a large breed of dog, to use as some kind of lethal weapon ?
Rog
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Sept 16, 2023 15:10:57 GMT
Someone in the paper was saying they have a bully xl in their home with their 9 month old child, and it is as gentle as gentle can be with the baby. Whether that is an accident waiting to happen I don’t know. I think the important point is that a shitzu or pug is unlikely ever to kill anyone regardless of its temperament, whereas a bully xl could fairly easily if it was in the mood. A law that says nasty ill-tempered aggressive dogs are banned, nice dogs are ok, is never going to work because you can’t tell by looking and a dog’s behaviour can change in an instant. So there are 2 choices, we either ban types of dogs that have the potential and statistical probability to be dangerous, or we wait until someone is injured or killed and then say “Oh dear, arrest the owner and that dog is dangerous, it must be killed”. Stable door bolted after horse departed. Of course society is generally sick when it considers dogs to be more important than other humans, but that is the current state. My dog never shits without me clearing it up. My dog is just being playful. My dog is under perfect control and so doesn’t need to be on a lead in this field of sheep. I hear this all the time but it is fallacy. Bring bag the dog wardens I say! Enforce dogs on leads in public places. The third choice, and what I was alluding to, was regulating the people who have dogs. You cannot simply buy a gun because you want one. You cannot simply drive because it's fun. Regulation of owners would be better than regulating the breeds. Rog People can only drive if they have a licence. In theory. But in fact some people drive without a licence. And some people with a licence drive dangerously and kill other people. So I suggest that attempting to regulate dog owners is not a solution to the problem. Removing cars would be a solution, but it has a lot of downsides. Removing dangerous dog breeds is a solution and has no significant down side.
|
|
|
Post by fi on Sept 16, 2023 15:21:53 GMT
In the same way that regulation applies to firearms or any other type of licence. I can't just buy a shotgun. I have to apply, be checked and considered suitable, and acquisition is then licensed and regulated going forward. I am not suggesting it will happen, merely suggesting it would be my choice. Why should a local convicted thief and drug dealer be able to just own and abuse a large breed of dog, to use as some kind of lethal weapon ? Rog Why should a local well respected person be allowed to own a large, unstable breed of dog, that suddenly turns into a lethal weapon.
It isn't always the owners fault.
No matter how good the owner is, if a dog is big enough it can turn into a lethal weapon. Especially if it has breeding characteristics to either make it aggressive or to mean that the dog 'locks on'.
|
|
|
Post by dogless on Sept 16, 2023 15:46:34 GMT
There's law against murder and theft but it still happens ... obviously society will always be at the mercy of those who refuse to comply with society's rules.
I believe those people should be the target rather than breeds.
But I accept the government will add bully XL to the banned list to be seen to be 'taking action'.
I remain unconvinced it will make a significant difference ... just promote production of a new large breed.
Rog
|
|