On the subject of dangerous dogs, what about mandatory insurance?
As mentioned earlier, that would be a de facto ban for XLs as you can’t get insurance for them. Probably not a bad idea.
The reason that an simple ban won’t work is the fuckwits* who like this kind of dog will simply move to the next “completely not a violent dog for thugs” breed.
With insurance, the next breed will either not be insurable or not assessed yet. And hence unobtainable.
*various people will start whining that proper owners can make such dogs lovable pets. Yeah and responsible owners can make ownership of nuclear weapons AOK. But I my right to own plutonium is a tad restricted for some reason.
Also, DIY crossbreeding to create a new breed. Happens all the time. How much is too much bully?
Imagine trying to ban poodles. Then PC Plod sees something with curly hair. Oh no Officer, this cockapoo is absolutely not a poodle. No sir. And this? It's its daughter. No siree, not a poodle at all. And I forgot, officer - their mummy and grannyt wasn't a poodle but a Bedlington Terrier, and no way can you prove it ...
Oh do shut up. I've told you how to ban it, do it the Aussie way. On the look of the dog. And err on the side of severity if there is any doubt, so no one can own any dog that looks remotely like this
Anyway, Suella the Brave is gonna ban them, yay. First time the Tories have done something sensible for several months
What I am saying is that focussing on the breed is useless and that you need something like the Aussie way, yet the panic is all about a specific breed - or is it two? You named two earlier ...
I'll be very interested to see what Ms Braverman has in mind for legislation. Seeing as she also has to deal with all the future replacements for the XL Bully as well.
The insurance route would work best.
An encrypted, injected chip, linking to the insurance.
Easy to detect and read. No chip, dog impounded and destroyed in 30 days of no evidence of insurance provided (for cases where chip is defective)
100k fine for possessing an un-insured dog.
Insurance doesn't stop the dog attacking someone.
Many of the people with dangerous dogs would not be able to afford insurance and /or would not insure.
They wouldn't be able to afford the fine either
What do you do then? Jail the person? Put the dog down? Both?
If they can afford to feed a dog they can afford insurance. Specific insurance starts at under £10 per month. The cost of keeping a dog is put by Battersea Dogs Home as around £2000 per year; it can be reduced by about half I'd say.
I think many of the laws are already in place, perhaps with grey areas. There is eg a requirement for dogs to be 'under control'. As ever, I think a lot of issues are down to reluctance to enforce.
Ability to afford insurance and being willing to pay it are different things. I suspect people who aren't bothered that their dog is aggressive aren't bothered about complying with the law either. I would assume that owners of dogs that have previously been troublesome would mean premiums go up. Probably premiums would be higher for certain (dangerous) breeds. Or the insurance companies won't insure dangerous dogs. So owners of dangerous breeds don't insure.
To summarise, I don't think those with dangerous dogs would insure them. Having insurance won't stop the dog attacking or killing someone (only pay medical costs or compensation) There will need to be a resource for enforcement, otherwise it's ineffective What will we do with uninsured dogs and people who fail to insure and can't afford the fine?
- concerns about inadequate processes putting people (in this case, children) at risk raised by a whistleblower - a report saying all is for the best - a senior officer saying "nothing to see here" - nothing being done - a later report pointing out that in fact the concerns raised were entirely justified and something should have been done - Disillusioned whistleblower leaves and officer dismissing concerns promoted to highest level
Has happened again. In the police (need you ask?) and the senior officer is now the Met Commissioner.
Still the Met has its uses. According to my mate in the Cumbria constabulary, their training consists of looking at what the Met have done and saying "Please don't do that."
I’d only add that I fully expect that Cumbria have their own set of disasters.
Mainly that police officer sightings are as rare as hen's teeth round here.....
Usually deployed to Barrow to deal with the drug trade.
The next video will show one of these dogs ripping a child to shreds. Perhaps multiple children: killed
Maybe then the government will act. Fucking morons“
15 hours later the Home Secretary has banned these dogs. The power of PB, eh
Oh god shut up
Next time you get a law changed THROUGH THE SHEER PROWESS OF YOUR PB COMMENTARY do let us know
Suella has sent out a tweet. She has not changed the law.
When / if she does, then we can rejoice.
But since government these days largely consists of sending out tweets saying something must be done but not actually doing anything, I wouldn't crack open that champagne bottle just yet .....
The RNLI, for some reason I can't possibly imagine, floats to the surface of my mind.
Well, that's good. They wouldn't be able to help if they sank.
On the subject of dangerous dogs, what about mandatory insurance?
As mentioned earlier, that would be a de facto ban for XLs as you can’t get insurance for them. Probably not a bad idea.
The reason that an simple ban won’t work is the fuckwits* who like this kind of dog will simply move to the next “completely not a violent dog for thugs” breed.
With insurance, the next breed will either not be insurable or not assessed yet. And hence unobtainable.
*various people will start whining that proper owners can make such dogs lovable pets. Yeah and responsible owners can make ownership of nuclear weapons AOK. But I my right to own plutonium is a tad restricted for some reason.
Also, DIY crossbreeding to create a new breed. Happens all the time. How much is too much bully?
Imagine trying to ban poodles. Then PC Plod sees something with curly hair. Oh no Officer, this cockapoo is absolutely not a poodle. No sir. And this? It's its daughter. No siree, not a poodle at all. And I forgot, officer - their mummy and grannyt wasn't a poodle but a Bedlington Terrier, and no way can you prove it ...
Oh do shut up. I've told you how to ban it, do it the Aussie way. On the look of the dog. And err on the side of severity if there is any doubt, so no one can own any dog that looks remotely like this
Anyway, Suella the Brave is gonna ban them, yay. First time the Tories have done something sensible for several months
What I am saying is that focussing on the breed is useless and that you need something like the Aussie way, yet the panic is all about a specific breed - or is it two? You named two earlier ...
I'll be very interested to see what Ms Braverman has in mind for legislation. Seeing as she also has to deal with all the future replacements for the XL Bully as well.
The insurance route would work best.
An encrypted, injected chip, linking to the insurance.
Easy to detect and read. No chip, dog impounded and destroyed in 30 days of no evidence of insurance provided (for cases where chip is defective)
100k fine for possessing an un-insured dog.
Insurance doesn't stop the dog attacking someone.
Many of the people with dangerous dogs would not be able to afford insurance and /or would not insure.
They wouldn't be able to afford the fine either
What do you do then? Jail the person? Put the dog down? Both?
If they can afford to feed a dog they can afford insurance. Specific insurance starts at under £10 per month. The cost of keeping a dog is put by Battersea Dogs Home as around £2000 per year; it can be reduced by about half I'd say.
I think many of the laws are already in place, perhaps with grey areas. There is eg a requirement for dogs to be 'under control'. As ever, I think a lot of issues are down to reluctance to enforce.
Ability to afford insurance and being willing to pay it are different things. I suspect people who aren't bothered that their dog is aggressive aren't bothered about complying with the law either. I would assume that owners of dogs that have previously been troublesome would mean premiums go up. Probably premiums would be higher for certain (dangerous) breeds. Or the insurance companies won't insure dangerous dogs. So owners of dangerous breeds don't insure.
To summarise, I don't think those with dangerous dogs would insure them. Having insurance won't stop the dog attacking or killing someone (only pay medical costs or compensation) There will need to be a resource for enforcement, otherwise it's ineffective What will we do with uninsured dogs and people who fail to insure and can't afford the fine?
Kill the dog? Does it for me
The owner loses all that money, they won't buy another
On the subject of dangerous dogs, what about mandatory insurance?
As mentioned earlier, that would be a de facto ban for XLs as you can’t get insurance for them. Probably not a bad idea.
The reason that an simple ban won’t work is the fuckwits* who like this kind of dog will simply move to the next “completely not a violent dog for thugs” breed.
With insurance, the next breed will either not be insurable or not assessed yet. And hence unobtainable.
*various people will start whining that proper owners can make such dogs lovable pets. Yeah and responsible owners can make ownership of nuclear weapons AOK. But I my right to own plutonium is a tad restricted for some reason.
Also, DIY crossbreeding to create a new breed. Happens all the time. How much is too much bully?
Imagine trying to ban poodles. Then PC Plod sees something with curly hair. Oh no Officer, this cockapoo is absolutely not a poodle. No sir. And this? It's its daughter. No siree, not a poodle at all. And I forgot, officer - their mummy and grannyt wasn't a poodle but a Bedlington Terrier, and no way can you prove it ...
Oh do shut up. I've told you how to ban it, do it the Aussie way. On the look of the dog. And err on the side of severity if there is any doubt, so no one can own any dog that looks remotely like this
Anyway, Suella the Brave is gonna ban them, yay. First time the Tories have done something sensible for several months
What I am saying is that focussing on the breed is useless and that you need something like the Aussie way, yet the panic is all about a specific breed - or is it two? You named two earlier ...
I'll be very interested to see what Ms Braverman has in mind for legislation. Seeing as she also has to deal with all the future replacements for the XL Bully as well.
The insurance route would work best.
An encrypted, injected chip, linking to the insurance.
Easy to detect and read. No chip, dog impounded and destroyed in 30 days of no evidence of insurance provided (for cases where chip is defective)
100k fine for possessing an un-insured dog.
Insurance doesn't stop the dog attacking someone.
Many of the people with dangerous dogs would not be able to afford insurance and /or would not insure.
They wouldn't be able to afford the fine either
What do you do then? Jail the person? Put the dog down? Both?
I was going to say put the owner and the dog down but that might be a bit extreme! . Jail the owner and put the dog down seems fair . No ones forced the owner to keep these dogs . There are no excuses. These horror dogs are generally kept by low life scum who want to parade around looking all tough . They won’t be so tough once they’re turned into the prison bxtch and other inmates get wind that their dog murdered a child .
What about the average guy who couldn't afford/didn't know he had to insure his (normal) dog? Put him/her in jail and put their dog down?
On the subject of dangerous dogs, what about mandatory insurance?
As mentioned earlier, that would be a de facto ban for XLs as you can’t get insurance for them. Probably not a bad idea.
The reason that an simple ban won’t work is the fuckwits* who like this kind of dog will simply move to the next “completely not a violent dog for thugs” breed.
With insurance, the next breed will either not be insurable or not assessed yet. And hence unobtainable.
*various people will start whining that proper owners can make such dogs lovable pets. Yeah and responsible owners can make ownership of nuclear weapons AOK. But I my right to own plutonium is a tad restricted for some reason.
Also, DIY crossbreeding to create a new breed. Happens all the time. How much is too much bully?
Imagine trying to ban poodles. Then PC Plod sees something with curly hair. Oh no Officer, this cockapoo is absolutely not a poodle. No sir. And this? It's its daughter. No siree, not a poodle at all. And I forgot, officer - their mummy and grannyt wasn't a poodle but a Bedlington Terrier, and no way can you prove it ...
Oh do shut up. I've told you how to ban it, do it the Aussie way. On the look of the dog. And err on the side of severity if there is any doubt, so no one can own any dog that looks remotely like this
Anyway, Suella the Brave is gonna ban them, yay. First time the Tories have done something sensible for several months
What I am saying is that focussing on the breed is useless and that you need something like the Aussie way, yet the panic is all about a specific breed - or is it two? You named two earlier ...
I'll be very interested to see what Ms Braverman has in mind for legislation. Seeing as she also has to deal with all the future replacements for the XL Bully as well.
The insurance route would work best.
An encrypted, injected chip, linking to the insurance.
Easy to detect and read. No chip, dog impounded and destroyed in 30 days of no evidence of insurance provided (for cases where chip is defective)
100k fine for possessing an un-insured dog.
Insurance doesn't stop the dog attacking someone.
Many of the people with dangerous dogs would not be able to afford insurance and /or would not insure.
They wouldn't be able to afford the fine either
What do you do then? Jail the person? Put the dog down? Both?
If they can afford to feed a dog they can afford insurance. Specific insurance starts at under £10 per month. The cost of keeping a dog is put by Battersea Dogs Home as around £2000 per year; it can be reduced by about half I'd say.
I think many of the laws are already in place, perhaps with grey areas. There is eg a requirement for dogs to be 'under control'. As ever, I think a lot of issues are down to reluctance to enforce.
Ability to afford insurance and being willing to pay it are different things. I suspect people who aren't bothered that their dog is aggressive aren't bothered about complying with the law either. I would assume that owners of dogs that have previously been troublesome would mean premiums go up. Probably premiums would be higher for certain (dangerous) breeds. Or the insurance companies won't insure dangerous dogs. So owners of dangerous breeds don't insure.
To summarise, I don't think those with dangerous dogs would insure them. Having insurance won't stop the dog attacking or killing someone (only pay medical costs or compensation) There will need to be a resource for enforcement, otherwise it's ineffective What will we do with uninsured dogs and people who fail to insure and can't afford the fine?
A bully XL should be classed as a lethal weapon. Then the owner an be charged with being in possession of a lethal weapon. Get the dogs and their dangerous owners off the streets.
The cost of the tertiary education sector is out of control. Many students are receiving poor educations which won’t materially impact their future earnings potential. The sector has not taken advantage of digital technology to deliver efficiently.
Tertiary education is one area where Britain is a true world leader, and it generates significant export earnings.
A well educated workforce is necessary to deliver productivity, which is an area of specific weakness for the UK.
The current loans regime is punitive, shackling our best and brightest with an ongoing tax burden that likely represses economic growth.
All true. Here are some more;
The massive cost increases aren't really reaching the front line. There's an awful lot of crud which is designed to demonstrate efficiency but is a key cause of inefficiency. (The core of any education- getting a clever knowledgeable person to talk to young people so that they will know more- hasn't changed and is pretty simple.) .........
Up to a point, Mr Romford. But if you change that to "getting a clever knowledgeable person to talk to young people so that they will think more", you will be getting closer to the essence of a university education.
By that light universities are failing, far to many graduates seem unable to think
There's definitely too much rote learning. It started in the schools. I don't know if it was as a result of all these SATs. But rote learning happens in the universities now too. My experience of many of today's students is they expect to be spoon fed education at university in the same way they were ar school. And in the workplace, quite a few graduates expect to be "trained" in the work in the same way. There seems to be a shortage of initiative, a lack of curiosity, and an unwillingness to self educate (through reading, reflecting on experiences, asking questions, and learning from colleagues/peers/mentors)
There is an awful lot of forced pace learning in schools, at all levels, because of the amount of content we have to cover. All school teaching is essentially teaching to the test.
As a result, there is also little point in bothering to investigate outside the set work as it won't help as much as it should.
I look back longingly to the days when we had teachers who had the time to encourage the kids to *think*. At the time, although I did a lot of *thinking*, I didn't realise how important that was as part of my education. It must be very frustrating to be a teacher currently.
The question of content is bound up with the question of subject - and the whole things boils down to supposed knowledge andits transmission and how to do it and what its rules are. This is the essence of the Conservative understanding of education. If that was really the case, then anybody could be a teacher.....
I've always thought of teaching as like nursing, a vocation rather than a career. The reward is not the pay but the satisfaction. Two of a number of jobs that are incredibly important but poorly paid.
On the subject of dangerous dogs, what about mandatory insurance?
As mentioned earlier, that would be a de facto ban for XLs as you can’t get insurance for them. Probably not a bad idea.
The reason that an simple ban won’t work is the fuckwits* who like this kind of dog will simply move to the next “completely not a violent dog for thugs” breed.
With insurance, the next breed will either not be insurable or not assessed yet. And hence unobtainable.
*various people will start whining that proper owners can make such dogs lovable pets. Yeah and responsible owners can make ownership of nuclear weapons AOK. But I my right to own plutonium is a tad restricted for some reason.
Also, DIY crossbreeding to create a new breed. Happens all the time. How much is too much bully?
Imagine trying to ban poodles. Then PC Plod sees something with curly hair. Oh no Officer, this cockapoo is absolutely not a poodle. No sir. And this? It's its daughter. No siree, not a poodle at all. And I forgot, officer - their mummy and grannyt wasn't a poodle but a Bedlington Terrier, and no way can you prove it ...
Oh do shut up. I've told you how to ban it, do it the Aussie way. On the look of the dog. And err on the side of severity if there is any doubt, so no one can own any dog that looks remotely like this
Anyway, Suella the Brave is gonna ban them, yay. First time the Tories have done something sensible for several months
What I am saying is that focussing on the breed is useless and that you need something like the Aussie way, yet the panic is all about a specific breed - or is it two? You named two earlier ...
I'll be very interested to see what Ms Braverman has in mind for legislation. Seeing as she also has to deal with all the future replacements for the XL Bully as well.
The insurance route would work best.
An encrypted, injected chip, linking to the insurance.
Easy to detect and read. No chip, dog impounded and destroyed in 30 days of no evidence of insurance provided (for cases where chip is defective)
100k fine for possessing an un-insured dog.
Insurance doesn't stop the dog attacking someone.
Many of the people with dangerous dogs would not be able to afford insurance and /or would not insure.
They wouldn't be able to afford the fine either
What do you do then? Jail the person? Put the dog down? Both?
If they can afford to feed a dog they can afford insurance. Specific insurance starts at under £10 per month. The cost of keeping a dog is put by Battersea Dogs Home as around £2000 per year; it can be reduced by about half I'd say.
I think many of the laws are already in place, perhaps with grey areas. There is eg a requirement for dogs to be 'under control'. As ever, I think a lot of issues are down to reluctance to enforce.
Ability to afford insurance and being willing to pay it are different things. I suspect people who aren't bothered that their dog is aggressive aren't bothered about complying with the law either. I would assume that owners of dogs that have previously been troublesome would mean premiums go up. Probably premiums would be higher for certain (dangerous) breeds. Or the insurance companies won't insure dangerous dogs. So owners of dangerous breeds don't insure.
To summarise, I don't think those with dangerous dogs would insure them. Having insurance won't stop the dog attacking or killing someone (only pay medical costs or compensation) There will need to be a resource for enforcement, otherwise it's ineffective What will we do with uninsured dogs and people who fail to insure and can't afford the fine?
Kill the dog? Does it for me
The owner loses all that money, they won't buy another
I’m sure we can be more creative with the dogs’ fates. Maybe collect them all and sneak them into Russian occupied Ukraine with little go-pros attached and watch the hilarity commence.
Or put them in a giant dog pound where they put Lucy Letby in as dog warden and replaced with another murderer once the inevitable happens.
On the subject of dangerous dogs, what about mandatory insurance?
As mentioned earlier, that would be a de facto ban for XLs as you can’t get insurance for them. Probably not a bad idea.
The reason that an simple ban won’t work is the fuckwits* who like this kind of dog will simply move to the next “completely not a violent dog for thugs” breed.
With insurance, the next breed will either not be insurable or not assessed yet. And hence unobtainable.
*various people will start whining that proper owners can make such dogs lovable pets. Yeah and responsible owners can make ownership of nuclear weapons AOK. But I my right to own plutonium is a tad restricted for some reason.
Also, DIY crossbreeding to create a new breed. Happens all the time. How much is too much bully?
Imagine trying to ban poodles. Then PC Plod sees something with curly hair. Oh no Officer, this cockapoo is absolutely not a poodle. No sir. And this? It's its daughter. No siree, not a poodle at all. And I forgot, officer - their mummy and grannyt wasn't a poodle but a Bedlington Terrier, and no way can you prove it ...
