observer Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 - leave a 4 year old child alone with a large dog? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve the Original Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 NO not unless it was a stuffed dog of course.. but there are always those who will of course... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted December 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 This is what happens with de-regulation (scrapping the dog licence) and the introduction of the Dangerous Dogs Act, which is breed specific, but they can't trace the breed. Perhaps, a re-introduction of the dog licence, with conditions for keeping such pets? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harry hayes Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 Heaven forbid bringing the dog licence back. Would only increase the number of dogs roaming round without collars. ( I have fiollowed many back to their homes as a PC, and the owner denies all knowledge of the tail wagging creature). Â This incident seems to me to be just one of the unfortunate things which happen, and have been happening since the year dot. Human error. Â Happy days Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 Can anyone explain the attraction of owning a dog? Â Â BTW, where does it say the child was alone with the dog? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfie Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 I can see the attraction of owning certain dogs as pets and company for the elderly. I cannot see the attraction of owning a breed similar to to the one that killed this child. Â But breeds like the one in question are a major problem in Liverpool and when owners are questioned by the police they give the usual answer - 'it's a Staffy cross'. Â There is even a website advising owners what to say when questioned by the Police as to why they are keeping a dangerous dog. Â Apparantly there have been 3 children killed by dogs over the last 2 years and two of those have been in Merseyside. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kennedy Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 The police have confirmed that it was an illegal breed. Â http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2009/12/01/john-paul-massey-killer-dog-was-illegal-pit-bull-terrier-type-tests-reveal-100252-25297500/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 Pit Bull or not I find it hard to believe that any responsible owner or family member would not have an incling into their own dogs personality or possilbe behavioural problems. Â Unfortuanetly the types of people who often buy pit bulls, staffies and other such 'status symbol' dogs are the very sort of people who quite simply should NOT be allowed to have them. Â Just because the Pit Bull breed is banned makes the 'underworld' even more intent on breeding them. As already mentioned they simply pass them off as American Staffies etc etc or they inter breed them with staffies etc to give a different line to the breed. Responsible breeders and responsible owners have been taken out of the equation and the low life breeders and owners have taken over. Â I blame the owners and not the dogs in most cases not that it makes what has happened any easier to comprehend Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted December 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 Believe the Chavs own these dogs to protect their homes against raids by the police or other druggies, and apparently for the occasional recreational dog fight on the park. Even the best trained dog shouldn't be allowed unsupervised by it's master near young children; but part of the problem is that these dogs are not properly trained - unless the encouragement of aggression is classed as training. A licence could require proper care and training, and any found without a licence H would have a one way trip to the kennels. Although a requirement for a coded implant as part of the licence conditions would assist identifying ownership. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harry hayes Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 All well and good Obs, but people wouldn,t pay 7 and 6p for a licence so I,m absolutely sure they wouldn,t pay the cost of what you are suggesting. You can,t prove that someone owns a dog which doesn,t have a collar unless you have other evidence - which was never forthcoming. The only people who used to get convicted were the "decent" people who owned up. Â Happy days Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted December 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 So, there would be a lot less dogs in circulation - sorted! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LymmParent Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 My dog would never, ever bite anyone. My dog has grown up being mauled by my kids and has never so much as snarled, no matter what terrible things they've done. Nonetheless, I would never leave my dog alone with a baby or small child, because the potential harm is too awful to risk. To leave a child with a dog from a breed banned as dangerous is like leaving them with a loaded gun or a can of petrol and a box of matches. Manslaughter in my book. For the dog owner and the person in charge of the child. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted December 2, 2009 Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 I COMPLETELY AGREE !!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted December 2, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 2, 2009 The father of that nutter in Germany, who shot a load of his schoolmates then himself; has been charged with their manslaughter - presumably on the basis of the careless storage of his firearm. So on a similiar basis the dog owner and the child minder should be similarly charged. