That'll be MUCH safer then!!

[minestrone]

I think it's too busy helping Microsoft

You don't get invited to parties much do you?

[AtW]

You don't get invited to parties much do you?

[shaunbhoy]

Writing thses proposals off because they are not an immediate and total fix for the problem is shortsighted and counter productive.

At the moment possesion of a dangerous dog, of the sort dicussed here - trained to be aggresive and used as a weapon - cannot be dealt with easily as there is no easy way of establishing ownership

There should be no need to establish ownership. The public complain about very aggressive dogs and the Police need to react. Even the average plod can spot an overly aggressive pooch. The problem is that they don't want to leave their office. Insuring dogs will not begin to address this issue for the reasons you cite yourself. The "owners" will simply refuse to pay/tag and deny that it is their dog. More pointless bureaucracy. Might as well ask that they be registered at the Post Office!!! Not surprised this passed over the heads of AtW and the other bookend sg mind you.

[AtW]

Insuring dogs will not begin to address this issue for the reasons you cite yourself.

It will address the issue because for certain high risk groups insurance will be too much so they will either have to stop having such dogs or have illegal dogs, in the latter case action can be taken very easily without getting into hard proof of what is "too aggressive is".

[shaunbhoy]

in the latter case action can be taken very easily without getting into hard proof of what is "too aggressive is".

That can be done already mutton-skull. KUATB!!

[DaveB]

There should be no need to establish ownership. The public complain about very aggressive dogs and the Police need to react. Even the average plod can spot an overly aggressive pooch. The problem is that they don't want to leave their office. Insuring dogs will not begin to address this issue for the reasons you cite yourself. The "owners" will simply refuse to pay/tag and deny that it is their dog. More pointless bureaucracy. Might as well ask that they be registered at the Post Office!!! Not surprised this passed over the heads of AtW and the other bookend sg mind you.

It's not aimed at dealing with the dogs once they have been aggresive to someone, it's about being able to be pro-active about dogs that are suspected of being used in the way described. The dog can be checked on suspision, no tag means the dog is taken away before it ever becomes a problem.

Example : Many of these dogs are used in the drugs trade. Dogs found in the course of a police raid cannot automatically be taken away unless they are one of the four banned breeds, and that has to be comfirmed by a police vet before it can happen.

Dogs that behave aggressively on private property are not covered by the Dangerous Dogs act, but by an older act from 1871 which is harder to administer and prosecute. Even so, no prosecution or action can be taken unless the owner can be identified.

Any dog found in these circumstances that was not tagged could immediately be taken away regardless of breed or ownership and ff I read the proposal correctly there would be a new offence of possesion of an unregistered dog that does not require proof of ownership, simply proof of possesion at the time of the offence, much easier to prove and prosecute.

[sasguru]

It's not aimed at dealing with the dogs once they have been aggresive to someone, it's about being able to be pro-active about dogs that are suspected of being used in the way described. The dog can be checked on suspision, no tag means the dog is taken away before it ever becomes a problem.

Example : Many of these dogs are used in the drugs trade. Dogs found in the course of a police raid cannot automatically be taken away unless they are one of the four banned breeds, and that has to be comfirmed by a police vet before it can happen.

Dogs that behave aggressively on private property are not covered by the Dangerous Dogs act, but by an older act from 1871 which is harder to administer and prosecute. Even so, no prosecution or action can be taken unless the owner can be identified.

Any dog found in these circumstances that was not tagged could immediately be taken away regardless of breed or ownership and ff I read the proposal correctly there would be a new offence of possesion of an unregistered dog that does not require proof of ownership, simply proof of possesion at the time of the offence, much easier to prove and prosecute.

Rattle! Splat! That was the sound as SB's peabrain went into a spin and hit the base of his skull as it wrestled with more than one idea joined together in a chain of reasoning.

[AtW]

there would be a new offence of possesion of an unregistered dog

Well, that will be the end of Churchill then...

[DaveB]

Well, that will be the end of Churchill then...

Nah, CM keeps him firmly on the leash these days

[shaunbhoy]

Taken from existing Dangerous Dogs legislation

1 Dogs bred for fighting
(1) This section applies to—
(a) any dog of the type known as the pit bull terrier;
(b) any dog of the type known as the Japanese tosa; and
(c) any dog of any type designated for the purposes of this section by an order of the Secretary of State, being a type appearing to him to be bred for fighting or to have the characteristics of a type bred for that purpose.

5 Seizure, entry of premises and evidence
(1) A constable or an officer of a local authority authorised by it to exercise the powers conferred by this subsection may seize—
(a) any dog which appears to him to be a dog to which section 1 above applies and which is in a public place

Looks to me like the scenario where an unruly dog is being aggressive in a public place is already covered. What is lacking is the will to follow through with existing powers. IMHO that is where these new proposals will also falter. But not before financially penalising a great many people who do not have "dangerous dogs".