Oh do shut up. I've told you how to ban it, do it the Aussie way. On the look of the dog. And err on the side of severity if there is any doubt, so no one can own any dog that looks remotely like this
Anyway, Suella the Brave is gonna ban them, yay. First time the Tories have done something sensible for several months
What I am saying is that focussing on the breed is useless and that you need something like the Aussie way, yet the panic is all about a specific breed - or is it two? You named two earlier ...
I'll be very interested to see what Ms Braverman has in mind for legislation. Seeing as she also has to deal with all the future replacements for the XL Bully as well.
The insurance route would work best.
An encrypted, injected chip, linking to the insurance.
Easy to detect and read. No chip, dog impounded and destroyed in 30 days of no evidence of insurance provided (for cases where chip is defective)
100k fine for possessing an un-insured dog.
Insurance doesn't stop the dog attacking someone.
Many of the people with dangerous dogs would not be able to afford insurance and /or would not insure.
They wouldn't be able to afford the fine either
What do you do then? Jail the person? Put the dog down? Both?
If they can afford to feed a dog they can afford insurance. Specific insurance starts at under £10 per month. The cost of keeping a dog is put by Battersea Dogs Home as around £2000 per year; it can be reduced by about half I'd say.
I think many of the laws are already in place, perhaps with grey areas. There is eg a requirement for dogs to be 'under control'. As ever, I think a lot of issues are down to reluctance to enforce.
Ability to afford insurance and being willing to pay it are different things. I suspect people who aren't bothered that their dog is aggressive aren't bothered about complying with the law either. I would assume that owners of dogs that have previously been troublesome would mean premiums go up. Probably premiums would be higher for certain (dangerous) breeds. Or the insurance companies won't insure dangerous dogs. So owners of dangerous breeds don't insure.
To summarise, I don't think those with dangerous dogs would insure them. Having insurance won't stop the dog attacking or killing someone (only pay medical costs or compensation) There will need to be a resource for enforcement, otherwise it's ineffective What will we do with uninsured dogs and people who fail to insure and can't afford the fine?
I'd be with you tightening up on dangerous dogs - but you have the legal problem of defining them.
The resource for enforcement are local authorities and police. It's the same as antisocial parking - it's not seen as a priority so nothing happens (*), and becomes an accepted culture.
Personally I'd go for more thorough penalties, including destruction of dogs that attack, but I'm not an animal-sentimentalist.
The Braverman thing is just Politics by PR Stunt, whilst ignoring here real job.
* I'm currently writing an objection to an obstructed footpath, which includes amongst others German Shepherds roaming loose on the Public Highway and "beware of the dog" signs, plus threats from the part-landowner - all offences. It's part of an issue with illegal development of a gypsy site, involving attempts to close down the Right of Way, drive a bus through the planning system, and also steal land. I'm having a go at the pathway, which County have a duty to keep clear (District have been useless, and imo possibly corrupt).
The next video will show one of these dogs ripping a child to shreds. Perhaps multiple children: killed
Maybe then the government will act. Fucking morons“
15 hours later the Home Secretary has banned these dogs. The power of PB, eh
Oh god shut up
Next time you get a law changed THROUGH THE SHEER PROWESS OF YOUR PB COMMENTARY do let us know
Suella has sent out a tweet. She has not changed the law.
When / if she does, then we can rejoice.
But since government these days largely consists of sending out tweets saying something must be done but not actually doing anything, I wouldn't crack open that champagne bottle just yet .....
Besides, it's quite possible that Suella's Law has unfortunate side effects. True for any new law, but especially under the current government.
My view is that hastily drawn up legislation as a knee jerk reaction to an issue of concern is poorly thought out, difficult to enforce and littered with unintended consequences. Often doesn't actually deal with the central issue.
On the subject of dangerous dogs, what about mandatory insurance?
As mentioned earlier, that would be a de facto ban for XLs as you can’t get insurance for them. Probably not a bad idea.
The reason that an simple ban won’t work is the fuckwits* who like this kind of dog will simply move to the next “completely not a violent dog for thugs” breed.
With insurance, the next breed will either not be insurable or not assessed yet. And hence unobtainable.
*various people will start whining that proper owners can make such dogs lovable pets. Yeah and responsible owners can make ownership of nuclear weapons AOK. But I my right to own plutonium is a tad restricted for some reason.
Also, DIY crossbreeding to create a new breed. Happens all the time. How much is too much bully?
Imagine trying to ban poodles. Then PC Plod sees something with curly hair. Oh no Officer, this cockapoo is absolutely not a poodle. No sir. And this? It's its daughter. No siree, not a poodle at all. And I forgot, officer - their mummy and grannyt wasn't a poodle but a Bedlington Terrier, and no way can you prove it ...
Oh do shut up. I've told you how to ban it, do it the Aussie way. On the look of the dog. And err on the side of severity if there is any doubt, so no one can own any dog that looks remotely like this
Anyway, Suella the Brave is gonna ban them, yay. First time the Tories have done something sensible for several months
What I am saying is that focussing on the breed is useless and that you need something like the Aussie way, yet the panic is all about a specific breed - or is it two? You named two earlier ...
I'll be very interested to see what Ms Braverman has in mind for legislation. Seeing as she also has to deal with all the future replacements for the XL Bully as well.
The insurance route would work best.
An encrypted, injected chip, linking to the insurance.
Easy to detect and read. No chip, dog impounded and destroyed in 30 days of no evidence of insurance provided (for cases where chip is defective)
100k fine for possessing an un-insured dog.
Insurance doesn't stop the dog attacking someone.
Many of the people with dangerous dogs would not be able to afford insurance and /or would not insure.
They wouldn't be able to afford the fine either
What do you do then? Jail the person? Put the dog down? Both?
There will still be problems, but far far fewer
Because if the dogs are banned you can’t take the dog outside, coz you will immediately be reported and your dog will be shot and you will get a fine
Result: no more Satan dogs in parks or streets, lots more happy unmauled kids and smaller non-psycho dogs etc
Jail the dog. Put the owner down.
Will save in the end.
We can send the dog, afterwards, to a private school and a Russell Group university….
- concerns about inadequate processes putting people (in this case, children) at risk raised by a whistleblower - a report saying all is for the best - a senior officer saying "nothing to see here" - nothing being done - a later report pointing out that in fact the concerns raised were entirely justified and something should have been done - Disillusioned whistleblower leaves and officer dismissing concerns promoted to highest level
Has happened again. In the police (need you ask?) and the senior officer is now the Met Commissioner.
Still the Met has its uses. According to my mate in the Cumbria constabulary, their training consists of looking at what the Met have done and saying "Please don't do that."
I’d only add that I fully expect that Cumbria have their own set of disasters.
Mainly that police officer sightings are as rare as hen's teeth round here.....
Usually deployed to Barrow to deal with the drug trade.
there is an argument that having insurance makes you more complacent (as no financial consequence to you ) if you own a dog so such a proposed law is another dreary law that extends the state. Frankly dog attacks is one of those areas where the status quo is probably correct ie if such an incident happens , the owner gets prosecuted and convicted after due process
On the subject of dangerous dogs, what about mandatory insurance?
As mentioned earlier, that would be a de facto ban for XLs as you can’t get insurance for them. Probably not a bad idea.
The reason that an simple ban won’t work is the fuckwits* who like this kind of dog will simply move to the next “completely not a violent dog for thugs” breed.
With insurance, the next breed will either not be insurable or not assessed yet. And hence unobtainable.
*various people will start whining that proper owners can make such dogs lovable pets. Yeah and responsible owners can make ownership of nuclear weapons AOK. But I my right to own plutonium is a tad restricted for some reason.
Also, DIY crossbreeding to create a new breed. Happens all the time. How much is too much bully?
Imagine trying to ban poodles. Then PC Plod sees something with curly hair. Oh no Officer, this cockapoo is absolutely not a poodle. No sir. And this? It's its daughter. No siree, not a poodle at all. And I forgot, officer - their mummy and grannyt wasn't a poodle but a Bedlington Terrier, and no way can you prove it ...
Oh do shut up. I've told you how to ban it, do it the Aussie way. On the look of the dog. And err on the side of severity if there is any doubt, so no one can own any dog that looks remotely like this
Anyway, Suella the Brave is gonna ban them, yay. First time the Tories have done something sensible for several months
What I am saying is that focussing on the breed is useless and that you need something like the Aussie way, yet the panic is all about a specific breed - or is it two? You named two earlier ...
I'll be very interested to see what Ms Braverman has in mind for legislation. Seeing as she also has to deal with all the future replacements for the XL Bully as well.
The insurance route would work best.
An encrypted, injected chip, linking to the insurance.
Easy to detect and read. No chip, dog impounded and destroyed in 30 days of no evidence of insurance provided (for cases where chip is defective)
100k fine for possessing an un-insured dog.
Insurance doesn't stop the dog attacking someone.
Many of the people with dangerous dogs would not be able to afford insurance and /or would not insure.
They wouldn't be able to afford the fine either
What do you do then? Jail the person? Put the dog down? Both?
There will still be problems, but far far fewer
Because if the dogs are banned you can’t take the dog outside, coz you will immediately be reported and your dog will be shot and you will get a fine
Result: no more Satan dogs in parks or streets, lots more happy unmauled kids and smaller non-psycho dogs etc
Jail the dog. Put the owner down.
Will save in the end.
We can send the dog, afterwards, to a private school and a Russell Group university….
How many dangerous dogs (appropriately chained up, natch,) would it take to protect the Channel coast?
On the subject of dangerous dogs, what about mandatory insurance?
As mentioned earlier, that would be a de facto ban for XLs as you can’t get insurance for them. Probably not a bad idea.
The reason that an simple ban won’t work is the fuckwits* who like this kind of dog will simply move to the next “completely not a violent dog for thugs” breed.
With insurance, the next breed will either not be insurable or not assessed yet. And hence unobtainable.
*various people will start whining that proper owners can make such dogs lovable pets. Yeah and responsible owners can make ownership of nuclear weapons AOK. But I my right to own plutonium is a tad restricted for some reason.
Also, DIY crossbreeding to create a new breed. Happens all the time. How much is too much bully?
Imagine trying to ban poodles. Then PC Plod sees something with curly hair. Oh no Officer, this cockapoo is absolutely not a poodle. No sir. And this? It's its daughter. No siree, not a poodle at all. And I forgot, officer - their mummy and grannyt wasn't a poodle but a Bedlington Terrier, and no way can you prove it ...
Oh do shut up. I've told you how to ban it, do it the Aussie way. On the look of the dog. And err on the side of severity if there is any doubt, so no one can own any dog that looks remotely like this
Anyway, Suella the Brave is gonna ban them, yay. First time the Tories have done something sensible for several months
What I am saying is that focussing on the breed is useless and that you need something like the Aussie way, yet the panic is all about a specific breed - or is it two? You named two earlier ...
I'll be very interested to see what Ms Braverman has in mind for legislation. Seeing as she also has to deal with all the future replacements for the XL Bully as well.
The insurance route would work best.
An encrypted, injected chip, linking to the insurance.
Easy to detect and read. No chip, dog impounded and destroyed in 30 days of no evidence of insurance provided (for cases where chip is defective)
100k fine for possessing an un-insured dog.
Insurance doesn't stop the dog attacking someone.
Many of the people with dangerous dogs would not be able to afford insurance and /or would not insure.
They wouldn't be able to afford the fine either
What do you do then? Jail the person? Put the dog down? Both?
There will still be problems, but far far fewer
Because if the dogs are banned you can’t take the dog outside, coz you will immediately be reported and your dog will be shot and you will get a fine
Result: no more Satan dogs in parks or streets, lots more happy unmauled kids and smaller non-psycho dogs etc
Jail the dog. Put the owner down.
Will save in the end.
We can send the dog, afterwards, to a private school and a Russell Group university….
On the subject of dangerous dogs, what about mandatory insurance?
As mentioned earlier, that would be a de facto ban for XLs as you can’t get insurance for them. Probably not a bad idea.
The reason that an simple ban won’t work is the fuckwits* who like this kind of dog will simply move to the next “completely not a violent dog for thugs” breed.
With insurance, the next breed will either not be insurable or not assessed yet. And hence unobtainable.
*various people will start whining that proper owners can make such dogs lovable pets. Yeah and responsible owners can make ownership of nuclear weapons AOK. But I my right to own plutonium is a tad restricted for some reason.
Also, DIY crossbreeding to create a new breed. Happens all the time. How much is too much bully?
Imagine trying to ban poodles. Then PC Plod sees something with curly hair. Oh no Officer, this cockapoo is absolutely not a poodle. No sir. And this? It's its daughter. No siree, not a poodle at all. And I forgot, officer - their mummy and grannyt wasn't a poodle but a Bedlington Terrier, and no way can you prove it ...
Oh do shut up. I've told you how to ban it, do it the Aussie way. On the look of the dog. And err on the side of severity if there is any doubt, so no one can own any dog that looks remotely like this
Anyway, Suella the Brave is gonna ban them, yay. First time the Tories have done something sensible for several months
What I am saying is that focussing on the breed is useless and that you need something like the Aussie way, yet the panic is all about a specific breed - or is it two? You named two earlier ...
I'll be very interested to see what Ms Braverman has in mind for legislation. Seeing as she also has to deal with all the future replacements for the XL Bully as well.
The insurance route would work best.
An encrypted, injected chip, linking to the insurance.
Easy to detect and read. No chip, dog impounded and destroyed in 30 days of no evidence of insurance provided (for cases where chip is defective)
100k fine for possessing an un-insured dog.
Insurance doesn't stop the dog attacking someone.
Many of the people with dangerous dogs would not be able to afford insurance and /or would not insure.
They wouldn't be able to afford the fine either
What do you do then? Jail the person? Put the dog down? Both?
If they can afford to feed a dog they can afford insurance. Specific insurance starts at under £10 per month. The cost of keeping a dog is put by Battersea Dogs Home as around £2000 per year; it can be reduced by about half I'd say.
I think many of the laws are already in place, perhaps with grey areas. There is eg a requirement for dogs to be 'under control'. As ever, I think a lot of issues are down to reluctance to enforce.
Ability to afford insurance and being willing to pay it are different things. I suspect people who aren't bothered that their dog is aggressive aren't bothered about complying with the law either. I would assume that owners of dogs that have previously been troublesome would mean premiums go up. Probably premiums would be higher for certain (dangerous) breeds. Or the insurance companies won't insure dangerous dogs. So owners of dangerous breeds don't insure.
To summarise, I don't think those with dangerous dogs would insure them. Having insurance won't stop the dog attacking or killing someone (only pay medical costs or compensation) There will need to be a resource for enforcement, otherwise it's ineffective What will we do with uninsured dogs and people who fail to insure and can't afford the fine?
Kill the dog? Does it for me
The owner loses all that money, they won't buy another
I’m sure we can be more creative with the dogs’ fates. Maybe collect them all and sneak them into Russian occupied Ukraine with little go-pros attached and watch the hilarity commence.
Or put them in a giant dog pound where they put Lucy Letby in as dog warden and replaced with another murderer once the inevitable happens.
Lethal Injections would be a bit of a cop out.
Lethal Injections would be a good name for a grunge band.
On the subject of dangerous dogs, what about mandatory insurance?
As mentioned earlier, that would be a de facto ban for XLs as you can’t get insurance for them. Probably not a bad idea.
The reason that an simple ban won’t work is the fuckwits* who like this kind of dog will simply move to the next “completely not a violent dog for thugs” breed.
With insurance, the next breed will either not be insurable or not assessed yet. And hence unobtainable.
*various people will start whining that proper owners can make such dogs lovable pets. Yeah and responsible owners can make ownership of nuclear weapons AOK. But I my right to own plutonium is a tad restricted for some reason.
Also, DIY crossbreeding to create a new breed. Happens all the time. How much is too much bully?
Imagine trying to ban poodles. Then PC Plod sees something with curly hair. Oh no Officer, this cockapoo is absolutely not a poodle. No sir. And this? It's its daughter. No siree, not a poodle at all. And I forgot, officer - their mummy and grannyt wasn't a poodle but a Bedlington Terrier, and no way can you prove it ...
Oh do shut up. I've told you how to ban it, do it the Aussie way. On the look of the dog. And err on the side of severity if there is any doubt, so no one can own any dog that looks remotely like this
Anyway, Suella the Brave is gonna ban them, yay. First time the Tories have done something sensible for several months
What I am saying is that focussing on the breed is useless and that you need something like the Aussie way, yet the panic is all about a specific breed - or is it two? You named two earlier ...
I'll be very interested to see what Ms Braverman has in mind for legislation. Seeing as she also has to deal with all the future replacements for the XL Bully as well.
The insurance route would work best.
An encrypted, injected chip, linking to the insurance.
Easy to detect and read. No chip, dog impounded and destroyed in 30 days of no evidence of insurance provided (for cases where chip is defective)
100k fine for possessing an un-insured dog.
Insurance doesn't stop the dog attacking someone.
Many of the people with dangerous dogs would not be able to afford insurance and /or would not insure.
They wouldn't be able to afford the fine either
What do you do then? Jail the person? Put the dog down? Both?
If they can afford to feed a dog they can afford insurance. Specific insurance starts at under £10 per month. The cost of keeping a dog is put by Battersea Dogs Home as around £2000 per year; it can be reduced by about half I'd say.
I think many of the laws are already in place, perhaps with grey areas. There is eg a requirement for dogs to be 'under control'. As ever, I think a lot of issues are down to reluctance to enforce.
Ability to afford insurance and being willing to pay it are different things. I suspect people who aren't bothered that their dog is aggressive aren't bothered about complying with the law either. I would assume that owners of dogs that have previously been troublesome would mean premiums go up. Probably premiums would be higher for certain (dangerous) breeds. Or the insurance companies won't insure dangerous dogs. So owners of dangerous breeds don't insure.
To summarise, I don't think those with dangerous dogs would insure them. Having insurance won't stop the dog attacking or killing someone (only pay medical costs or compensation) There will need to be a resource for enforcement, otherwise it's ineffective What will we do with uninsured dogs and people who fail to insure and can't afford the fine?
Kill the dog? Does it for me
The owner loses all that money, they won't buy another
I’m sure we can be more creative with the dogs’ fates. Maybe collect them all and sneak them into Russian occupied Ukraine with little go-pros attached and watch the hilarity commence.
Or put them in a giant dog pound where they put Lucy Letby in as dog warden and replaced with another murderer once the inevitable happens.
Lethal Injections would be a bit of a cop out.
It's been a good 20 years since it was demolished, but I still remember the graffiti on the old A13 Beckton Flyover (one-way!) that said "South Korea KILL and EAT dogs!"
As an alternative to insurance for dogs, we could bring back dog licences. That could be done relatively straightforwardly. In fact I'm not even sure if they've ever technically lapsed.
Somebody who wants to own a spaniel crossbreed pays a fiver, somebody who wants to own an Akita has to have training in managing dogs, insurance and an inspection of their house before they can get one for £500.
Edit - apparently they were abandoned in 1987, but bringing them back would be fairly easy.
The next video will show one of these dogs ripping a child to shreds. Perhaps multiple children: killed
Maybe then the government will act. Fucking morons“
15 hours later the Home Secretary has banned these dogs. The power of PB, eh
Oh god shut up
Next time you get a law changed THROUGH THE SHEER PROWESS OF YOUR PB COMMENTARY do let us know
Suella has sent out a tweet. She has not changed the law.
