Compulsory insurance for all dogs proposed by Govt. (Now ruled out)

[Cyclone 10]

Yes, that's why I said 'much' rather than 'any'.

 

Duh!

 

Hmm, I suppose you should have said 'many' then instead of 'any'. Is more than one alternative required?

[llamatron 10]

So ask yourself this; what makes the "the ten-gallon hat-wearing two-pint heads" (I think you mean chavs!) choose a staffy as their dog of choice in the first place?

 

Is it their kind loving temperament or their gentle disposition? Of course not, it's because they are known to be an inherently aggressive and vicious breed that will intimidate others and attack if let off the leash.

 

And this, to get back to the point of the thread, is why it's a good thing the government is taking the dangerous dogs problem seriously, even if they're going about it the wrong way.

 

its because they look scary-it is absolutely nothing to do with the temperament of the breed. They look scary and are trained/frightened into being aggresive.

 

Staffies are supposed to be good family dogs

 

this is why banning a breed is beyond pointless, you can train a poodle to maul children but nobody does because a chav would look stupid with a poodle

[pem123 10]

Hmm, I suppose you should have said 'many' then instead of 'any'. Is more than one alternative required?

 

I didn't say 'any'

 

Whatever, to clarify I don't care much for the handguns act, because like measures against dog ownerships it was only ever going to penalise the law abiding. I was merely offering a comparative (to dog bans/licensing) view

 

I mean Thomas Hamilton wouldn't have been put off doing what he did by a £250 fine or whatever you get. Neither would gang members.

[ukdobby 225]

There is no license required to own a dog.

 

There was years ago and I'd like to bet not many had them.

[Mathom 10]

Ok, I think a better analogy is that when an idiot leaves his toddler alone with a big dog he bought in the pub for £25 without knowing it's history and has never walked it and it then attacks the kid, people call for action on dogs.

 

If the same idiot left his kid alone with a chainsaw, society would blame him, not the chainsaw.

 

Pretty much all dog attacks are the result of human stupidity, either poor dog ownership or poor parenting, commonly a bit of both.

 

I say pretty much because dogs can occasionally flip due to mental problems just as we can.

 

It doesn't work as an analogy because so many of these attacks happen to kids playing on playgrounds or even in their own gardens where strange dogs have intruded. Fortunately chainsaws (and cars, and guns) are incapable of jumping over hedges or running over to the local play area.

[pem123 10]

It doesn't work as an analogy because so many of these attacks happen to kids playing on playgrounds or even in their own gardens where strange dogs have intruded. Fortunately chainsaws (and cars, and guns) are incapable of jumping over hedges or running over to the local play area.

 

No, I'll think you find most happen within the family unit

 

Dogs approaching people, uninvited, in public and attacking for what seems like no reason, happens very rarely.

 

And even so, there are plenty that fulfil my analogy, the two deaths fron hybrid Bull Terriers in Liverpool, the baby and the Rottweiler in Wakefield.

[llamatron 10]

why not do a registration service instead (costs paid by dog owner-but these are admin charges not £200 per dog per year) A bit like a CRB (is that right?) check. You need two non-family members as references, you need to not have an RSPCA or criminal record and you can't get one if you are on benefits.

 

if you are a chav that has an agressively trained dog your human licence is revoked, your dog is taken away and you or your family are never allowed a dog/tiger/hamster/eagle again.

 

It has all the benefits of insurance ie it would be a legal requirement for the human to have a licence to own a dog, without the stealth tax part

 

breed would be irrelevant as this is a completely incompetent idea anyway

[pem123 10]

why not do a registration service instead (costs paid by dog owner-but these are admin charges not £200 per dog per year) A bit like a CRB (is that right?) check. You need two non-family members as references, you need to not have an RSPCA or criminal record and you can't get one if you are on benefits.

 

if you are a chav that has an agressively trained dog your human licence is revoked, your dog is taken away and you or your family are never allowed a dog/tiger/hamster/eagle again.

 

It has all the benefits of insurance ie it would be a legal requirement for the human to have a licence to own a dog, without the stealth tax part

 

breed would be irrelevant as this is a completely incompetent idea anyway

 

Good idea.

 

But whether it's worth the money it would cost, is what would need to be debated next.

 

The risk to humans from dogs is miniscule. The money would be far better spent on improving road safety or obesity. But when's that general election again?....

[Waldo 96]

I don't think anyone (sane) will disagree with that. Or were you referring to the handgun thing I mentioned? In which case, same thing applies - punish the bad owners

 

Nope, I've moved on from the guns!

 

Actually, I brought up the guns in my own post as a way of illustrating how the analogy (that pem used, with the cars) might be misleading (as most analogies are). I hadn't seen you refer to guns previously.

 

Certainly the idea of punishing irresponibile behaviour, and rewarding responsible behaviour (be it with guns or dogs), seems like a very good idea to me.

 

The problem I see with this specific idea though, is that irresponsible dog owners just won't get the license insurance thing in the first place, so it will only serve to punish the good owners, plus there's the cost of running the thing. It seems ill-concieved to me.

 

A better idea, could be to stop specific people from owning dogs, if they've proved themselves incapable of doing so responsibly.

[Cyclone 10]

I didn't say 'any'

Quite true, sorry, my mistake.

I meant 'many' instead of 'much'.

 

Whatever, to clarify I don't care much for the handguns act, because like measures against dog ownerships it was only ever going to penalise the law abiding. I was merely offering a comparative (to dog bans/licensing) view

 

I mean Thomas Hamilton wouldn't have been put off doing what he did by a £250 fine or whatever you get. Neither would gang members.

Indeed.

[pem123 10]

. It seems ill-concieved to me.

 

 

See my last sentance.

 

The public perception of the danger of dog attacks is hugely disproportionate to the reality. It's an easy vote-winner

[Cyclone 10]

Good idea.

 

But whether it's worth the money it would cost, is what would need to be debated next.

 

The risk to humans from dogs is miniscule. The money would be far better spent on improving road safety or obesity. But when's that general election again?....

 

And again, the people who currently train dogs to be aggressive and generally aren't particularly law abiding would abide by this law why?