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

[Moosey]

Isn't there something in the law, about a dog being allowed "one bite!", moosey?

 

Until a dog has bitten someone, surely you can't say that the dog has a propensity to bite, can you?

 

If it bites someone for the first time, there's no history of biting to go on, to decide if it's dangerous. If it bites in another incident, for a second, (or hopefully not! ) a subsequent time, then you could say there's evidence of a vicious nature.

 

That's it in one.

 

If you can show it's done it before, then that's all you need. Any future bites and the victim has a case. Before that, afraid not, no matter how serious, or even fatal, the bite is.

 

You've understood it perfectly, but it's never understood so easily by someone with a dog bite (I had a guy bitten on the...well...love stick shall we say once).

 

The argument I hear time and again is that if I crash into someone in my car, even on the first occasion, the insurance would compensate the victim, so why not the same with dog bites. I can see the argument, but that's the law.

Edited March 9, 2010 by Moosey

[Mathom]

It's very difficult, and so difficult to explain to people, particularly when it's an emotional issue. I spent hours trying to explain the point to a client who's young daughter had a spaniel bite her face, leaving some nasty scars, that we couldn't do anything because the dog had never done this before. Not nice. The law can be very stupid at points.

 

It's pretty obvious then why the law needs to be changed.

 

If a man attacked someone there is no need to prove "he's a bit tetchy" or "he's built like the proverbial outhouse", the fact that he's attacked someone is enough. It isn't right that a dog should get away with being able to attack someone, and by extension, the owner.

 

Though from what I understand if the attack happens on a right of way (e.g. footpath or a back yard with neighbours' access rights), this makes things different. You are not allowed to have a dog out unsecured in your yard if your neighbours have a right of way over it as this counts as an obstruction.

[Plain Talker]

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.

 

It's the looks,of the dog, SN.

 

You'll not find them with yorkies (despite yorkies being a snappy nippy breed) on the end of their lead, coz that "dunt" fit in wiv da bling and da "I'm-hard, Innit" - image that these two-pinters like to cultivate..

 

Like I say, staffs and EBTs are delightfully friendly dogs. I have very fond memories of Charlie, my old upstairs neighbour's brindle Staffy boy. I'd be sat in hers, having a natter and a cup of tea with Charlie playfully "Gnawing" (hehe) on my hand (actually, he was doing what is called "mouthing", which is not proper chewing, and quite harmless, it used to make me chuckle)

[Moosey]

It's pretty obvious then why the law needs to be changed.

 

If a man attacked someone there is no need to prove "he's a bit tetchy" or "he's built like the proverbial outhouse", the fact that he's attacked someone is enough. It isn't right that a dog should get away with being able to attack someone, and by extension, the owner.

 

 

I'd be tempted to agree with you. It'd certainly make my job easier! Have a look at the BBC reporting of the Christopher Whippey case. Not a bite, but shows you that a serious injury can be caused, and no claim can come of it. And people say it's too easy to claim in this country! If only they found out the reality rather than what the media tells them. (That's not aimed at you by the way, just a general rant of the population at large and their blind acceptance of tabloids.)

[pem123]

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?

 

Ignorance. The same thing that makes you say.....

 

, 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.

 

 

This is why they're dumped in such large numbers. Because the vast majority just won't be aggressive to humans, even after some numpty's tried to make them so.

 

I'll say what i've said on every thread about staffies. Prove it.

 

Prove that the idea that they're inherently aggressive and vicious isn't just a combination of media sensationalism and higher exposure to poor ownership than other breeds.

[Mathom]

I'd be tempted to agree with you. It'd certainly make my job easier! Have a look at the BBC reporting of the Christopher Whippey case. Not a bite, but shows you that a serious injury can be caused, and no claim can come of it. And people say it's too easy to claim in this country! If only they found out the reality rather than what the media tells them. (That's not aimed at you by the way, just a general rant of the population at large and their blind acceptance of tabloids.)

 

It's actually quite worrying, as if someone's child was mauled or killed and they had no redress or closure from it, and had to see the same dog wandering about day after day then I'm sure many parents would want to take the law into their own hands, making them criminals when they were the victims.

 

I wonder how often the owner actually keeps the dog after it's bitten someone though? You read these stories and then at the end it usually says 'the dog was destroyed'. The case of the girl in Sheffield who was savaged by the Rottweiler not too long ago was notably different as the owners refused to destroy the dog if I recall correctly.