When / if she does, then we can rejoice.
But since government these days largely consists of sending out tweets saying something must be done but not actually doing anything, I wouldn't crack open that champagne bottle just yet .....
The RNLI, for some reason I can't possibly imagine, floats to the surface of my mind.
Confiscate the Bully XXXXLs, put them on the lifeboats to eat the immigrants?
Out of the box thinking to enhance the KPIs, and turbocharge the team goals….
- concerns about inadequate processes putting people (in this case, children) at risk raised by a whistleblower - a report saying all is for the best - a senior officer saying "nothing to see here" - nothing being done - a later report pointing out that in fact the concerns raised were entirely justified and something should have been done - Disillusioned whistleblower leaves and officer dismissing concerns promoted to highest level
Has happened again. In the police (need you ask?) and the senior officer is now the Met Commissioner.
Still the Met has its uses. According to my mate in the Cumbria constabulary, their training consists of looking at what the Met have done and saying "Please don't do that."
I’d only add that I fully expect that Cumbria have their own set of disasters.
Mainly that police officer sightings are as rare as hen's teeth round here.....
Usually deployed to Barrow to deal with the drug trade.
When you say 'deal with the drug trade...'
Sir Harry asks if this drug squad is well named…
A friend of mine and I had a very loud conversation about that once.
In a police museum.
Run by retired officers acting as volunteers.
Near Birmingham.
The looks we got...I swear that they followed us out of the room in the hope of catching us nicking stuff.
On the subject of dangerous dogs, what about mandatory insurance?
As mentioned earlier, that would be a de facto ban for XLs as you can’t get insurance for them. Probably not a bad idea.
The reason that an simple ban won’t work is the fuckwits* who like this kind of dog will simply move to the next “completely not a violent dog for thugs” breed.
With insurance, the next breed will either not be insurable or not assessed yet. And hence unobtainable.
*various people will start whining that proper owners can make such dogs lovable pets. Yeah and responsible owners can make ownership of nuclear weapons AOK. But I my right to own plutonium is a tad restricted for some reason.
Also, DIY crossbreeding to create a new breed. Happens all the time. How much is too much bully?
Imagine trying to ban poodles. Then PC Plod sees something with curly hair. Oh no Officer, this cockapoo is absolutely not a poodle. No sir. And this? It's its daughter. No siree, not a poodle at all. And I forgot, officer - their mummy and grannyt wasn't a poodle but a Bedlington Terrier, and no way can you prove it ...
Oh do shut up. I've told you how to ban it, do it the Aussie way. On the look of the dog. And err on the side of severity if there is any doubt, so no one can own any dog that looks remotely like this
Anyway, Suella the Brave is gonna ban them, yay. First time the Tories have done something sensible for several months
What I am saying is that focussing on the breed is useless and that you need something like the Aussie way, yet the panic is all about a specific breed - or is it two? You named two earlier ...
I'll be very interested to see what Ms Braverman has in mind for legislation. Seeing as she also has to deal with all the future replacements for the XL Bully as well.
The insurance route would work best.
An encrypted, injected chip, linking to the insurance.
Easy to detect and read. No chip, dog impounded and destroyed in 30 days of no evidence of insurance provided (for cases where chip is defective)
100k fine for possessing an un-insured dog.
Insurance doesn't stop the dog attacking someone.
Many of the people with dangerous dogs would not be able to afford insurance and /or would not insure.
They wouldn't be able to afford the fine either
What do you do then? Jail the person? Put the dog down? Both?
There will still be problems, but far far fewer
Because if the dogs are banned you can’t take the dog outside, coz you will immediately be reported and your dog will be shot and you will get a fine
Result: no more Satan dogs in parks or streets, lots more happy unmauled kids and smaller non-psycho dogs etc
I can imagine neighbours might be fearful of reporting the sort of person who has a dangerous dog. And those who own them can be pretty brazen about it. I know a few people who have someone with an aggressive dog living near them and their coping strategy is to avoid the person and the dog (eg crossing the street). They don't report to police of the council dog warden because they've done that before and nothing happens. Even if the dog has attacked their dog.
Yes, but now the cops will be given the powers they need. And the coppers hate these dogs as much as anyone
And anyone can anonymously report a dog in a park, and these dogs need to be walked; the owner won't know who did it
A ban, should it happen (I wouldn't put it past this inept govt to flub it) will, I think, be effecitve enough to get the menace off our streets
The cops don't have the resources/can't be bothered to do the work they already have
Yes, anyone can report an anonymous dog in the park or the street. Do you expect the police to turn up immediately and apprehend the dog walker? Because otherwise how are they to know who the person is? It would have to be reported by someone who knows them, and where they live, which narrows things down considerably for the dog owner. Compare with drug dealers - how many of their neighbours dare report them despite them being responsible for mnay deaths?
In an ideal world insurance might work, but in the real world it will only increase the costs of owning a dog for responsible dog owners, and have little impact on getting dangerous dogs out of circulation
On the subject of dangerous dogs, what about mandatory insurance?
As mentioned earlier, that would be a de facto ban for XLs as you can’t get insurance for them. Probably not a bad idea.
The reason that an simple ban won’t work is the fuckwits* who like this kind of dog will simply move to the next “completely not a violent dog for thugs” breed.
With insurance, the next breed will either not be insurable or not assessed yet. And hence unobtainable.
*various people will start whining that proper owners can make such dogs lovable pets. Yeah and responsible owners can make ownership of nuclear weapons AOK. But I my right to own plutonium is a tad restricted for some reason.
Also, DIY crossbreeding to create a new breed. Happens all the time. How much is too much bully?
Imagine trying to ban poodles. Then PC Plod sees something with curly hair. Oh no Officer, this cockapoo is absolutely not a poodle. No sir. And this? It's its daughter. No siree, not a poodle at all. And I forgot, officer - their mummy and grannyt wasn't a poodle but a Bedlington Terrier, and no way can you prove it ...
Oh do shut up. I've told you how to ban it, do it the Aussie way. On the look of the dog. And err on the side of severity if there is any doubt, so no one can own any dog that looks remotely like this
Anyway, Suella the Brave is gonna ban them, yay. First time the Tories have done something sensible for several months
What I am saying is that focussing on the breed is useless and that you need something like the Aussie way, yet the panic is all about a specific breed - or is it two? You named two earlier ...
I'll be very interested to see what Ms Braverman has in mind for legislation. Seeing as she also has to deal with all the future replacements for the XL Bully as well.
The insurance route would work best.
An encrypted, injected chip, linking to the insurance.
Easy to detect and read. No chip, dog impounded and destroyed in 30 days of no evidence of insurance provided (for cases where chip is defective)
100k fine for possessing an un-insured dog.
Insurance doesn't stop the dog attacking someone.
Many of the people with dangerous dogs would not be able to afford insurance and /or would not insure.
They wouldn't be able to afford the fine either
What do you do then? Jail the person? Put the dog down? Both?
There will still be problems, but far far fewer
Because if the dogs are banned you can’t take the dog outside, coz you will immediately be reported and your dog will be shot and you will get a fine
Result: no more Satan dogs in parks or streets, lots more happy unmauled kids and smaller non-psycho dogs etc
I can imagine neighbours might be fearful of reporting the sort of person who has a dangerous dog. And those who own them can be pretty brazen about it. I know a few people who have someone with an aggressive dog living near them and their coping strategy is to avoid the person and the dog (eg crossing the street). They don't report to police of the council dog warden because they've done that before and nothing happens. Even if the dog has attacked their dog.
Yes, but now the cops will be given the powers they need. And the coppers hate these dogs as much as anyone
And anyone can anonymously report a dog in a park, and these dogs need to be walked; the owner won't know who did it
A ban, should it happen (I wouldn't put it past this inept govt to flub it) will, I think, be effecitve enough to get the menace off our streets
The cops don't have the resources/can't be bothered to do the work they already have
Yes, anyone can report an anonymous dog in the park or the street. Do you expect the police to turn up immediately and apprehend the dog walker? Because otherwise how are they to know who the person is? It would have to be reported by someone who knows them, and where they live, which narrows things down considerably for the dog owner. Compare with drug dealers - how many of their neighbours dare report them despite them being responsible for mnay deaths?
In an ideal world insurance might work, but in the real world it will only increase the costs of owning a dog for responsible dog owners, and have little impact on getting dangerous dogs out of circulation
What a load of defeatist nonsense. A ban - with the threat of your dog being shot, if seen - means no one will walk the dogs, for fear of being spotted. These dogs will probably turn on their owners in madness (let's hope so). Anyway, end of problem
Without the demand for new dogs the breeders will stop spplying them, which mwans the breed disappears. This isn't hard. It works in Australia
On the subject of dangerous dogs, what about mandatory insurance?
As mentioned earlier, that would be a de facto ban for XLs as you can’t get insurance for them. Probably not a bad idea.
The reason that an simple ban won’t work is the fuckwits* who like this kind of dog will simply move to the next “completely not a violent dog for thugs” breed.
With insurance, the next breed will either not be insurable or not assessed yet. And hence unobtainable.
*various people will start whining that proper owners can make such dogs lovable pets. Yeah and responsible owners can make ownership of nuclear weapons AOK. But I my right to own plutonium is a tad restricted for some reason.
Also, DIY crossbreeding to create a new breed. Happens all the time. How much is too much bully?
Imagine trying to ban poodles. Then PC Plod sees something with curly hair. Oh no Officer, this cockapoo is absolutely not a poodle. No sir. And this? It's its daughter. No siree, not a poodle at all. And I forgot, officer - their mummy and grannyt wasn't a poodle but a Bedlington Terrier, and no way can you prove it ...
Oh do shut up. I've told you how to ban it, do it the Aussie way. On the look of the dog. And err on the side of severity if there is any doubt, so no one can own any dog that looks remotely like this
Anyway, Suella the Brave is gonna ban them, yay. First time the Tories have done something sensible for several months
What I am saying is that focussing on the breed is useless and that you need something like the Aussie way, yet the panic is all about a specific breed - or is it two? You named two earlier ...
I'll be very interested to see what Ms Braverman has in mind for legislation. Seeing as she also has to deal with all the future replacements for the XL Bully as well.
The insurance route would work best.
An encrypted, injected chip, linking to the insurance.
Easy to detect and read. No chip, dog impounded and destroyed in 30 days of no evidence of insurance provided (for cases where chip is defective)
100k fine for possessing an un-insured dog.
Insurance doesn't stop the dog attacking someone.
Many of the people with dangerous dogs would not be able to afford insurance and /or would not insure.
They wouldn't be able to afford the fine either
What do you do then? Jail the person? Put the dog down? Both?
If they can afford to feed a dog they can afford insurance. Specific insurance starts at under £10 per month. The cost of keeping a dog is put by Battersea Dogs Home as around £2000 per year; it can be reduced by about half I'd say.
I think many of the laws are already in place, perhaps with grey areas. There is eg a requirement for dogs to be 'under control'. As ever, I think a lot of issues are down to reluctance to enforce.
Ability to afford insurance and being willing to pay it are different things. I suspect people who aren't bothered that their dog is aggressive aren't bothered about complying with the law either. I would assume that owners of dogs that have previously been troublesome would mean premiums go up. Probably premiums would be higher for certain (dangerous) breeds. Or the insurance companies won't insure dangerous dogs. So owners of dangerous breeds don't insure.
To summarise, I don't think those with dangerous dogs would insure them. Having insurance won't stop the dog attacking or killing someone (only pay medical costs or compensation) There will need to be a resource for enforcement, otherwise it's ineffective What will we do with uninsured dogs and people who fail to insure and can't afford the fine?
Kill the dog? Does it for me
The owner loses all that money, they won't buy another
That *would* work, but it would have the animal lovers all over you. Most wouldn't object to a dangerous dog being put down, but they would be upset it it was Rover belonging to old Mrs Jones at no 22.
On the subject of dangerous dogs, what about mandatory insurance?
As mentioned earlier, that would be a de facto ban for XLs as you can’t get insurance for them. Probably not a bad idea.
The reason that an simple ban won’t work is the fuckwits* who like this kind of dog will simply move to the next “completely not a violent dog for thugs” breed.
With insurance, the next breed will either not be insurable or not assessed yet. And hence unobtainable.
*various people will start whining that proper owners can make such dogs lovable pets. Yeah and responsible owners can make ownership of nuclear weapons AOK. But I my right to own plutonium is a tad restricted for some reason.
Also, DIY crossbreeding to create a new breed. Happens all the time. How much is too much bully?
Imagine trying to ban poodles. Then PC Plod sees something with curly hair. Oh no Officer, this cockapoo is absolutely not a poodle. No sir. And this? It's its daughter. No siree, not a poodle at all. And I forgot, officer - their mummy and grannyt wasn't a poodle but a Bedlington Terrier, and no way can you prove it ...
Oh do shut up. I've told you how to ban it, do it the Aussie way. On the look of the dog. And err on the side of severity if there is any doubt, so no one can own any dog that looks remotely like this
Anyway, Suella the Brave is gonna ban them, yay. First time the Tories have done something sensible for several months
What I am saying is that focussing on the breed is useless and that you need something like the Aussie way, yet the panic is all about a specific breed - or is it two? You named two earlier ...
I'll be very interested to see what Ms Braverman has in mind for legislation. Seeing as she also has to deal with all the future replacements for the XL Bully as well.
The insurance route would work best.
An encrypted, injected chip, linking to the insurance.
Easy to detect and read. No chip, dog impounded and destroyed in 30 days of no evidence of insurance provided (for cases where chip is defective)
100k fine for possessing an un-insured dog.
Insurance doesn't stop the dog attacking someone.
Many of the people with dangerous dogs would not be able to afford insurance and /or would not insure.
They wouldn't be able to afford the fine either
What do you do then? Jail the person? Put the dog down? Both?
If they can afford to feed a dog they can afford insurance. Specific insurance starts at under £10 per month. The cost of keeping a dog is put by Battersea Dogs Home as around £2000 per year; it can be reduced by about half I'd say.
I think many of the laws are already in place, perhaps with grey areas. There is eg a requirement for dogs to be 'under control'. As ever, I think a lot of issues are down to reluctance to enforce.
Ability to afford insurance and being willing to pay it are different things. I suspect people who aren't bothered that their dog is aggressive aren't bothered about complying with the law either. I would assume that owners of dogs that have previously been troublesome would mean premiums go up. Probably premiums would be higher for certain (dangerous) breeds. Or the insurance companies won't insure dangerous dogs. So owners of dangerous breeds don't insure.
To summarise, I don't think those with dangerous dogs would insure them. Having insurance won't stop the dog attacking or killing someone (only pay medical costs or compensation) There will need to be a resource for enforcement, otherwise it's ineffective What will we do with uninsured dogs and people who fail to insure and can't afford the fine?
Kill the dog? Does it for me
The owner loses all that money, they won't buy another
I’m sure we can be more creative with the dogs’ fates. Maybe collect them all and sneak them into Russian occupied Ukraine with little go-pros attached and watch the hilarity commence.
Or put them in a giant dog pound where they put Lucy Letby in as dog warden and replaced with another murderer once the inevitable happens.
Lethal Injections would be a bit of a cop out.
It's been a good 20 years since it was demolished, but I still remember the graffiti on the old A13 Beckton Flyover (one-way!) that said "South Korea KILL and EAT dogs!"
IIRC, one of Rab C. Nesbitts chums was a cannibal who ate his own Rottweiler for LOLs.
On the subject of dangerous dogs, what about mandatory insurance?
As mentioned earlier, that would be a de facto ban for XLs as you can’t get insurance for them. Probably not a bad idea.
The reason that an simple ban won’t work is the fuckwits* who like this kind of dog will simply move to the next “completely not a violent dog for thugs” breed.
With insurance, the next breed will either not be insurable or not assessed yet. And hence unobtainable.
*various people will start whining that proper owners can make such dogs lovable pets. Yeah and responsible owners can make ownership of nuclear weapons AOK. But I my right to own plutonium is a tad restricted for some reason.
Also, DIY crossbreeding to create a new breed. Happens all the time. How much is too much bully?
Imagine trying to ban poodles. Then PC Plod sees something with curly hair. Oh no Officer, this cockapoo is absolutely not a poodle. No sir. And this? It's its daughter. No siree, not a poodle at all. And I forgot, officer - their mummy and grannyt wasn't a poodle but a Bedlington Terrier, and no way can you prove it ...
Oh do shut up. I've told you how to ban it, do it the Aussie way. On the look of the dog. And err on the side of severity if there is any doubt, so no one can own any dog that looks remotely like this
Anyway, Suella the Brave is gonna ban them, yay. First time the Tories have done something sensible for several months
What I am saying is that focussing on the breed is useless and that you need something like the Aussie way, yet the panic is all about a specific breed - or is it two? You named two earlier ...
I'll be very interested to see what Ms Braverman has in mind for legislation. Seeing as she also has to deal with all the future replacements for the XL Bully as well.
The insurance route would work best.
An encrypted, injected chip, linking to the insurance.
Easy to detect and read. No chip, dog impounded and destroyed in 30 days of no evidence of insurance provided (for cases where chip is defective)
100k fine for possessing an un-insured dog.
Insurance doesn't stop the dog attacking someone.
Many of the people with dangerous dogs would not be able to afford insurance and /or would not insure.
They wouldn't be able to afford the fine either
What do you do then? Jail the person? Put the dog down? Both?
If they can afford to feed a dog they can afford insurance. Specific insurance starts at under £10 per month. The cost of keeping a dog is put by Battersea Dogs Home as around £2000 per year; it can be reduced by about half I'd say.
I think many of the laws are already in place, perhaps with grey areas. There is eg a requirement for dogs to be 'under control'. As ever, I think a lot of issues are down to reluctance to enforce.
Ability to afford insurance and being willing to pay it are different things. I suspect people who aren't bothered that their dog is aggressive aren't bothered about complying with the law either. I would assume that owners of dogs that have previously been troublesome would mean premiums go up. Probably premiums would be higher for certain (dangerous) breeds. Or the insurance companies won't insure dangerous dogs. So owners of dangerous breeds don't insure.
To summarise, I don't think those with dangerous dogs would insure them. Having insurance won't stop the dog attacking or killing someone (only pay medical costs or compensation) There will need to be a resource for enforcement, otherwise it's ineffective What will we do with uninsured dogs and people who fail to insure and can't afford the fine?
Kill the dog? Does it for me
The owner loses all that money, they won't buy another
That *would* work, but it would have the animal lovers all over you. Most wouldn't object to a dangerous dog being put down, but they would be upset it it was Rover belonging to old Mrs Jones at no 22.
On the subject of dangerous dogs, what about mandatory insurance?
As mentioned earlier, that would be a de facto ban for XLs as you can’t get insurance for them. Probably not a bad idea.
The reason that an simple ban won’t work is the fuckwits* who like this kind of dog will simply move to the next “completely not a violent dog for thugs” breed.
With insurance, the next breed will either not be insurable or not assessed yet. And hence unobtainable.
*various people will start whining that proper owners can make such dogs lovable pets. Yeah and responsible owners can make ownership of nuclear weapons AOK. But I my right to own plutonium is a tad restricted for some reason.