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LymmParent Posted December 3, 2009 Report Share Posted December 3, 2009 I'm not sure I agree with the German example. I think it would be very hard to realise your child intended mass murder. Firearms offence, certainly, but manslaughter is rather harsh there. Â However, there are only four specific "banned" breeds, American Pit Bulls, Japanese Tosas, Dogo Argentinos and Fila Brasileiros. They are aggressive, fighting breeds and they are all imports. There is no excuse for having them in a domestic household. Anyone possessing one should be charged with "possession with intent" because these dogs do not make good pets - they are nothing more than weapons. When they inevitably end up hurting someone, the owner should be up for GBH, manslaughter or murder, because that's what it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted December 3, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 3, 2009 In the UK there are certain security conditions contained in a firearms licence, presumably the same in Germany, one being that it/they should be locked in a secure cabinet - seems in the German example the weapon was left out and was accessed by the nutter. Any large dog can become a weapon, it's all down to the type training. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LymmParent Posted December 3, 2009 Report Share Posted December 3, 2009 Yes, you can train a dog to be aggressive, and it doesn't have to be large one. Jack Russells top the list for biting and most terriers will nip when provoked. Equally, labradors, retrievers and St Bernards rarely even growl. The point with the banned breeds is that fighting is ALL they do. Their aggression levels are dangerous even when they are kept as family pets and treated well. Â The other difference is that a firearm has no brain or will of its own. An American Pit Bull determined to get to you will eat its way through a door, wreck a pen, injure or even kill itself trying. Once it has hold of you, it will not let go or stop until one of you is dead. There's no firearm in general use that will batter its way out of the locker and hunt down your kids. Â They've listened anyway - the owner of the dog has been arrested on suspicion of manslaughter. About time too - now let's see them have the nuts to follow it through and lock him up! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted December 3, 2009 Report Share Posted December 3, 2009 The thing is that when a Jack Russell or a little terrier bite or nip, one can drop kick it into next week. When a pit bull or something bigger has a go, you lose.  Muzzle every dog when it is out in public and also any dog should be muzzled when inside with anyone under the age of 16. Anyone who doesn't abide by the rules has the dog taken away and put down.  Now don't start the usual "it isn't the dogs fault" nonsense, because the dog is the one doing the biting because that is all it knows. The owners are equally culpable but not wholly culpable  EVERY dog is capable of hurting someone, and that is backed up by reading the testimonies of those people whose dogs have previously ripped the heads and arms off little kids; every man jack of them come out with the phrase "well he/she/it was never violent and never did anything like that before" and the phrase before the dog ripped the heads and arms off little Johnny was "well my dog wouldn't harm a fly"  Muzzle them or ban them.... simples! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted December 3, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 3, 2009 As I said, it's all down to training - any dog can be trained to be aggressive or highly diciplined, depending on the type of training - but even with the best trained dog - it wouldn't be wise to trust it alone with a kid, if only through fear of what the kid might do to provoke it. As for firearms being inanimate objects LP, so they are, but we don't leave then lying around for some trigger happy nutter to pick up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LymmParent Posted December 4, 2009 Report Share Posted December 4, 2009 The thing is that when a Jack Russell or a little terrier bite or nip, one can drop kick it into next week. When a pit bull or something bigger has a go, you lose. Â A Jack Russell is more than enough to kill a baby; a Fox Terrier is big enough to rip the arm off a four year old. If you have a dog in your house and a child is going to be there, then you should recognise the potential risk and behave appropriately. Muzzle the dog, put the dog outside, remain with the child at all times - whatever is appropriate. Laws about muzzling dogs will only be observed by reasonable people. The kind of brainless tosser who keeps an illegal pit bull, teaches it to rip other dogs apart and then leaves his nephew alone with it really isn't going to be moved by your legal adjustments, Baz! As usual, you'd end up penalising the innocent whilst the villains carried sweetly on... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted December 4, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 4, 2009 Dogs, like kids, are conditioned by their enviroment and upbringing - perhaps some folk shouldn't be allowed dogs or Kids?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LymmParent Posted December 5, 2009 Report Share Posted December 5, 2009 People who shouldn't be allowed to have kids or keep animals? Do NOT get me started on that one, Obs! I would make you sound like the grooviest liberal hippy to ever hug a tree. You do not want to know what I think should happen to those who leave their kids locked in alone whilst they go to Spain, or who systematically starve and beat those who can't answer back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted December 5, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 5, 2009 Bet you look good in Jack Boots LP?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LymmParent Posted December 5, 2009 Report Share Posted December 5, 2009 Funnily enough, Obs, I don't know, having never had the slightest urge to wear a pair..... but Mrs Obs is clearly a very long-suffering woman! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted December 5, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 5, 2009 Had visions of you dressed like Ann Robinson for a sec! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.