[Plain Talker]

That's it in one.

 

If you can show it's done it before, then that's all you need. Any future bites and the victim has a case. Before that, afraid not, no matter how serious, or even fatal, the bite is.

 

You've understood it perfectly, but it's never understood so easily by someone with a dog bite (I had a guy bitten on the...well...love stick shall we say once).

 

The argument I hear time and again is that if I crash into someone in my car, even on the first occasion, the insurance would compensate the victim, so why not the same with dog bites. I can see the argument, but that's the law.

 

Sorry moosey, but I'm going to have to sue you, for a replacement keyboard, there, as I've just drenched this one in tea, after the images that your comment there conjured up.

 

Especially the thought "what the hell was he doing waving his *cough* wand near enough the dog for the dog to be able to bite it?

 

I know my old dog "bit" my ex-, once, but he was thinking he was protecting me.

 

Ex- was "bitten" on the erm... jewels. Not hard, and old-dog certainly did no damage. (Dog was asleep under the computer chair where ex- was sitting. Ex- grabbed at me and made me squeal. I screamed, and the dog leapt up, thinking I was being harmed.

 

Dog grabbed ex on the, erm, testimonials, with one sharp warning bark.

 

As he did this, he realised it was ex who was there, and that I wasn't actually being harmed. He let go. Ex- broke out in a cold-sweat. hehehe

 

It was more a warning, really than anything.

[Moosey]

It's actually quite worrying, as if someone's child was mauled or killed and they had no redress or closure from it, and had to see the same dog wandering about day after day then I'm sure many parents would want to take the law into their own hands, making them criminals when they were the victims.

 

I wonder how often the owner actually keeps the dog after it's bitten someone though? You read these stories and then at the end it usually says 'the dog was destroyed'. The case of the girl in Sheffield who was savaged by the Rottweiler not too long ago was notably different as the owners refused to destroy the dog if I recall correctly.

 

There's no compulsion to destroy it, unless it's one of the "dangerous" breeds, or the police insist. As I say, that client I had whose daughter had her face bitten really badly had to live only a few doors away from the owner, with no recourse either through civil law, and no prosecution, because it was unexpected. That was a springer spaniel as well. Can't have created a nice environment to live really.

[Moosey]

Sorry moosey, but I'm going to have to sue you, for a replacement keyboard, there, as I've just drenched this one in tea, after the images that your comment there conjured up.

 

Especially the thought "what the hell was he doing waving his *cough* wand near enough the dog for the dog to be able to bite it?

 

I know my old dog "bit" my ex-, once, but he was thinking he was protecting me.

 

Ex- was "bitten" on the erm... jewels. Not hard, and old-dog certainly did no damage. (Dog was asleep under the computer chair where ex- was sitting. Ex- grabbed at me and made me squeal. I screamed, and the dog leapt up, thinking I was being harmed.

 

Dog grabbed ex on the, erm, testimonials, with one sharp warning bark.

 

As he did this, he realised it was ex who was there, and that I wasn't actually being harmed. He let go. Ex- broke out in a cold-sweat. hehehe

 

It was more a warning, really than anything.

 

He was in a park as well, jogging. I politely declined the photographs!

[SpinyNorman]

Ignorance. The same thing that makes you say.....

 

 

 

This is why they're dumped in such large numbers. Because the vast majority just won't be aggressive to humans, even after some numpty's tried to make them so.

 

I'll say what i've said on every thread about staffies. Prove it.

 

Prove that the idea that they're inherently aggressive and vicious isn't just a combination of media sensationalism and higher exposure to poor ownership than other breeds.

 

I'm happy to argue with Plain Talker because he at least tries to back up his arguments with reasoning and personal experience.

 

But I can't see the point of debating with people like pem123 whose argument is to deny facts based on their own prejudices and a pigheaded refusal to look at the evidence.

The fact is a staffordshire pit bull terrier is descended from the american pit bull terrier, which was (and still is) bred as a fighting dog. As these dogs interbreed, so the boundary between the pit bull and staffy dissolves so that it's effectively the same breed.

 

It doesn't take an expert to work out that if you take a fighting dog and try to keep it as a pet, its natural instinct is to attack. For proof you only need look at all the media stories of dog attacks. Which breeds do you think feature the most?