Also, DIY crossbreeding to create a new breed. Happens all the time. How much is too much bully?
Imagine trying to ban poodles. Then PC Plod sees something with curly hair. Oh no Officer, this cockapoo is absolutely not a poodle. No sir. And this? It's its daughter. No siree, not a poodle at all. And I forgot, officer - their mummy and grannyt wasn't a poodle but a Bedlington Terrier, and no way can you prove it ...
Oh do shut up. I've told you how to ban it, do it the Aussie way. On the look of the dog. And err on the side of severity if there is any doubt, so no one can own any dog that looks remotely like this
Anyway, Suella the Brave is gonna ban them, yay. First time the Tories have done something sensible for several months
What I am saying is that focussing on the breed is useless and that you need something like the Aussie way, yet the panic is all about a specific breed - or is it two? You named two earlier ...
I'll be very interested to see what Ms Braverman has in mind for legislation. Seeing as she also has to deal with all the future replacements for the XL Bully as well.
The insurance route would work best.
An encrypted, injected chip, linking to the insurance.
Easy to detect and read. No chip, dog impounded and destroyed in 30 days of no evidence of insurance provided (for cases where chip is defective)
100k fine for possessing an un-insured dog.
Insurance doesn't stop the dog attacking someone.
Many of the people with dangerous dogs would not be able to afford insurance and /or would not insure.
They wouldn't be able to afford the fine either
What do you do then? Jail the person? Put the dog down? Both?
There will still be problems, but far far fewer
Because if the dogs are banned you can’t take the dog outside, coz you will immediately be reported and your dog will be shot and you will get a fine
Result: no more Satan dogs in parks or streets, lots more happy unmauled kids and smaller non-psycho dogs etc
I can imagine neighbours might be fearful of reporting the sort of person who has a dangerous dog. And those who own them can be pretty brazen about it. I know a few people who have someone with an aggressive dog living near them and their coping strategy is to avoid the person and the dog (eg crossing the street). They don't report to police of the council dog warden because they've done that before and nothing happens. Even if the dog has attacked their dog.
Yes, but now the cops will be given the powers they need. And the coppers hate these dogs as much as anyone
And anyone can anonymously report a dog in a park, and these dogs need to be walked; the owner won't know who did it
A ban, should it happen (I wouldn't put it past this inept govt to flub it) will, I think, be effecitve enough to get the menace off our streets
The cops don't have the resources/can't be bothered to do the work they already have
Yes, anyone can report an anonymous dog in the park or the street. Do you expect the police to turn up immediately and apprehend the dog walker? Because otherwise how are they to know who the person is? It would have to be reported by someone who knows them, and where they live, which narrows things down considerably for the dog owner. Compare with drug dealers - how many of their neighbours dare report them despite them being responsible for mnay deaths?
In an ideal world insurance might work, but in the real world it will only increase the costs of owning a dog for responsible dog owners, and have little impact on getting dangerous dogs out of circulation
What a load of defeatist nonsense. A ban - with the threat of your dog being shot, if seen - means no one will walk the dogs, for fear of being spotted. These dogs will probably turn on their owners in madness (let's hope so). Anyway, end of problem
Without the demand for new dogs the breeders will stop spplying them, which mwans the breed disappears. This isn't hard. It works in Australia
Not defeatist, just pointing out some potential pitfalls
If we just implemented every first idea someone suggested that sounded good, we'd be in a right mess.
Anyway, I'm sure the government will. Introduce some totally ineffective control measures, so this is probably a redundant discussion
On the subject of dangerous dogs, what about mandatory insurance?
As mentioned earlier, that would be a de facto ban for XLs as you can’t get insurance for them. Probably not a bad idea.
The reason that an simple ban won’t work is the fuckwits* who like this kind of dog will simply move to the next “completely not a violent dog for thugs” breed.
With insurance, the next breed will either not be insurable or not assessed yet. And hence unobtainable.
*various people will start whining that proper owners can make such dogs lovable pets. Yeah and responsible owners can make ownership of nuclear weapons AOK. But I my right to own plutonium is a tad restricted for some reason.
Also, DIY crossbreeding to create a new breed. Happens all the time. How much is too much bully?
Imagine trying to ban poodles. Then PC Plod sees something with curly hair. Oh no Officer, this cockapoo is absolutely not a poodle. No sir. And this? It's its daughter. No siree, not a poodle at all. And I forgot, officer - their mummy and grannyt wasn't a poodle but a Bedlington Terrier, and no way can you prove it ...
Oh do shut up. I've told you how to ban it, do it the Aussie way. On the look of the dog. And err on the side of severity if there is any doubt, so no one can own any dog that looks remotely like this
Anyway, Suella the Brave is gonna ban them, yay. First time the Tories have done something sensible for several months
What I am saying is that focussing on the breed is useless and that you need something like the Aussie way, yet the panic is all about a specific breed - or is it two? You named two earlier ...
I'll be very interested to see what Ms Braverman has in mind for legislation. Seeing as she also has to deal with all the future replacements for the XL Bully as well.
The insurance route would work best.
An encrypted, injected chip, linking to the insurance.
Easy to detect and read. No chip, dog impounded and destroyed in 30 days of no evidence of insurance provided (for cases where chip is defective)
100k fine for possessing an un-insured dog.
Insurance doesn't stop the dog attacking someone.
Many of the people with dangerous dogs would not be able to afford insurance and /or would not insure.
They wouldn't be able to afford the fine either
What do you do then? Jail the person? Put the dog down? Both?
If they can afford to feed a dog they can afford insurance. Specific insurance starts at under £10 per month. The cost of keeping a dog is put by Battersea Dogs Home as around £2000 per year; it can be reduced by about half I'd say.
I think many of the laws are already in place, perhaps with grey areas. There is eg a requirement for dogs to be 'under control'. As ever, I think a lot of issues are down to reluctance to enforce.
Ability to afford insurance and being willing to pay it are different things. I suspect people who aren't bothered that their dog is aggressive aren't bothered about complying with the law either. I would assume that owners of dogs that have previously been troublesome would mean premiums go up. Probably premiums would be higher for certain (dangerous) breeds. Or the insurance companies won't insure dangerous dogs. So owners of dangerous breeds don't insure.
To summarise, I don't think those with dangerous dogs would insure them. Having insurance won't stop the dog attacking or killing someone (only pay medical costs or compensation) There will need to be a resource for enforcement, otherwise it's ineffective What will we do with uninsured dogs and people who fail to insure and can't afford the fine?
Kill the dog? Does it for me
The owner loses all that money, they won't buy another
That *would* work, but it would have the animal lovers all over you. Most wouldn't object to a dangerous dog being put down, but they would be upset it it was Rover belonging to old Mrs Jones at no 22.
On the subject of dangerous dogs, what about mandatory insurance?
As mentioned earlier, that would be a de facto ban for XLs as you can’t get insurance for them. Probably not a bad idea.
The reason that an simple ban won’t work is the fuckwits* who like this kind of dog will simply move to the next “completely not a violent dog for thugs” breed.
With insurance, the next breed will either not be insurable or not assessed yet. And hence unobtainable.
*various people will start whining that proper owners can make such dogs lovable pets. Yeah and responsible owners can make ownership of nuclear weapons AOK. But I my right to own plutonium is a tad restricted for some reason.
Also, DIY crossbreeding to create a new breed. Happens all the time. How much is too much bully?
Imagine trying to ban poodles. Then PC Plod sees something with curly hair. Oh no Officer, this cockapoo is absolutely not a poodle. No sir. And this? It's its daughter. No siree, not a poodle at all. And I forgot, officer - their mummy and grannyt wasn't a poodle but a Bedlington Terrier, and no way can you prove it ...
Oh do shut up. I've told you how to ban it, do it the Aussie way. On the look of the dog. And err on the side of severity if there is any doubt, so no one can own any dog that looks remotely like this
Anyway, Suella the Brave is gonna ban them, yay. First time the Tories have done something sensible for several months
What I am saying is that focussing on the breed is useless and that you need something like the Aussie way, yet the panic is all about a specific breed - or is it two? You named two earlier ...
I'll be very interested to see what Ms Braverman has in mind for legislation. Seeing as she also has to deal with all the future replacements for the XL Bully as well.
The insurance route would work best.
An encrypted, injected chip, linking to the insurance.
Easy to detect and read. No chip, dog impounded and destroyed in 30 days of no evidence of insurance provided (for cases where chip is defective)
100k fine for possessing an un-insured dog.
Insurance doesn't stop the dog attacking someone.
Many of the people with dangerous dogs would not be able to afford insurance and /or would not insure.
They wouldn't be able to afford the fine either
What do you do then? Jail the person? Put the dog down? Both?
If they can afford to feed a dog they can afford insurance. Specific insurance starts at under £10 per month. The cost of keeping a dog is put by Battersea Dogs Home as around £2000 per year; it can be reduced by about half I'd say.
I think many of the laws are already in place, perhaps with grey areas. There is eg a requirement for dogs to be 'under control'. As ever, I think a lot of issues are down to reluctance to enforce.
Ability to afford insurance and being willing to pay it are different things. I suspect people who aren't bothered that their dog is aggressive aren't bothered about complying with the law either. I would assume that owners of dogs that have previously been troublesome would mean premiums go up. Probably premiums would be higher for certain (dangerous) breeds. Or the insurance companies won't insure dangerous dogs. So owners of dangerous breeds don't insure.
To summarise, I don't think those with dangerous dogs would insure them. Having insurance won't stop the dog attacking or killing someone (only pay medical costs or compensation) There will need to be a resource for enforcement, otherwise it's ineffective What will we do with uninsured dogs and people who fail to insure and can't afford the fine?
Kill the dog? Does it for me
The owner loses all that money, they won't buy another
I’m sure we can be more creative with the dogs’ fates. Maybe collect them all and sneak them into Russian occupied Ukraine with little go-pros attached and watch the hilarity commence.
Or put them in a giant dog pound where they put Lucy Letby in as dog warden and replaced with another murderer once the inevitable happens.
Lethal Injections would be a bit of a cop out.
It's been a good 20 years since it was demolished, but I still remember the graffiti on the old A13 Beckton Flyover (one-way!) that said "South Korea KILL and EAT dogs!"
IIRC, one of Rab C. Nesbitts chums was a cannibal who ate his own Rottweiler for LOLs.
Well. It's one way to help the cost of living crisis.
If these dogs are really that capable fighters, why not send them over to Ukraine -- and drop them from drones on Russian positions -- at night.
(In this area, dangerous dogs are often kept by men selling illegal drugs. Same in the UK?)
Yes, but also a particular kind of inadequate male who needs to shore up his masculinity, plus some truly insane young women who see them as "glamorous" and cannot hope to control them on a leash
From what I see a big grown man cannot always control them if they flip
The cost of the tertiary education sector is out of control. Many students are receiving poor educations which won’t materially impact their future earnings potential. The sector has not taken advantage of digital technology to deliver efficiently.
Tertiary education is one area where Britain is a true world leader, and it generates significant export earnings.
A well educated workforce is necessary to deliver productivity, which is an area of specific weakness for the UK.
The current loans regime is punitive, shackling our best and brightest with an ongoing tax burden that likely represses economic growth.
All true. Here are some more;
The massive cost increases aren't really reaching the front line. There's an awful lot of crud which is designed to demonstrate efficiency but is a key cause of inefficiency. (The core of any education- getting a clever knowledgeable person to talk to young people so that they will know more- hasn't changed and is pretty simple.) .........
Up to a point, Mr Romford. But if you change that to "getting a clever knowledgeable person to talk to young people so that they will think more", you will be getting closer to the essence of a university education.
By that light universities are failing, far to many graduates seem unable to think
There's definitely too much rote learning. It started in the schools. I don't know if it was as a result of all these SATs. But rote learning happens in the universities now too. My experience of many of today's students is they expect to be spoon fed education at university in the same way they were ar school. And in the workplace, quite a few graduates expect to be "trained" in the work in the same way. There seems to be a shortage of initiative, a lack of curiosity, and an unwillingness to self educate (through reading, reflecting on experiences, asking questions, and learning from colleagues/peers/mentors)
There is an awful lot of forced pace learning in schools, at all levels, because of the amount of content we have to cover. All school teaching is essentially teaching to the test.
As a result, there is also little point in bothering to investigate outside the set work as it won't help as much as it should.
I look back longingly to the days when we had teachers who had the time to encourage the kids to *think*. At the time, although I did a lot of *thinking*, I didn't realise how important that was as part of my education. It must be very frustrating to be a teacher currently.
The question of content is bound up with the question of subject - and the whole things boils down to supposed knowledge andits transmission and how to do it and what its rules are. This is the essence of the Conservative understanding of education. If that was really the case, then anybody could be a teacher.....
I've always thought of teaching as like nursing, a vocation rather than a career. The reward is not the pay but the satisfaction. Two of a number of jobs that are incredibly important but poorly paid.
TBF, the pay of a teacher isn't bad. There are jobs where you work less and are paid more, but they have less security and usually worse pensions so it evens out.
The problem is the job satisfaction at the moment is off the scale in minus numbers.
And the people who have promised to turn it round are the selfsame twats who buggered it up to start with.
If these dogs are really that capable fighters, why not send them over to Ukraine -- and drop them from drones on Russian positions -- at night.
(In this area, dangerous dogs are often kept by men selling illegal drugs. Same in the UK?)
Yes, but also a particular kind of inadequate male who needs to shore up his masculinity, plus some truly insane young women who see them as "glamorous" and cannot hope to control them on a leash
From what I see a big grown man cannot always control them if they flip
Ummmm...which insane young women keep inadequate males on the leash, and why can big grown men not always control insane young women if they flip?
Better than Trump's US, Bolsonaro's Brazil... Not the countries we like to compare ourselves to, are they?
We grew faster than Germany and Spain throughout the pandemic, we had fewer deaths than Italy (and about the same as Spain)
These are indeed our peer countries
That whole article by J B Murdoch on the FT is notable (and brave from the Remoaner FT). Much of the Britain-is-fucked Remoaner narrative is, it turns out, based on false statistics - which have had real negative effects as investors turn away from a country they perceive as doing particularly badly (when we are not)
Remoaners are literally talking the country down, with lies. It’s time for them to stop
Here's the thing, though.
We used to look down on Italy and Spain as second tier Euro nations. Our comparators were Germany and France. Proper, well run nations, with a solid economic base.
Perhaps have a word with your stalker and that rag he writes for.
You mean the France where law and order had broken down so badly that state visits had to be cancelled on TWO occasions this year ?
The Germany with its dependency on cheap but insecure Russian gas and cheap but polluting domestic coal ?
As for the political parties of either they're a level of dreadfulness beyond the UK.
So all countries have problems, good aspects alongside bad aspects, advantages together with disadvantages.
And the 'every other country' is overtaking the UK has been a common theme since the 1970s, probably even before then.
I've been in Turin for the last three days. Currently in Lingotto. Turin, Italy's fourth city is very lively. My only beef is the graffiti everywhere. Much brighter than the UK at present. Perhaps we need (beautifully put Dura Ace) a Fash Karen too.
Over to you Suella.
You do realise that the pejorative "Karen" is RACIST against the KAREN people of Burma?
Better than Trump's US, Bolsonaro's Brazil... Not the countries we like to compare ourselves to, are they?
We grew faster than Germany and Spain throughout the pandemic, we had fewer deaths than Italy (and about the same as Spain)
These are indeed our peer countries
That whole article by J B Murdoch on the FT is notable (and brave from the Remoaner FT). Much of the Britain-is-fucked Remoaner narrative is, it turns out, based on false statistics - which have had real negative effects as investors turn away from a country they perceive as doing particularly badly (when we are not)
Remoaners are literally talking the country down, with lies. It’s time for them to stop
Here's the thing, though.
We used to look down on Italy and Spain as second tier Euro nations. Our comparators were Germany and France. Proper, well run nations, with a solid economic base.
Perhaps have a word with your stalker and that rag he writes for.
You mean the France where law and order had broken down so badly that state visits had to be cancelled on TWO occasions this year ?
The Germany with its dependency on cheap but insecure Russian gas and cheap but polluting domestic coal ?
As for the political parties of either they're a level of dreadfulness beyond the UK.
So all countries have problems, good aspects alongside bad aspects, advantages together with disadvantages.
And the 'every other country' is overtaking the UK has been a common theme since the 1970s, probably even before then.
I've been in Turin for the last three days. Currently in Lingotto. Turin, Italy's fourth city is very lively. My only beef is the graffiti everywhere. Much brighter than the UK at present. Perhaps we need (beautifully put Dura Ace) a Fash Karen too.
Over to you Suella.
You do realise that the pejorative "Karen" is RACIST against the KAREN people of Burma?
But that is not from where the pejorative "Karen" is derived. The derivation is from a popular American name popular amongst women if a particular age.
Whereas the term may be sexist, I do not believe it to be racist.
On the subject of dangerous dogs, what about mandatory insurance?
As mentioned earlier, that would be a de facto ban for XLs as you can’t get insurance for them. Probably not a bad idea.
The reason that an simple ban won’t work is the fuckwits* who like this kind of dog will simply move to the next “completely not a violent dog for thugs” breed.
With insurance, the next breed will either not be insurable or not assessed yet. And hence unobtainable.
*various people will start whining that proper owners can make such dogs lovable pets. Yeah and responsible owners can make ownership of nuclear weapons AOK. But I my right to own plutonium is a tad restricted for some reason.
Also, DIY crossbreeding to create a new breed. Happens all the time. How much is too much bully?
Imagine trying to ban poodles. Then PC Plod sees something with curly hair. Oh no Officer, this cockapoo is absolutely not a poodle. No sir. And this? It's its daughter. No siree, not a poodle at all. And I forgot, officer - their mummy and grannyt wasn't a poodle but a Bedlington Terrier, and no way can you prove it ...
Oh do shut up. I've told you how to ban it, do it the Aussie way. On the look of the dog. And err on the side of severity if there is any doubt, so no one can own any dog that looks remotely like this
Anyway, Suella the Brave is gonna ban them, yay. First time the Tories have done something sensible for several months
What I am saying is that focussing on the breed is useless and that you need something like the Aussie way, yet the panic is all about a specific breed - or is it two? You named two earlier ...
I'll be very interested to see what Ms Braverman has in mind for legislation. Seeing as she also has to deal with all the future replacements for the XL Bully as well.
The insurance route would work best.
An encrypted, injected chip, linking to the insurance.
Easy to detect and read. No chip, dog impounded and destroyed in 30 days of no evidence of insurance provided (for cases where chip is defective)
100k fine for possessing an un-insured dog.
Insurance doesn't stop the dog attacking someone.
Many of the people with dangerous dogs would not be able to afford insurance and /or would not insure.
They wouldn't be able to afford the fine either
What do you do then? Jail the person? Put the dog down? Both?
There will still be problems, but far far fewer
Because if the dogs are banned you can’t take the dog outside, coz you will immediately be reported and your dog will be shot and you will get a fine
Result: no more Satan dogs in parks or streets, lots more happy unmauled kids and smaller non-psycho dogs etc
I can imagine neighbours might be fearful of reporting the sort of person who has a dangerous dog. And those who own them can be pretty brazen about it. I know a few people who have someone with an aggressive dog living near them and their coping strategy is to avoid the person and the dog (eg crossing the street). They don't report to police of the council dog warden because they've done that before and nothing happens. Even if the dog has attacked their dog.
Yes, but now the cops will be given the powers they need. And the coppers hate these dogs as much as anyone
And anyone can anonymously report a dog in a park, and these dogs need to be walked; the owner won't know who did it
A ban, should it happen (I wouldn't put it past this inept govt to flub it) will, I think, be effecitve enough to get the menace off our streets
The cops don't have the resources/can't be bothered to do the work they already have
Yes, anyone can report an anonymous dog in the park or the street. Do you expect the police to turn up immediately and apprehend the dog walker? Because otherwise how are they to know who the person is? It would have to be reported by someone who knows them, and where they live, which narrows things down considerably for the dog owner. Compare with drug dealers - how many of their neighbours dare report them despite them being responsible for mnay deaths?
In an ideal world insurance might work, but in the real world it will only increase the costs of owning a dog for responsible dog owners, and have little impact on getting dangerous dogs out of circulation
What a load of defeatist nonsense. A ban - with the threat of your dog being shot, if seen - means no one will walk the dogs, for fear of being spotted. These dogs will probably turn on their owners in madness (let's hope so). Anyway, end of problem
Without the demand for new dogs the breeders will stop spplying them, which mwans the breed disappears. This isn't hard. It works in Australia
Not defeatist, just pointing out some potential pitfalls
If we just implemented every first idea someone suggested that sounded good, we'd be in a right mess.
Anyway, I'm sure the government will. Introduce some totally ineffective control measures, so this is probably a redundant discussion
OK, Kommissar Sensible, what would you do if you were Home Sec, confronted by that awful vid from Brum? Do nothing? That doesn't work. If you do nothing there will inevitably be another video in a day or two, possibly worse (a child dying? An old lady ripped apart) and then still more videos, and the public is clamouring for a ban, and social media is demanding a ban, and YOU will get the blame for any deaths after this video
She really had no choice. A ban it is. But what would you do that's "better"?
As an alternative to insurance for dogs, we could bring back dog licences. That could be done relatively straightforwardly. In fact I'm not even sure if they've ever technically lapsed.
Somebody who wants to own a spaniel crossbreed pays a fiver, somebody who wants to own an Akita has to have training in managing dogs, insurance and an inspection of their house before they can get one for £500.
Edit - apparently they were abandoned in 1987, but bringing them back would be fairly easy.
ISTR they were 7/6 per dog in 1964 and the Wilson government didn't bother to raise it. Under Heath they were still 37.5p and impossible to enforce. I'm surprised they lasted two whole terms of Mrs Thatcher. Almost nothing else did.
Better than Trump's US, Bolsonaro's Brazil... Not the countries we like to compare ourselves to, are they?
We grew faster than Germany and Spain throughout the pandemic, we had fewer deaths than Italy (and about the same as Spain)
These are indeed our peer countries
That whole article by J B Murdoch on the FT is notable (and brave from the Remoaner FT). Much of the Britain-is-fucked Remoaner narrative is, it turns out, based on false statistics - which have had real negative effects as investors turn away from a country they perceive as doing particularly badly (when we are not)
Remoaners are literally talking the country down, with lies. It’s time for them to stop
Here's the thing, though.
We used to look down on Italy and Spain as second tier Euro nations. Our comparators were Germany and France. Proper, well run nations, with a solid economic base.
Perhaps have a word with your stalker and that rag he writes for.
You mean the France where law and order had broken down so badly that state visits had to be cancelled on TWO occasions this year ?
The Germany with its dependency on cheap but insecure Russian gas and cheap but polluting domestic coal ?
As for the political parties of either they're a level of dreadfulness beyond the UK.
So all countries have problems, good aspects alongside bad aspects, advantages together with disadvantages.
And the 'every other country' is overtaking the UK has been a common theme since the 1970s, probably even before then.
I've been in Turin for the last three days. Currently in Lingotto. Turin, Italy's fourth city is very lively. My only beef is the graffiti everywhere. Much brighter than the UK at present. Perhaps we need (beautifully put Dura Ace) a Fash Karen too.
Over to you Suella.
You do realise that the pejorative "Karen" is RACIST against the KAREN people of Burma?
Better than Trump's US, Bolsonaro's Brazil... Not the countries we like to compare ourselves to, are they?
We grew faster than Germany and Spain throughout the pandemic, we had fewer deaths than Italy (and about the same as Spain)
These are indeed our peer countries
That whole article by J B Murdoch on the FT is notable (and brave from the Remoaner FT). Much of the Britain-is-fucked Remoaner narrative is, it turns out, based on false statistics - which have had real negative effects as investors turn away from a country they perceive as doing particularly badly (when we are not)
Remoaners are literally talking the country down, with lies. It’s time for them to stop
Here's the thing, though.
We used to look down on Italy and Spain as second tier Euro nations. Our comparators were Germany and France. Proper, well run nations, with a solid economic base.
Perhaps have a word with your stalker and that rag he writes for.
You mean the France where law and order had broken down so badly that state visits had to be cancelled on TWO occasions this year ?
The Germany with its dependency on cheap but insecure Russian gas and cheap but polluting domestic coal ?
As for the political parties of either they're a level of dreadfulness beyond the UK.
So all countries have problems, good aspects alongside bad aspects, advantages together with disadvantages.
And the 'every other country' is overtaking the UK has been a common theme since the 1970s, probably even before then.
I've been in Turin for the last three days. Currently in Lingotto. Turin, Italy's fourth city is very lively. My only beef is the graffiti everywhere. Much brighter than the UK at present. Perhaps we need (beautifully put Dura Ace) a Fash Karen too.
Over to you Suella.
You do realise that the pejorative "Karen" is RACIST against the KAREN people of Burma?
But that is not from where the pejorative "Karen" is derived. The derivation is from a popular American name popular amongst women if a particular age.
Whereas the term may be sexist, I do not believe it to be racist.
It would be racist if you were of Karen ethnicity!
As an alternative to insurance for dogs, we could bring back dog licences. That could be done relatively straightforwardly. In fact I'm not even sure if they've ever technically lapsed.
Somebody who wants to own a spaniel crossbreed pays a fiver, somebody who wants to own an Akita has to have training in managing dogs, insurance and an inspection of their house before they can get one for £500.
Edit - apparently they were abandoned in 1987, but bringing them back would be fairly easy.
ISTR they were 7/6 per dog in 1964 and the Wilson government didn't bother to raise it. Under Heath they were still 37.5p and impossible to enforce. I'm surprised they lasted two whole terms of Mrs Thatcher. Almost nothing else did.
That was for the colour dog licence. You could save a bit by getting a black and white dog licence, which was why Dalmatians were so popular at that time.
As an alternative to insurance for dogs, we could bring back dog licences. That could be done relatively straightforwardly. In fact I'm not even sure if they've ever technically lapsed.
Somebody who wants to own a spaniel crossbreed pays a fiver, somebody who wants to own an Akita has to have training in managing dogs, insurance and an inspection of their house before they can get one for £500.
Edit - apparently they were abandoned in 1987, but bringing them back would be fairly easy.
ISTR they were 7/6 per dog in 1964 and the Wilson government didn't bother to raise it. Under Heath they were still 37.5p and impossible to enforce. I'm surprised they lasted two whole terms of Mrs Thatcher. Almost nothing else did.
That was for the colour dog licence. You could save a bit by getting a black and white dog licence, which was why Dalmatians were so popular at that time.
Yes, but the black and white signal was always spotty.
Not looking good for ukraine now sadly. From telegraph.
Ukraine’s counter-offensive is stalling. The West must prepare for humiliation
We cannot have a repeat of the foreign-policy errors that followed Putin’s 2014 Crimean land grab
RICHARD KEMP10 September 2023 • 11:00am
Time is running out for Ukraine. After 18 months of war, it is no longer a question of if the Western alliance will falter, but when. Since the start, despite making many of the right noises and supplying some military hardware, France and Germany, in particular, have been reluctant partners. Their leaders have often seemed more concerned with finding an “off-ramp” for Vladimir Putin than ejecting his forces from Ukraine. As well as dependency on Russian energy, a pacifist instinct among Western European political classes has led to neglect of their armed forces and a corresponding fear of escalation.
As the provider of the lion’s share of backing for Ukraine, it is the US calling the shots in this war. Yet, since the earliest days, President Biden, too, has been dragging his heels, giving just about enough military assistance to keep Ukraine fighting, but intentionally not enough to enable a victory.
Like his Western European allies, Biden has been successfully deterred by Putin’s empty threats of widening the war. Faint-hearted concerns over provoking Putin explains his failure to provide urgently-needed weapons, including combat planes and long-range missiles, and for his obstinate resistance against Nato membership for Ukraine.
Now, polls in both Europe and the US show public support for military aid to Kyiv dropping away, with one recent survey indicating that less than 50 per cent of Americans are in favour of additional funding. This at least partially reflects sluggish progress in Ukraine’s counter-offensive, which has seen only limited gains so far.
Western military analysts and the media built expectations that, this summer, Kyiv would repeat its striking victories of last autumn at Kharkiv and Kherson. Now, people are wondering how much bang they are getting for their buck, and whether the significant investment made by their countries will ever achieve anything concrete.
Advertisement
There is also growing disquiet about Ukrainian corruption, amplified by those voices who oppose American engagement in Europe for other reasons. Corruption concerns do need to be addressed, but they do not trump the West’s overriding strategic interest in preventing a Russian victory.
Zelensky obviously recognises the coming hinge point in Western support, and his recent actions may indicate a degree of alarm. He has, for example, jailed the allegedly corrupt tycoon and former provincial governor Igor Kolomoisky, a long-term ally and supporter. He sacked defence minister Oleksii Reznikov at the height of the war, again amid corruption allegations. The latter may signal a coming change to Ukraine’s military strategy.
Why Ukraine’s defeat could mean the end of NATO in its current form. As the West’s proxy war in Ukraine slips inexorably towards utter failure, the neocons behind the debacle are faced with dwindling avenues of retreat. Early confidence that Russia, in its current form, would collapse under the pressure of the harshest sanctions regime in history failed to materialize. Early Russian miscalculations on the battlefield were not followed by a military meltdown, but by a pragmatic display of strategic adaptability, which is begrudgingly admired in the military war rooms of the West. The Russian army, far from falling apart, has steeled itself into making bold decisions to retreat when prudent and advance when required, both of which have proven devastating for their Ukrainian opponents. It follows that, as the Western political elites that cultivated this conflict peer into another winter of political, military, and potentially economic discontent, it is now that we potentially face the most dangerous period in Europe since the outbreak of WWII.
Better than Trump's US, Bolsonaro's Brazil... Not the countries we like to compare ourselves to, are they?
We grew faster than Germany and Spain throughout the pandemic, we had fewer deaths than Italy (and about the same as Spain)
These are indeed our peer countries
That whole article by J B Murdoch on the FT is notable (and brave from the Remoaner FT). Much of the Britain-is-fucked Remoaner narrative is, it turns out, based on false statistics - which have had real negative effects as investors turn away from a country they perceive as doing particularly badly (when we are not)
Remoaners are literally talking the country down, with lies. It’s time for them to stop
Here's the thing, though.
We used to look down on Italy and Spain as second tier Euro nations. Our comparators were Germany and France. Proper, well run nations, with a solid economic base.
Perhaps have a word with your stalker and that rag he writes for.
You mean the France where law and order had broken down so badly that state visits had to be cancelled on TWO occasions this year ?
The Germany with its dependency on cheap but insecure Russian gas and cheap but polluting domestic coal ?
As for the political parties of either they're a level of dreadfulness beyond the UK.
So all countries have problems, good aspects alongside bad aspects, advantages together with disadvantages.
And the 'every other country' is overtaking the UK has been a common theme since the 1970s, probably even before then.
I've been in Turin for the last three days. Currently in Lingotto. Turin, Italy's fourth city is very lively. My only beef is the graffiti everywhere. Much brighter than the UK at present. Perhaps we need (beautifully put Dura Ace) a Fash Karen too.
Over to you Suella.
You do realise that the pejorative "Karen" is RACIST against the KAREN people of Burma?
Better than Trump's US, Bolsonaro's Brazil... Not the countries we like to compare ourselves to, are they?
We grew faster than Germany and Spain throughout the pandemic, we had fewer deaths than Italy (and about the same as Spain)
These are indeed our peer countries
That whole article by J B Murdoch on the FT is notable (and brave from the Remoaner FT). Much of the Britain-is-fucked Remoaner narrative is, it turns out, based on false statistics - which have had real negative effects as investors turn away from a country they perceive as doing particularly badly (when we are not)
Remoaners are literally talking the country down, with lies. It’s time for them to stop
Here's the thing, though.
We used to look down on Italy and Spain as second tier Euro nations. Our comparators were Germany and France. Proper, well run nations, with a solid economic base.
Perhaps have a word with your stalker and that rag he writes for.
You mean the France where law and order had broken down so badly that state visits had to be cancelled on TWO occasions this year ?
The Germany with its dependency on cheap but insecure Russian gas and cheap but polluting domestic coal ?
As for the political parties of either they're a level of dreadfulness beyond the UK.
So all countries have problems, good aspects alongside bad aspects, advantages together with disadvantages.
And the 'every other country' is overtaking the UK has been a common theme since the 1970s, probably even before then.
I've been in Turin for the last three days. Currently in Lingotto. Turin, Italy's fourth city is very lively. My only beef is the graffiti everywhere. Much brighter than the UK at present. Perhaps we need (beautifully put Dura Ace) a Fash Karen too.
Over to you Suella.
You do realise that the pejorative "Karen" is RACIST against the KAREN people of Burma?
But that is not from where the pejorative "Karen" is derived. The derivation is from a popular American name popular amongst women if a particular age.
Whereas the term may be sexist, I do not believe it to be racist.
Best case: Sunil's winding you up; other case: Sunil's very odd. I prefer to believe case 1.
Now that the Ukrainian Zaporozhe Offensive is grinding to a halt after three months of brutal but absolutely fruitless attacks, a note on how the Russians have shaped the battlefield - in some ways literally - for the last year to win this critical battle. The Russians, the Ukrainians, and NATO all know that the road to Ukrainian victory leads through Melitopol. The Stavka identified the land corridor to Crimea as key terrain before the war - the Russians likely launched a large operation in Ukraine rather than a more limited intervention to "bail out" the LDPR in February 2022 due to their overriding need to secure the Zaporozhe Corridor and prevent Ukrainian forces occupying the Azov coast from threatening Crimea. In turn NATO has developed a clear plan of action to isolate and effectively besiege Crimea should their Ukrainian proxy manage to seize Zaporozhe and left-bank Kherson, likely working off prewar Ukrainian schemes to deter and punish a repeat of Russia's more limited 2014 intervention. Simply put, no other direction of attack promised nearly the potential for a rapid end to the war on Ukrainian terms.
On the subject of dangerous dogs, what about mandatory insurance?
As mentioned earlier, that would be a de facto ban for XLs as you can’t get insurance for them. Probably not a bad idea.
The reason that an simple ban won’t work is the fuckwits* who like this kind of dog will simply move to the next “completely not a violent dog for thugs” breed.
With insurance, the next breed will either not be insurable or not assessed yet. And hence unobtainable.
*various people will start whining that proper owners can make such dogs lovable pets. Yeah and responsible owners can make ownership of nuclear weapons AOK. But I my right to own plutonium is a tad restricted for some reason.
Also, DIY crossbreeding to create a new breed. Happens all the time. How much is too much bully?
Imagine trying to ban poodles. Then PC Plod sees something with curly hair. Oh no Officer, this cockapoo is absolutely not a poodle. No sir. And this? It's its daughter. No siree, not a poodle at all. And I forgot, officer - their mummy and grannyt wasn't a poodle but a Bedlington Terrier, and no way can you prove it ...
Oh do shut up. I've told you how to ban it, do it the Aussie way. On the look of the dog. And err on the side of severity if there is any doubt, so no one can own any dog that looks remotely like this
Anyway, Suella the Brave is gonna ban them, yay. First time the Tories have done something sensible for several months
What I am saying is that focussing on the breed is useless and that you need something like the Aussie way, yet the panic is all about a specific breed - or is it two? You named two earlier ...
I'll be very interested to see what Ms Braverman has in mind for legislation. Seeing as she also has to deal with all the future replacements for the XL Bully as well.
The insurance route would work best.
An encrypted, injected chip, linking to the insurance.
Easy to detect and read. No chip, dog impounded and destroyed in 30 days of no evidence of insurance provided (for cases where chip is defective)
100k fine for possessing an un-insured dog.
Insurance doesn't stop the dog attacking someone.
Many of the people with dangerous dogs would not be able to afford insurance and /or would not insure.
They wouldn't be able to afford the fine either
What do you do then? Jail the person? Put the dog down? Both?
If they can afford to feed a dog they can afford insurance. Specific insurance starts at under £10 per month. The cost of keeping a dog is put by Battersea Dogs Home as around £2000 per year; it can be reduced by about half I'd say.
I think many of the laws are already in place, perhaps with grey areas. There is eg a requirement for dogs to be 'under control'. As ever, I think a lot of issues are down to reluctance to enforce.
Ability to afford insurance and being willing to pay it are different things. I suspect people who aren't bothered that their dog is aggressive aren't bothered about complying with the law either. I would assume that owners of dogs that have previously been troublesome would mean premiums go up. Probably premiums would be higher for certain (dangerous) breeds. Or the insurance companies won't insure dangerous dogs. So owners of dangerous breeds don't insure.
To summarise, I don't think those with dangerous dogs would insure them. Having insurance won't stop the dog attacking or killing someone (only pay medical costs or compensation) There will need to be a resource for enforcement, otherwise it's ineffective What will we do with uninsured dogs and people who fail to insure and can't afford the fine?
Kill the dog? Does it for me
The owner loses all that money, they won't buy another
I’m sure we can be more creative with the dogs’ fates. Maybe collect them all and sneak them into Russian occupied Ukraine with little go-pros attached and watch the hilarity commence.
Or put them in a giant dog pound where they put Lucy Letby in as dog warden and replaced with another murderer once the inevitable happens.
Lethal Injections would be a bit of a cop out.
It's been a good 20 years since it was demolished, but I still remember the graffiti on the old A13 Beckton Flyover (one-way!) that said "South Korea KILL and EAT dogs!"
IIRC, one of Rab C. Nesbitts chums was a cannibal who ate his own Rottweiler for LOLs.
Wasn't that Still Game? Definitely a "status dog" owner, and not a chum at all of the heroes, though I can't recall the dinner bit. Unless it was a kebab?
On the subject of dangerous dogs, what about mandatory insurance?
As mentioned earlier, that would be a de facto ban for XLs as you can’t get insurance for them. Probably not a bad idea.
The reason that an simple ban won’t work is the fuckwits* who like this kind of dog will simply move to the next “completely not a violent dog for thugs” breed.
With insurance, the next breed will either not be insurable or not assessed yet. And hence unobtainable.
*various people will start whining that proper owners can make such dogs lovable pets. Yeah and responsible owners can make ownership of nuclear weapons AOK. But I my right to own plutonium is a tad restricted for some reason.
Also, DIY crossbreeding to create a new breed. Happens all the time. How much is too much bully?
Imagine trying to ban poodles. Then PC Plod sees something with curly hair. Oh no Officer, this cockapoo is absolutely not a poodle. No sir. And this? It's its daughter. No siree, not a poodle at all. And I forgot, officer - their mummy and grannyt wasn't a poodle but a Bedlington Terrier, and no way can you prove it ...
Oh do shut up. I've told you how to ban it, do it the Aussie way. On the look of the dog. And err on the side of severity if there is any doubt, so no one can own any dog that looks remotely like this
Anyway, Suella the Brave is gonna ban them, yay. First time the Tories have done something sensible for several months
What I am saying is that focussing on the breed is useless and that you need something like the Aussie way, yet the panic is all about a specific breed - or is it two? You named two earlier ...
I'll be very interested to see what Ms Braverman has in mind for legislation. Seeing as she also has to deal with all the future replacements for the XL Bully as well.
The insurance route would work best.
An encrypted, injected chip, linking to the insurance.
Easy to detect and read. No chip, dog impounded and destroyed in 30 days of no evidence of insurance provided (for cases where chip is defective)
100k fine for possessing an un-insured dog.
Insurance doesn't stop the dog attacking someone.
Many of the people with dangerous dogs would not be able to afford insurance and /or would not insure.
They wouldn't be able to afford the fine either
What do you do then? Jail the person? Put the dog down? Both?
There will still be problems, but far far fewer
Because if the dogs are banned you can’t take the dog outside, coz you will immediately be reported and your dog will be shot and you will get a fine
Result: no more Satan dogs in parks or streets, lots more happy unmauled kids and smaller non-psycho dogs etc
I can imagine neighbours might be fearful of reporting the sort of person who has a dangerous dog. And those who own them can be pretty brazen about it. I know a few people who have someone with an aggressive dog living near them and their coping strategy is to avoid the person and the dog (eg crossing the street). They don't report to police of the council dog warden because they've done that before and nothing happens. Even if the dog has attacked their dog.
Yes, but now the cops will be given the powers they need. And the coppers hate these dogs as much as anyone
And anyone can anonymously report a dog in a park, and these dogs need to be walked; the owner won't know who did it
A ban, should it happen (I wouldn't put it past this inept govt to flub it) will, I think, be effecitve enough to get the menace off our streets
The cops don't have the resources/can't be bothered to do the work they already have
Yes, anyone can report an anonymous dog in the park or the street. Do you expect the police to turn up immediately and apprehend the dog walker? Because otherwise how are they to know who the person is? It would have to be reported by someone who knows them, and where they live, which narrows things down considerably for the dog owner. Compare with drug dealers - how many of their neighbours dare report them despite them being responsible for mnay deaths?
In an ideal world insurance might work, but in the real world it will only increase the costs of owning a dog for responsible dog owners, and have little impact on getting dangerous dogs out of circulation
What a load of defeatist nonsense. A ban - with the threat of your dog being shot, if seen - means no one will walk the dogs, for fear of being spotted. These dogs will probably turn on their owners in madness (let's hope so). Anyway, end of problem
Without the demand for new dogs the breeders will stop spplying them, which mwans the breed disappears. This isn't hard. It works in Australia
Sorry to say it, but there are far too many dogs around now. Every third person seems to have one.
Now that the Ukrainian Zaporozhe Offensive is grinding to a halt after three months of brutal but absolutely fruitless attacks, a note on how the Russians have shaped the battlefield - in some ways literally - for the last year to win this critical battle. The Russians, the Ukrainians, and NATO all know that the road to Ukrainian victory leads through Melitopol. The Stavka identified the land corridor to Crimea as key terrain before the war - the Russians likely launched a large operation in Ukraine rather than a more limited intervention to "bail out" the LDPR in February 2022 due to their overriding need to secure the Zaporozhe Corridor and prevent Ukrainian forces occupying the Azov coast from threatening Crimea. In turn NATO has developed a clear plan of action to isolate and effectively besiege Crimea should their Ukrainian proxy manage to seize Zaporozhe and left-bank Kherson, likely working off prewar Ukrainian schemes to deter and punish a repeat of Russia's more limited 2014 intervention. Simply put, no other direction of attack promised nearly the potential for a rapid end to the war on Ukrainian terms.
Aaaand we're back. And on a Sunday evening instead of a Saturday lunchtime.
Is the return of the Russki Troll a sign Putin having eliminated Fatso has successfully integrated his crew of drunken weirdos into Russian command structures?
Why Ukraine’s defeat could mean the end of NATO in its current form. As the West’s proxy war in Ukraine slips inexorably towards utter failure, the neocons behind the debacle are faced with dwindling avenues of retreat. Early confidence that Russia, in its current form, would collapse under the pressure of the harshest sanctions regime in history failed to materialize. Early Russian miscalculations on the battlefield were not followed by a military meltdown, but by a pragmatic display of strategic adaptability, which is begrudgingly admired in the military war rooms of the West. The Russian army, far from falling apart, has steeled itself into making bold decisions to retreat when prudent and advance when required, both of which have proven devastating for their Ukrainian opponents. It follows that, as the Western political elites that cultivated this conflict peer into another winter of political, military, and potentially economic discontent, it is now that we potentially face the most dangerous period in Europe since the outbreak of WWII.
Now that the Ukrainian Zaporozhe Offensive is grinding to a halt after three months of brutal but absolutely fruitless attacks, a note on how the Russians have shaped the battlefield - in some ways literally - for the last year to win this critical battle. The Russians, the Ukrainians, and NATO all know that the road to Ukrainian victory leads through Melitopol. The Stavka identified the land corridor to Crimea as key terrain before the war - the Russians likely launched a large operation in Ukraine rather than a more limited intervention to "bail out" the LDPR in February 2022 due to their overriding need to secure the Zaporozhe Corridor and prevent Ukrainian forces occupying the Azov coast from threatening Crimea. In turn NATO has developed a clear plan of action to isolate and effectively besiege Crimea should their Ukrainian proxy manage to seize Zaporozhe and left-bank Kherson, likely working off prewar Ukrainian schemes to deter and punish a repeat of Russia's more limited 2014 intervention. Simply put, no other direction of attack promised nearly the potential for a rapid end to the war on Ukrainian terms.
What would be the effect of removing national insurance on employment income and putting it on non-employment income ?
I suppose you could do it on a gradual basis by decreasing the first and increasing the second by 1% a year until they were level.
Obviously the rentiers and oldies would hate it but part of the reason for introducing it would be to transfer wealth to workers and the young.
Absolutely not. The whole reason national insurance was created in the first place was so workers would contribute for insurance and benefits if unemployed and that expanded to contributions to fund state pensions and also some healthcare.
National insurance should be hypothecated and return to those aims. The inheritance tax threshold should be increased to £2 million instead so older people can ultimately pass on more of their assets to their children and grandchildren, nephews and nieces
Why shouldn't non-workers contribute to those things ?
And given that only about 5% of estates pay inheritance tax your idea would be a tax cut on unearned income for the very rich.
Is this really your view as to what the Conservative party should be for ?
They did, they paid in national insurance when they were working. Now most estates in the south especially are above the IHT threshold. Absolutely the Conservative party should be about preserving wealth and inheritance in the family, that is what Toryism has always been about, even before free market liberals joined it to keep out Labour
Now that the Ukrainian Zaporozhe Offensive is grinding to a halt after three months of brutal but absolutely fruitless attacks, a note on how the Russians have shaped the battlefield - in some ways literally - for the last year to win this critical battle. The Russians, the Ukrainians, and NATO all know that the road to Ukrainian victory leads through Melitopol. The Stavka identified the land corridor to Crimea as key terrain before the war - the Russians likely launched a large operation in Ukraine rather than a more limited intervention to "bail out" the LDPR in February 2022 due to their overriding need to secure the Zaporozhe Corridor and prevent Ukrainian forces occupying the Azov coast from threatening Crimea. In turn NATO has developed a clear plan of action to isolate and effectively besiege Crimea should their Ukrainian proxy manage to seize Zaporozhe and left-bank Kherson, likely working off prewar Ukrainian schemes to deter and punish a repeat of Russia's more limited 2014 intervention. Simply put, no other direction of attack promised nearly the potential for a rapid end to the war on Ukrainian terms.
On the subject of dangerous dogs, what about mandatory insurance?
As mentioned earlier, that would be a de facto ban for XLs as you can’t get insurance for them. Probably not a bad idea.
The reason that an simple ban won’t work is the fuckwits* who like this kind of dog will simply move to the next “completely not a violent dog for thugs” breed.
With insurance, the next breed will either not be insurable or not assessed yet. And hence unobtainable.
*various people will start whining that proper owners can make such dogs lovable pets. Yeah and responsible owners can make ownership of nuclear weapons AOK. But I my right to own plutonium is a tad restricted for some reason.
Also, DIY crossbreeding to create a new breed. Happens all the time. How much is too much bully?
Imagine trying to ban poodles. Then PC Plod sees something with curly hair. Oh no Officer, this cockapoo is absolutely not a poodle. No sir. And this? It's its daughter. No siree, not a poodle at all. And I forgot, officer - their mummy and grannyt wasn't a poodle but a Bedlington Terrier, and no way can you prove it ...
Oh do shut up. I've told you how to ban it, do it the Aussie way. On the look of the dog. And err on the side of severity if there is any doubt, so no one can own any dog that looks remotely like this
Anyway, Suella the Brave is gonna ban them, yay. First time the Tories have done something sensible for several months
What I am saying is that focussing on the breed is useless and that you need something like the Aussie way, yet the panic is all about a specific breed - or is it two? You named two earlier ...
I'll be very interested to see what Ms Braverman has in mind for legislation. Seeing as she also has to deal with all the future replacements for the XL Bully as well.
The insurance route would work best.
An encrypted, injected chip, linking to the insurance.
Easy to detect and read. No chip, dog impounded and destroyed in 30 days of no evidence of insurance provided (for cases where chip is defective)
100k fine for possessing an un-insured dog.
Insurance doesn't stop the dog attacking someone.
Many of the people with dangerous dogs would not be able to afford insurance and /or would not insure.
They wouldn't be able to afford the fine either
What do you do then? Jail the person? Put the dog down? Both?
There will still be problems, but far far fewer
Because if the dogs are banned you can’t take the dog outside, coz you will immediately be reported and your dog will be shot and you will get a fine
Result: no more Satan dogs in parks or streets, lots more happy unmauled kids and smaller non-psycho dogs etc
I can imagine neighbours might be fearful of reporting the sort of person who has a dangerous dog. And those who own them can be pretty brazen about it. I know a few people who have someone with an aggressive dog living near them and their coping strategy is to avoid the person and the dog (eg crossing the street). They don't report to police of the council dog warden because they've done that before and nothing happens. Even if the dog has attacked their dog.
Yes, but now the cops will be given the powers they need. And the coppers hate these dogs as much as anyone
And anyone can anonymously report a dog in a park, and these dogs need to be walked; the owner won't know who did it
A ban, should it happen (I wouldn't put it past this inept govt to flub it) will, I think, be effecitve enough to get the menace off our streets
The cops don't have the resources/can't be bothered to do the work they already have
Yes, anyone can report an anonymous dog in the park or the street. Do you expect the police to turn up immediately and apprehend the dog walker? Because otherwise how are they to know who the person is? It would have to be reported by someone who knows them, and where they live, which narrows things down considerably for the dog owner. Compare with drug dealers - how many of their neighbours dare report them despite them being responsible for mnay deaths?
In an ideal world insurance might work, but in the real world it will only increase the costs of owning a dog for responsible dog owners, and have little impact on getting dangerous dogs out of circulation
What a load of defeatist nonsense. A ban - with the threat of your dog being shot, if seen - means no one will walk the dogs, for fear of being spotted. These dogs will probably turn on their owners in madness (let's hope so). Anyway, end of problem
Without the demand for new dogs the breeders will stop spplying them, which mwans the breed disappears. This isn't hard. It works in Australia
Citation, please? I'd be interested to know *how* it works in Australia, actually.
On the subject of dangerous dogs, what about mandatory insurance?
As mentioned earlier, that would be a de facto ban for XLs as you can’t get insurance for them. Probably not a bad idea.
The reason that an simple ban won’t work is the fuckwits* who like this kind of dog will simply move to the next “completely not a violent dog for thugs” breed.
With insurance, the next breed will either not be insurable or not assessed yet. And hence unobtainable.
*various people will start whining that proper owners can make such dogs lovable pets. Yeah and responsible owners can make ownership of nuclear weapons AOK. But I my right to own plutonium is a tad restricted for some reason.
Also, DIY crossbreeding to create a new breed. Happens all the time. How much is too much bully?
Imagine trying to ban poodles. Then PC Plod sees something with curly hair. Oh no Officer, this cockapoo is absolutely not a poodle. No sir. And this? It's its daughter. No siree, not a poodle at all. And I forgot, officer - their mummy and grannyt wasn't a poodle but a Bedlington Terrier, and no way can you prove it ...
Oh do shut up. I've told you how to ban it, do it the Aussie way. On the look of the dog. And err on the side of severity if there is any doubt, so no one can own any dog that looks remotely like this
Anyway, Suella the Brave is gonna ban them, yay. First time the Tories have done something sensible for several months
What I am saying is that focussing on the breed is useless and that you need something like the Aussie way, yet the panic is all about a specific breed - or is it two? You named two earlier ...
I'll be very interested to see what Ms Braverman has in mind for legislation. Seeing as she also has to deal with all the future replacements for the XL Bully as well.
The insurance route would work best.
An encrypted, injected chip, linking to the insurance.
Easy to detect and read. No chip, dog impounded and destroyed in 30 days of no evidence of insurance provided (for cases where chip is defective)
100k fine for possessing an un-insured dog.
Insurance doesn't stop the dog attacking someone.
Many of the people with dangerous dogs would not be able to afford insurance and /or would not insure.
They wouldn't be able to afford the fine either
What do you do then? Jail the person? Put the dog down? Both?
There will still be problems, but far far fewer
Because if the dogs are banned you can’t take the dog outside, coz you will immediately be reported and your dog will be shot and you will get a fine
Result: no more Satan dogs in parks or streets, lots more happy unmauled kids and smaller non-psycho dogs etc
I can imagine neighbours might be fearful of reporting the sort of person who has a dangerous dog. And those who own them can be pretty brazen about it. I know a few people who have someone with an aggressive dog living near them and their coping strategy is to avoid the person and the dog (eg crossing the street). They don't report to police of the council dog warden because they've done that before and nothing happens. Even if the dog has attacked their dog.
Yes, but now the cops will be given the powers they need. And the coppers hate these dogs as much as anyone
And anyone can anonymously report a dog in a park, and these dogs need to be walked; the owner won't know who did it
A ban, should it happen (I wouldn't put it past this inept govt to flub it) will, I think, be effecitve enough to get the menace off our streets
The cops don't have the resources/can't be bothered to do the work they already have
Yes, anyone can report an anonymous dog in the park or the street. Do you expect the police to turn up immediately and apprehend the dog walker? Because otherwise how are they to know who the person is? It would have to be reported by someone who knows them, and where they live, which narrows things down considerably for the dog owner. Compare with drug dealers - how many of their neighbours dare report them despite them being responsible for mnay deaths?
In an ideal world insurance might work, but in the real world it will only increase the costs of owning a dog for responsible dog owners, and have little impact on getting dangerous dogs out of circulation
What a load of defeatist nonsense. A ban - with the threat of your dog being shot, if seen - means no one will walk the dogs, for fear of being spotted. These dogs will probably turn on their owners in madness (let's hope so). Anyway, end of problem
Without the demand for new dogs the breeders will stop spplying them, which mwans the breed disappears. This isn't hard. It works in Australia
Not defeatist, just pointing out some potential pitfalls
If we just implemented every first idea someone suggested that sounded good, we'd be in a right mess.
Anyway, I'm sure the government will. Introduce some totally ineffective control measures, so this is probably a redundant discussion
OK, Kommissar Sensible, what would you do if you were Home Sec, confronted by that awful vid from Brum? Do nothing? That doesn't work. If you do nothing there will inevitably be another video in a day or two, possibly worse (a child dying? An old lady ripped apart) and then still more videos, and the public is clamouring for a ban, and social media is demanding a ban, and YOU will get the blame for any deaths after this video
She really had no choice. A ban it is. But what would you do that's "better"?
Well, she could have said she would be speaking to all people and agencies involved to understand the incident, what led to it and get any background information. To try to gain an understanding of the situation and how it could have been prevented. And to discuss with the police and the council what the barriers were for them to take pre-emptive action, and how these could be removed. (I suspect Birmingham City Council financial woes might feature heavily in the reposnse to that one)
An effective politician would take the time to find out the details and get a thorough understanding of the problem, and get input from people, like the community, local councils, police, vets, rspca etc before deciding on the best way forward.
I think it's an incredibly difficult problem, and tbh, I can't come up with a solution. A ban may seem obvious, but you have to game all the possible consequences. The first question is: *what* do you ban? If the breed, how do you define it? If the behaviour, how do you define that?
I said it would take a horrible video to get them banned, and so it is. Well done Home Sec
FUCK THE RSPCA
Interesting politics of her linking to the DM story in her tweet, so they can claim the credit for the government finally taking action.
Yes, tho it might just be true: when the story went viral on the Mail - that was it. The comments under the story are blistering and angry: ban these dogs, where is the government, etc
I did specifically predict this, a few weeka ago; I said there will be a gruesome, unwatchable video featuring a child, and only then would the govt act. I am glad no kid actually had to die (in this case) to get this done
Red tape. Very un-Conservative.
Well, what other explanation is there, in all seriousness?
(Edit: very glad when something is done that is effective. I don't even like having pit bulls and Staffies around.)
Good on the PM for banning these dangerous XL Bully Dogs, now can we ensure owners of alsatians, pit bulls and rottweillers have to have a license too please
What would be the effect of removing national insurance on employment income and putting it on non-employment income ?
I suppose you could do it on a gradual basis by decreasing the first and increasing the second by 1% a year until they were level.
Obviously the rentiers and oldies would hate it but part of the reason for introducing it would be to transfer wealth to workers and the young.
Absolutely not. The whole reason national insurance was created in the first place was so workers would contribute for insurance and benefits if unemployed and that expanded to contributions to fund state pensions and also some healthcare.
National insurance should be hypothecated and return to those aims. The inheritance tax threshold should be increased to £2 million instead so older people can ultimately pass on more of their assets to their children and grandchildren, nephews and nieces
Why shouldn't non-workers contribute to those things ?
And given that only about 5% of estates pay inheritance tax your idea would be a tax cut on unearned income for the very rich.
Is this really your view as to what the Conservative party should be for ?
They did, they paid in national insurance when they were working. Now most estates in the south especially are above the IHT threshold. Absolutely the Conservative party should be about preserving wealth and inheritance in the family, that is what Toryism has always been about, even before free market liberals joined it to keep out Labour
"preserving wealth and inheritance in the family" = not paying their fair share of taxes, especially on massive capital gains orchestrated by the "Conservative" Party. Which used to be one of hard work and self-respect. Now, no longer.
Not looking good for ukraine now sadly. From telegraph.
Ukraine’s counter-offensive is stalling. The West must prepare for humiliation
We cannot have a repeat of the foreign-policy errors that followed Putin’s 2014 Crimean land grab
RICHARD KEMP10 September 2023 • 11:00am
Time is running out for Ukraine. After 18 months of war, it is no longer a question of if the Western alliance will falter, but when. Since the start, despite making many of the right noises and supplying some military hardware, France and Germany, in particular, have been reluctant partners. Their leaders have often seemed more concerned with finding an “off-ramp” for Vladimir Putin than ejecting his forces from Ukraine. As well as dependency on Russian energy, a pacifist instinct among Western European political classes has led to neglect of their armed forces and a corresponding fear of escalation.
As the provider of the lion’s share of backing for Ukraine, it is the US calling the shots in this war. Yet, since the earliest days, President Biden, too, has been dragging his heels, giving just about enough military assistance to keep Ukraine fighting, but intentionally not enough to enable a victory.
Like his Western European allies, Biden has been successfully deterred by Putin’s empty threats of widening the war. Faint-hearted concerns over provoking Putin explains his failure to provide urgently-needed weapons, including combat planes and long-range missiles, and for his obstinate resistance against Nato membership for Ukraine.
Now, polls in both Europe and the US show public support for military aid to Kyiv dropping away, with one recent survey indicating that less than 50 per cent of Americans are in favour of additional funding. This at least partially reflects sluggish progress in Ukraine’s counter-offensive, which has seen only limited gains so far.
Western military analysts and the media built expectations that, this summer, Kyiv would repeat its striking victories of last autumn at Kharkiv and Kherson. Now, people are wondering how much bang they are getting for their buck, and whether the significant investment made by their countries will ever achieve anything concrete.
Advertisement
There is also growing disquiet about Ukrainian corruption, amplified by those voices who oppose American engagement in Europe for other reasons. Corruption concerns do need to be addressed, but they do not trump the West’s overriding strategic interest in preventing a Russian victory.
Zelensky obviously recognises the coming hinge point in Western support, and his recent actions may indicate a degree of alarm. He has, for example, jailed the allegedly corrupt tycoon and former provincial governor Igor Kolomoisky, a long-term ally and supporter. He sacked defence minister Oleksii Reznikov at the height of the war, again amid corruption allegations. The latter may signal a coming change to Ukraine’s military strategy.
On the subject of dangerous dogs, what about mandatory insurance?
As mentioned earlier, that would be a de facto ban for XLs as you can’t get insurance for them. Probably not a bad idea.
The reason that an simple ban won’t work is the fuckwits* who like this kind of dog will simply move to the next “completely not a violent dog for thugs” breed.
With insurance, the next breed will either not be insurable or not assessed yet. And hence unobtainable.
*various people will start whining that proper owners can make such dogs lovable pets. Yeah and responsible owners can make ownership of nuclear weapons AOK. But I my right to own plutonium is a tad restricted for some reason.
Also, DIY crossbreeding to create a new breed. Happens all the time. How much is too much bully?
Imagine trying to ban poodles. Then PC Plod sees something with curly hair. Oh no Officer, this cockapoo is absolutely not a poodle. No sir. And this? It's its daughter. No siree, not a poodle at all. And I forgot, officer - their mummy and grannyt wasn't a poodle but a Bedlington Terrier, and no way can you prove it ...
Oh do shut up. I've told you how to ban it, do it the Aussie way. On the look of the dog. And err on the side of severity if there is any doubt, so no one can own any dog that looks remotely like this
Anyway, Suella the Brave is gonna ban them, yay. First time the Tories have done something sensible for several months
What I am saying is that focussing on the breed is useless and that you need something like the Aussie way, yet the panic is all about a specific breed - or is it two? You named two earlier ...
I'll be very interested to see what Ms Braverman has in mind for legislation. Seeing as she also has to deal with all the future replacements for the XL Bully as well.
The insurance route would work best.
An encrypted, injected chip, linking to the insurance.
Easy to detect and read. No chip, dog impounded and destroyed in 30 days of no evidence of insurance provided (for cases where chip is defective)
100k fine for possessing an un-insured dog.
Insurance doesn't stop the dog attacking someone.
Many of the people with dangerous dogs would not be able to afford insurance and /or would not insure.
They wouldn't be able to afford the fine either
What do you do then? Jail the person? Put the dog down? Both?
There will still be problems, but far far fewer
Because if the dogs are banned you can’t take the dog outside, coz you will immediately be reported and your dog will be shot and you will get a fine
Result: no more Satan dogs in parks or streets, lots more happy unmauled kids and smaller non-psycho dogs etc
I can imagine neighbours might be fearful of reporting the sort of person who has a dangerous dog. And those who own them can be pretty brazen about it. I know a few people who have someone with an aggressive dog living near them and their coping strategy is to avoid the person and the dog (eg crossing the street). They don't report to police of the council dog warden because they've done that before and nothing happens. Even if the dog has attacked their dog.
Yes, but now the cops will be given the powers they need. And the coppers hate these dogs as much as anyone
And anyone can anonymously report a dog in a park, and these dogs need to be walked; the owner won't know who did it
A ban, should it happen (I wouldn't put it past this inept govt to flub it) will, I think, be effecitve enough to get the menace off our streets
The cops don't have the resources/can't be bothered to do the work they already have
Yes, anyone can report an anonymous dog in the park or the street. Do you expect the police to turn up immediately and apprehend the dog walker? Because otherwise how are they to know who the person is? It would have to be reported by someone who knows them, and where they live, which narrows things down considerably for the dog owner. Compare with drug dealers - how many of their neighbours dare report them despite them being responsible for mnay deaths?
In an ideal world insurance might work, but in the real world it will only increase the costs of owning a dog for responsible dog owners, and have little impact on getting dangerous dogs out of circulation
What a load of defeatist nonsense. A ban - with the threat of your dog being shot, if seen - means no one will walk the dogs, for fear of being spotted. These dogs will probably turn on their owners in madness (let's hope so). Anyway, end of problem
Without the demand for new dogs the breeders will stop spplying them, which mwans the breed disappears. This isn't hard. It works in Australia
Sorry to say it, but there are far too many dogs around now. Every third person seems to have one.
True, Andy.
Just had our little dog spayed. I was sad about it because she's a beuatiful dog, well bred and would be a good mum, but there are simply too many dogs around and the idea of putting another half-a-dozen or so border collie puppies on the market was just unacceptable.
I said it would take a horrible video to get them banned, and so it is. Well done Home Sec
FUCK THE RSPCA
Interesting politics of her linking to the DM story in her tweet, so they can claim the credit for the government finally taking action.
Yes, tho it might just be true: when the story went viral on the Mail - that was it. The comments under the story are blistering and angry: ban these dogs, where is the government, etc
I did specifically predict this, a few weeka ago; I said there will be a gruesome, unwatchable video featuring a child, and only then would the govt act. I am glad no kid actually had to die (in this case) to get this done
Red tape. Very un-Conservative.
Well, what other explanation is there, in all seriousness?
(Edit: very glad when something is done that is effective. I don't even like having pit bulls and Staffies around.)
Good on the PM for banning these dangerous XL Bully Dogs, now can we ensure owners of alsatians, pit bulls and rottweillers have to have a license too please
PM? Banning? News to me. Unless you are confusing Mr Sunak and Ms Braverman, not to mention the difference between tweeting and actually doing something.
On the subject of dangerous dogs, what about mandatory insurance?
As mentioned earlier, that would be a de facto ban for XLs as you can’t get insurance for them. Probably not a bad idea.
The reason that an simple ban won’t work is the fuckwits* who like this kind of dog will simply move to the next “completely not a violent dog for thugs” breed.
With insurance, the next breed will either not be insurable or not assessed yet. And hence unobtainable.
*various people will start whining that proper owners can make such dogs lovable pets. Yeah and responsible owners can make ownership of nuclear weapons AOK. But I my right to own plutonium is a tad restricted for some reason.
Also, DIY crossbreeding to create a new breed. Happens all the time. How much is too much bully?
Imagine trying to ban poodles. Then PC Plod sees something with curly hair. Oh no Officer, this cockapoo is absolutely not a poodle. No sir. And this? It's its daughter. No siree, not a poodle at all. And I forgot, officer - their mummy and grannyt wasn't a poodle but a Bedlington Terrier, and no way can you prove it ...
Oh do shut up. I've told you how to ban it, do it the Aussie way. On the look of the dog. And err on the side of severity if there is any doubt, so no one can own any dog that looks remotely like this
Anyway, Suella the Brave is gonna ban them, yay. First time the Tories have done something sensible for several months
What I am saying is that focussing on the breed is useless and that you need something like the Aussie way, yet the panic is all about a specific breed - or is it two? You named two earlier ...
I'll be very interested to see what Ms Braverman has in mind for legislation. Seeing as she also has to deal with all the future replacements for the XL Bully as well.
The insurance route would work best.
An encrypted, injected chip, linking to the insurance.
Easy to detect and read. No chip, dog impounded and destroyed in 30 days of no evidence of insurance provided (for cases where chip is defective)
100k fine for possessing an un-insured dog.
Insurance doesn't stop the dog attacking someone.
Many of the people with dangerous dogs would not be able to afford insurance and /or would not insure.
They wouldn't be able to afford the fine either
What do you do then? Jail the person? Put the dog down? Both?
There will still be problems, but far far fewer
Because if the dogs are banned you can’t take the dog outside, coz you will immediately be reported and your dog will be shot and you will get a fine
Result: no more Satan dogs in parks or streets, lots more happy unmauled kids and smaller non-psycho dogs etc
I can imagine neighbours might be fearful of reporting the sort of person who has a dangerous dog. And those who own them can be pretty brazen about it. I know a few people who have someone with an aggressive dog living near them and their coping strategy is to avoid the person and the dog (eg crossing the street). They don't report to police of the council dog warden because they've done that before and nothing happens. Even if the dog has attacked their dog.
Yes, but now the cops will be given the powers they need. And the coppers hate these dogs as much as anyone
And anyone can anonymously report a dog in a park, and these dogs need to be walked; the owner won't know who did it
A ban, should it happen (I wouldn't put it past this inept govt to flub it) will, I think, be effecitve enough to get the menace off our streets
The cops don't have the resources/can't be bothered to do the work they already have
Yes, anyone can report an anonymous dog in the park or the street. Do you expect the police to turn up immediately and apprehend the dog walker? Because otherwise how are they to know who the person is? It would have to be reported by someone who knows them, and where they live, which narrows things down considerably for the dog owner. Compare with drug dealers - how many of their neighbours dare report them despite them being responsible for mnay deaths?
In an ideal world insurance might work, but in the real world it will only increase the costs of owning a dog for responsible dog owners, and have little impact on getting dangerous dogs out of circulation
What a load of defeatist nonsense. A ban - with the threat of your dog being shot, if seen - means no one will walk the dogs, for fear of being spotted. These dogs will probably turn on their owners in madness (let's hope so). Anyway, end of problem
Without the demand for new dogs the breeders will stop spplying them, which mwans the breed disappears. This isn't hard. It works in Australia
Sorry to say it, but there are far too many dogs around now. Every third person seems to have one.
To be fair on XL Bullies, they are doing a good job reducing the number (particularly elderly spaniels).
I said it would take a horrible video to get them banned, and so it is. Well done Home Sec
FUCK THE RSPCA
Interesting politics of her linking to the DM story in her tweet, so they can claim the credit for the government finally taking action.
Yes, tho it might just be true: when the story went viral on the Mail - that was it. The comments under the story are blistering and angry: ban these dogs, where is the government, etc
I did specifically predict this, a few weeka ago; I said there will be a gruesome, unwatchable video featuring a child, and only then would the govt act. I am glad no kid actually had to die (in this case) to get this done
Red tape. Very un-Conservative.
Well, what other explanation is there, in all seriousness?
(Edit: very glad when something is done that is effective. I don't even like having pit bulls and Staffies around.)
Good on the PM for banning these dangerous XL Bully Dogs, now can we ensure owners of alsatians, pit bulls and rottweillers have to have a license too please
PM? Banning? News to me. Unless you are confusing Mr Sunak and Ms Braverman, not to mention the difference between tweeting and actually doing something.
And re other dogs, see my posts below.
The Home Secretary leads on criminal law and the PM is hardly going to contradict her when he gets back from the G20 given how popular a ban is with most voters and the Mail and tabloids (and Leon)
On the subject of dangerous dogs, what about mandatory insurance?
As mentioned earlier, that would be a de facto ban for XLs as you can’t get insurance for them. Probably not a bad idea.
The reason that an simple ban won’t work is the fuckwits* who like this kind of dog will simply move to the next “completely not a violent dog for thugs” breed.
With insurance, the next breed will either not be insurable or not assessed yet. And hence unobtainable.
*various people will start whining that proper owners can make such dogs lovable pets. Yeah and responsible owners can make ownership of nuclear weapons AOK. But I my right to own plutonium is a tad restricted for some reason.
Also, DIY crossbreeding to create a new breed. Happens all the time. How much is too much bully?
Imagine trying to ban poodles. Then PC Plod sees something with curly hair. Oh no Officer, this cockapoo is absolutely not a poodle. No sir. And this? It's its daughter. No siree, not a poodle at all. And I forgot, officer - their mummy and grannyt wasn't a poodle but a Bedlington Terrier, and no way can you prove it ...
Oh do shut up. I've told you how to ban it, do it the Aussie way. On the look of the dog. And err on the side of severity if there is any doubt, so no one can own any dog that looks remotely like this
Anyway, Suella the Brave is gonna ban them, yay. First time the Tories have done something sensible for several months
What I am saying is that focussing on the breed is useless and that you need something like the Aussie way, yet the panic is all about a specific breed - or is it two? You named two earlier ...
I'll be very interested to see what Ms Braverman has in mind for legislation. Seeing as she also has to deal with all the future replacements for the XL Bully as well.
The insurance route would work best.
An encrypted, injected chip, linking to the insurance.
Easy to detect and read. No chip, dog impounded and destroyed in 30 days of no evidence of insurance provided (for cases where chip is defective)
100k fine for possessing an un-insured dog.
Insurance doesn't stop the dog attacking someone.
Many of the people with dangerous dogs would not be able to afford insurance and /or would not insure.
They wouldn't be able to afford the fine either
What do you do then? Jail the person? Put the dog down? Both?
There will still be problems, but far far fewer
Because if the dogs are banned you can’t take the dog outside, coz you will immediately be reported and your dog will be shot and you will get a fine
Result: no more Satan dogs in parks or streets, lots more happy unmauled kids and smaller non-psycho dogs etc
I can imagine neighbours might be fearful of reporting the sort of person who has a dangerous dog. And those who own them can be pretty brazen about it. I know a few people who have someone with an aggressive dog living near them and their coping strategy is to avoid the person and the dog (eg crossing the street). They don't report to police of the council dog warden because they've done that before and nothing happens. Even if the dog has attacked their dog.
Yes, but now the cops will be given the powers they need. And the coppers hate these dogs as much as anyone
And anyone can anonymously report a dog in a park, and these dogs need to be walked; the owner won't know who did it
A ban, should it happen (I wouldn't put it past this inept govt to flub it) will, I think, be effecitve enough to get the menace off our streets
The cops don't have the resources/can't be bothered to do the work they already have
Yes, anyone can report an anonymous dog in the park or the street. Do you expect the police to turn up immediately and apprehend the dog walker? Because otherwise how are they to know who the person is? It would have to be reported by someone who knows them, and where they live, which narrows things down considerably for the dog owner. Compare with drug dealers - how many of their neighbours dare report them despite them being responsible for mnay deaths?
In an ideal world insurance might work, but in the real world it will only increase the costs of owning a dog for responsible dog owners, and have little impact on getting dangerous dogs out of circulation
What a load of defeatist nonsense. A ban - with the threat of your dog being shot, if seen - means no one will walk the dogs, for fear of being spotted. These dogs will probably turn on their owners in madness (let's hope so). Anyway, end of problem
Without the demand for new dogs the breeders will stop spplying them, which mwans the breed disappears. This isn't hard. It works in Australia
Not defeatist, just pointing out some potential pitfalls
If we just implemented every first idea someone suggested that sounded good, we'd be in a right mess.
Anyway, I'm sure the government will. Introduce some totally ineffective control measures, so this is probably a redundant discussion
OK, Kommissar Sensible, what would you do if you were Home Sec, confronted by that awful vid from Brum? Do nothing? That doesn't work. If you do nothing there will inevitably be another video in a day or two, possibly worse (a child dying? An old lady ripped apart) and then still more videos, and the public is clamouring for a ban, and social media is demanding a ban, and YOU will get the blame for any deaths after this video
She really had no choice. A ban it is. But what would you do that's "better"?
Well, she could have said she would be speaking to all people and agencies involved to understand the incident, what led to it and get any background information. To try to gain an understanding of the situation and how it could have been prevented. And to discuss with the police and the council what the barriers were for them to take pre-emptive action, and how these could be removed. (I suspect Birmingham City Council financial woes might feature heavily in the reposnse to that one)
An effective politician would take the time to find out the details and get a thorough understanding of the problem, and get input from people, like the community, local councils, police, vets, rspca etc before deciding on the best way forward.
I think it's an incredibly difficult problem, and tbh, I can't come up with a solution. A ban may seem obvious, but you have to game all the possible consequences. The first question is: *what* do you ban? If the breed, how do you define it? If the behaviour, how do you define that?
Not looking good for ukraine now sadly. From telegraph.
Ukraine’s counter-offensive is stalling. The West must prepare for humiliation
We cannot have a repeat of the foreign-policy errors that followed Putin’s 2014 Crimean land grab
RICHARD KEMP10 September 2023 • 11:00am
Time is running out for Ukraine. After 18 months of war, it is no longer a question of if the Western alliance will falter, but when. Since the start, despite making many of the right noises and supplying some military hardware, France and Germany, in particular, have been reluctant partners. Their leaders have often seemed more concerned with finding an “off-ramp” for Vladimir Putin than ejecting his forces from Ukraine. As well as dependency on Russian energy, a pacifist instinct among Western European political classes has led to neglect of their armed forces and a corresponding fear of escalation.
As the provider of the lion’s share of backing for Ukraine, it is the US calling the shots in this war. Yet, since the earliest days, President Biden, too, has been dragging his heels, giving just about enough military assistance to keep Ukraine fighting, but intentionally not enough to enable a victory.
Like his Western European allies, Biden has been successfully deterred by Putin’s empty threats of widening the war. Faint-hearted concerns over provoking Putin explains his failure to provide urgently-needed weapons, including combat planes and long-range missiles, and for his obstinate resistance against Nato membership for Ukraine.
Now, polls in both Europe and the US show public support for military aid to Kyiv dropping away, with one recent survey indicating that less than 50 per cent of Americans are in favour of additional funding. This at least partially reflects sluggish progress in Ukraine’s counter-offensive, which has seen only limited gains so far.
Western military analysts and the media built expectations that, this summer, Kyiv would repeat its striking victories of last autumn at Kharkiv and Kherson. Now, people are wondering how much bang they are getting for their buck, and whether the significant investment made by their countries will ever achieve anything concrete.
Advertisement
There is also growing disquiet about Ukrainian corruption, amplified by those voices who oppose American engagement in Europe for other reasons. Corruption concerns do need to be addressed, but they do not trump the West’s overriding strategic interest in preventing a Russian victory.
Zelensky obviously recognises the coming hinge point in Western support, and his recent actions may indicate a degree of alarm. He has, for example, jailed the allegedly corrupt tycoon and former provincial governor Igor Kolomoisky, a long-term ally and supporter. He sacked defence minister Oleksii Reznikov at the height of the war, again amid corruption allegations. The latter may signal a coming change to Ukraine’s military strategy.
Grim.
Hmmmm.
If you read the whole article rather than the semi-literate subeditor's headline and the selected quotations of Lardy Lad's associate, he's actually saying there are several things that can be done, the issue is they're not being done and if they aren't, things might go sour.
I've no idea whether he's right or not. I would say he seems to downplay the role of Biden in, for example, providing weapons based on what I know, but I could easily be wrong.
On the subject of dangerous dogs, what about mandatory insurance?
As mentioned earlier, that would be a de facto ban for XLs as you can’t get insurance for them. Probably not a bad idea.
The reason that an simple ban won’t work is the fuckwits* who like this kind of dog will simply move to the next “completely not a violent dog for thugs” breed.
With insurance, the next breed will either not be insurable or not assessed yet. And hence unobtainable.
*various people will start whining that proper owners can make such dogs lovable pets. Yeah and responsible owners can make ownership of nuclear weapons AOK. But I my right to own plutonium is a tad restricted for some reason.
Also, DIY crossbreeding to create a new breed. Happens all the time. How much is too much bully?
Imagine trying to ban poodles. Then PC Plod sees something with curly hair. Oh no Officer, this cockapoo is absolutely not a poodle. No sir. And this? It's its daughter. No siree, not a poodle at all. And I forgot, officer - their mummy and grannyt wasn't a poodle but a Bedlington Terrier, and no way can you prove it ...
Oh do shut up. I've told you how to ban it, do it the Aussie way. On the look of the dog. And err on the side of severity if there is any doubt, so no one can own any dog that looks remotely like this
Anyway, Suella the Brave is gonna ban them, yay. First time the Tories have done something sensible for several months
What I am saying is that focussing on the breed is useless and that you need something like the Aussie way, yet the panic is all about a specific breed - or is it two? You named two earlier ...
I'll be very interested to see what Ms Braverman has in mind for legislation. Seeing as she also has to deal with all the future replacements for the XL Bully as well.
The insurance route would work best.
An encrypted, injected chip, linking to the insurance.
Easy to detect and read. No chip, dog impounded and destroyed in 30 days of no evidence of insurance provided (for cases where chip is defective)
100k fine for possessing an un-insured dog.
Insurance doesn't stop the dog attacking someone.
Many of the people with dangerous dogs would not be able to afford insurance and /or would not insure.
They wouldn't be able to afford the fine either
What do you do then? Jail the person? Put the dog down? Both?
There will still be problems, but far far fewer
Because if the dogs are banned you can’t take the dog outside, coz you will immediately be reported and your dog will be shot and you will get a fine
Result: no more Satan dogs in parks or streets, lots more happy unmauled kids and smaller non-psycho dogs etc
I can imagine neighbours might be fearful of reporting the sort of person who has a dangerous dog. And those who own them can be pretty brazen about it. I know a few people who have someone with an aggressive dog living near them and their coping strategy is to avoid the person and the dog (eg crossing the street). They don't report to police of the council dog warden because they've done that before and nothing happens. Even if the dog has attacked their dog.
Yes, but now the cops will be given the powers they need. And the coppers hate these dogs as much as anyone
And anyone can anonymously report a dog in a park, and these dogs need to be walked; the owner won't know who did it
A ban, should it happen (I wouldn't put it past this inept govt to flub it) will, I think, be effecitve enough to get the menace off our streets
The cops don't have the resources/can't be bothered to do the work they already have
Yes, anyone can report an anonymous dog in the park or the street. Do you expect the police to turn up immediately and apprehend the dog walker? Because otherwise how are they to know who the person is? It would have to be reported by someone who knows them, and where they live, which narrows things down considerably for the dog owner. Compare with drug dealers - how many of their neighbours dare report them despite them being responsible for mnay deaths?
In an ideal world insurance might work, but in the real world it will only increase the costs of owning a dog for responsible dog owners, and have little impact on getting dangerous dogs out of circulation
What a load of defeatist nonsense. A ban - with the threat of your dog being shot, if seen - means no one will walk the dogs, for fear of being spotted. These dogs will probably turn on their owners in madness (let's hope so). Anyway, end of problem
Without the demand for new dogs the breeders will stop spplying them, which mwans the breed disappears. This isn't hard. It works in Australia
Sorry to say it, but there are far too many dogs around now. Every third person seems to have one.
True, Andy.
Just had our little dog spayed. I was sad about it because she's a beuatiful dog, well bred and would be a good mum, but there are simply too many dogs around and the idea of putting another half-a-dozen or so border collie puppies on the market was just unacceptable.
Quite so.
A friend of mine had his dog (collie x lurcher or terrier) castrated as well. He was lying on its back on its bean bag with its four legs up in the air while I was playing chess with his "owner". I was hopelessly handicapped in the game by the utterly uneasy feeling there was something missing but I couldn't put my finger on it ...
On the subject of dangerous dogs, what about mandatory insurance?
As mentioned earlier, that would be a de facto ban for XLs as you can’t get insurance for them. Probably not a bad idea.
The reason that an simple ban won’t work is the fuckwits* who like this kind of dog will simply move to the next “completely not a violent dog for thugs” breed.
With insurance, the next breed will either not be insurable or not assessed yet. And hence unobtainable.
*various people will start whining that proper owners can make such dogs lovable pets. Yeah and responsible owners can make ownership of nuclear weapons AOK. But I my right to own plutonium is a tad restricted for some reason.
Also, DIY crossbreeding to create a new breed. Happens all the time. How much is too much bully?
Imagine trying to ban poodles. Then PC Plod sees something with curly hair. Oh no Officer, this cockapoo is absolutely not a poodle. No sir. And this? It's its daughter. No siree, not a poodle at all. And I forgot, officer - their mummy and grannyt wasn't a poodle but a Bedlington Terrier, and no way can you prove it ...
Oh do shut up. I've told you how to ban it, do it the Aussie way. On the look of the dog. And err on the side of severity if there is any doubt, so no one can own any dog that looks remotely like this
Anyway, Suella the Brave is gonna ban them, yay. First time the Tories have done something sensible for several months
What I am saying is that focussing on the breed is useless and that you need something like the Aussie way, yet the panic is all about a specific breed - or is it two? You named two earlier ...
I'll be very interested to see what Ms Braverman has in mind for legislation. Seeing as she also has to deal with all the future replacements for the XL Bully as well.
The insurance route would work best.
An encrypted, injected chip, linking to the insurance.
Easy to detect and read. No chip, dog impounded and destroyed in 30 days of no evidence of insurance provided (for cases where chip is defective)
100k fine for possessing an un-insured dog.
Insurance doesn't stop the dog attacking someone.
Many of the people with dangerous dogs would not be able to afford insurance and /or would not insure.
They wouldn't be able to afford the fine either
What do you do then? Jail the person? Put the dog down? Both?
There will still be problems, but far far fewer
Because if the dogs are banned you can’t take the dog outside, coz you will immediately be reported and your dog will be shot and you will get a fine
Result: no more Satan dogs in parks or streets, lots more happy unmauled kids and smaller non-psycho dogs etc
I can imagine neighbours might be fearful of reporting the sort of person who has a dangerous dog. And those who own them can be pretty brazen about it. I know a few people who have someone with an aggressive dog living near them and their coping strategy is to avoid the person and the dog (eg crossing the street). They don't report to police of the council dog warden because they've done that before and nothing happens. Even if the dog has attacked their dog.
Yes, but now the cops will be given the powers they need. And the coppers hate these dogs as much as anyone
And anyone can anonymously report a dog in a park, and these dogs need to be walked; the owner won't know who did it
A ban, should it happen (I wouldn't put it past this inept govt to flub it) will, I think, be effecitve enough to get the menace off our streets
The cops don't have the resources/can't be bothered to do the work they already have
Yes, anyone can report an anonymous dog in the park or the street. Do you expect the police to turn up immediately and apprehend the dog walker? Because otherwise how are they to know who the person is? It would have to be reported by someone who knows them, and where they live, which narrows things down considerably for the dog owner. Compare with drug dealers - how many of their neighbours dare report them despite them being responsible for mnay deaths?
In an ideal world insurance might work, but in the real world it will only increase the costs of owning a dog for responsible dog owners, and have little impact on getting dangerous dogs out of circulation
What a load of defeatist nonsense. A ban - with the threat of your dog being shot, if seen - means no one will walk the dogs, for fear of being spotted. These dogs will probably turn on their owners in madness (let's hope so). Anyway, end of problem
Without the demand for new dogs the breeders will stop spplying them, which mwans the breed disappears. This isn't hard. It works in Australia
Sorry to say it, but there are far too many dogs around now. Every third person seems to have one.
True, Andy.
Just had our little dog spayed. I was sad about it because she's a beuatiful dog, well bred and would be a good mum, but there are simply too many dogs around and the idea of putting another half-a-dozen or so border collie puppies on the market was just unacceptable.
Quite so.
A friend of mine had his dog (collie x lurcher or terrier) castrated as well. He was lying on its back on its bean bag with its four legs up in the air while I was playing chess with his "owner". I was hopelessly handicapped in the game by the utterly uneasy feeling there was something missing but I couldn't put my finger on it ...
Why were you playing chess next to a dog while it was being castrated?
I said it would take a horrible video to get them banned, and so it is. Well done Home Sec
FUCK THE RSPCA
Interesting politics of her linking to the DM story in her tweet, so they can claim the credit for the government finally taking action.
Yes, tho it might just be true: when the story went viral on the Mail - that was it. The comments under the story are blistering and angry: ban these dogs, where is the government, etc
I did specifically predict this, a few weeka ago; I said there will be a gruesome, unwatchable video featuring a child, and only then would the govt act. I am glad no kid actually had to die (in this case) to get this done
Red tape. Very un-Conservative.
Well, what other explanation is there, in all seriousness?
(Edit: very glad when something is done that is effective. I don't even like having pit bulls and Staffies around.)
Good on the PM for banning these dangerous XL Bully Dogs, now can we ensure owners of alsatians, pit bulls and rottweillers have to have a license too please
PM? Banning? News to me. Unless you are confusing Mr Sunak and Ms Braverman, not to mention the difference between tweeting and actually doing something.
And re other dogs, see my posts below.
The Home Secretary leads on criminal law and the PM is hardly going to contradict her when he gets back from the G20 given how popular a ban is with most voters and the Mail and tabloids (and Leon)
You said "Good on the PM for banning". Unless English comprehension has changed since I were a bairn, that's not the same thing at all.
On the subject of dangerous dogs, what about mandatory insurance?
As mentioned earlier, that would be a de facto ban for XLs as you can’t get insurance for them. Probably not a bad idea.
The reason that an simple ban won’t work is the fuckwits* who like this kind of dog will simply move to the next “completely not a violent dog for thugs” breed.
With insurance, the next breed will either not be insurable or not assessed yet. And hence unobtainable.
*various people will start whining that proper owners can make such dogs lovable pets. Yeah and responsible owners can make ownership of nuclear weapons AOK. But I my right to own plutonium is a tad restricted for some reason.
Also, DIY crossbreeding to create a new breed. Happens all the time. How much is too much bully?
Imagine trying to ban poodles. Then PC Plod sees something with curly hair. Oh no Officer, this cockapoo is absolutely not a poodle. No sir. And this? It's its daughter. No siree, not a poodle at all. And I forgot, officer - their mummy and grannyt wasn't a poodle but a Bedlington Terrier, and no way can you prove it ...
Oh do shut up. I've told you how to ban it, do it the Aussie way. On the look of the dog. And err on the side of severity if there is any doubt, so no one can own any dog that looks remotely like this
Anyway, Suella the Brave is gonna ban them, yay. First time the Tories have done something sensible for several months
What I am saying is that focussing on the breed is useless and that you need something like the Aussie way, yet the panic is all about a specific breed - or is it two? You named two earlier ...
I'll be very interested to see what Ms Braverman has in mind for legislation. Seeing as she also has to deal with all the future replacements for the XL Bully as well.
The insurance route would work best.
An encrypted, injected chip, linking to the insurance.
Easy to detect and read. No chip, dog impounded and destroyed in 30 days of no evidence of insurance provided (for cases where chip is defective)
100k fine for possessing an un-insured dog.
Insurance doesn't stop the dog attacking someone.
Many of the people with dangerous dogs would not be able to afford insurance and /or would not insure.
They wouldn't be able to afford the fine either
What do you do then? Jail the person? Put the dog down? Both?
There will still be problems, but far far fewer
Because if the dogs are banned you can’t take the dog outside, coz you will immediately be reported and your dog will be shot and you will get a fine
Result: no more Satan dogs in parks or streets, lots more happy unmauled kids and smaller non-psycho dogs etc
I can imagine neighbours might be fearful of reporting the sort of person who has a dangerous dog. And those who own them can be pretty brazen about it. I know a few people who have someone with an aggressive dog living near them and their coping strategy is to avoid the person and the dog (eg crossing the street). They don't report to police of the council dog warden because they've done that before and nothing happens. Even if the dog has attacked their dog.
Yes, but now the cops will be given the powers they need. And the coppers hate these dogs as much as anyone
And anyone can anonymously report a dog in a park, and these dogs need to be walked; the owner won't know who did it
A ban, should it happen (I wouldn't put it past this inept govt to flub it) will, I think, be effecitve enough to get the menace off our streets
The cops don't have the resources/can't be bothered to do the work they already have
Yes, anyone can report an anonymous dog in the park or the street. Do you expect the police to turn up immediately and apprehend the dog walker? Because otherwise how are they to know who the person is? It would have to be reported by someone who knows them, and where they live, which narrows things down considerably for the dog owner. Compare with drug dealers - how many of their neighbours dare report them despite them being responsible for mnay deaths?
In an ideal world insurance might work, but in the real world it will only increase the costs of owning a dog for responsible dog owners, and have little impact on getting dangerous dogs out of circulation
What a load of defeatist nonsense. A ban - with the threat of your dog being shot, if seen - means no one will walk the dogs, for fear of being spotted. These dogs will probably turn on their owners in madness (let's hope so). Anyway, end of problem
Without the demand for new dogs the breeders will stop spplying them, which mwans the breed disappears. This isn't hard. It works in Australia
Citation, please? I'd be interested to know *how* it works in Australia, actually.
I wondered that too. I suspect Australia's stringent controls on import of animals (including semen and ova) would prevent a lot of dog breeds getting into the country in the first place. Thus, once most of the problem animals in the country have been eliminated, there will no longer be a problem.
What would be the effect of removing national insurance on employment income and putting it on non-employment income ?
I suppose you could do it on a gradual basis by decreasing the first and increasing the second by 1% a year until they were level.
Obviously the rentiers and oldies would hate it but part of the reason for introducing it would be to transfer wealth to workers and the young.
Absolutely not. The whole reason national insurance was created in the first place was so workers would contribute for insurance and benefits if unemployed and that expanded to contributions to fund state pensions and also some healthcare.
National insurance should be hypothecated and return to those aims. The inheritance tax threshold should be increased to £2 million instead so older people can ultimately pass on more of their assets to their children and grandchildren, nephews and nieces
Why shouldn't non-workers contribute to those things ?
And given that only about 5% of estates pay inheritance tax your idea would be a tax cut on unearned income for the very rich.
Is this really your view as to what the Conservative party should be for ?
They did, they paid in national insurance when they were working. Now most estates in the south especially are above the IHT threshold. Absolutely the Conservative party should be about preserving wealth and inheritance in the family, that is what Toryism has always been about, even before free market liberals joined it to keep out Labour
"preserving wealth and inheritance in the family" = not paying their fair share of taxes, especially on massive capital gains orchestrated by the "Conservative" Party. Which used to be one of hard work and self-respect. Now, no longer.
They already paid tax on that estate and income and assets their working life.
The Tory party has always been a party which has supported inherited wealth, indeed even Thatcher would arguably have been a Gladstone free market Liberal rather than a Tory in the 19th century. Today's Conservative Party does indeed support hard work and the free market on the whole (certainly compared to Labour) but those are add ons from free market liberals, inheritance is more a cornerstone of Toryism
On the subject of dangerous dogs, what about mandatory insurance?
As mentioned earlier, that would be a de facto ban for XLs as you can’t get insurance for them. Probably not a bad idea.
The reason that an simple ban won’t work is the fuckwits* who like this kind of dog will simply move to the next “completely not a violent dog for thugs” breed.
With insurance, the next breed will either not be insurable or not assessed yet. And hence unobtainable.
*various people will start whining that proper owners can make such dogs lovable pets. Yeah and responsible owners can make ownership of nuclear weapons AOK. But I my right to own plutonium is a tad restricted for some reason.
Also, DIY crossbreeding to create a new breed. Happens all the time. How much is too much bully?
Imagine trying to ban poodles. Then PC Plod sees something with curly hair. Oh no Officer, this cockapoo is absolutely not a poodle. No sir. And this? It's its daughter. No siree, not a poodle at all. And I forgot, officer - their mummy and grannyt wasn't a poodle but a Bedlington Terrier, and no way can you prove it ...
Oh do shut up. I've told you how to ban it, do it the Aussie way. On the look of the dog. And err on the side of severity if there is any doubt, so no one can own any dog that looks remotely like this
Anyway, Suella the Brave is gonna ban them, yay. First time the Tories have done something sensible for several months
What I am saying is that focussing on the breed is useless and that you need something like the Aussie way, yet the panic is all about a specific breed - or is it two? You named two earlier ...
I'll be very interested to see what Ms Braverman has in mind for legislation. Seeing as she also has to deal with all the future replacements for the XL Bully as well.
The insurance route would work best.
An encrypted, injected chip, linking to the insurance.
Easy to detect and read. No chip, dog impounded and destroyed in 30 days of no evidence of insurance provided (for cases where chip is defective)
100k fine for possessing an un-insured dog.
Insurance doesn't stop the dog attacking someone.
Many of the people with dangerous dogs would not be able to afford insurance and /or would not insure.
They wouldn't be able to afford the fine either
What do you do then? Jail the person? Put the dog down? Both?
There will still be problems, but far far fewer
Because if the dogs are banned you can’t take the dog outside, coz you will immediately be reported and your dog will be shot and you will get a fine
Result: no more Satan dogs in parks or streets, lots more happy unmauled kids and smaller non-psycho dogs etc
I can imagine neighbours might be fearful of reporting the sort of person who has a dangerous dog. And those who own them can be pretty brazen about it. I know a few people who have someone with an aggressive dog living near them and their coping strategy is to avoid the person and the dog (eg crossing the street). They don't report to police of the council dog warden because they've done that before and nothing happens. Even if the dog has attacked their dog.
Yes, but now the cops will be given the powers they need. And the coppers hate these dogs as much as anyone
And anyone can anonymously report a dog in a park, and these dogs need to be walked; the owner won't know who did it
A ban, should it happen (I wouldn't put it past this inept govt to flub it) will, I think, be effecitve enough to get the menace off our streets
The cops don't have the resources/can't be bothered to do the work they already have
Yes, anyone can report an anonymous dog in the park or the street. Do you expect the police to turn up immediately and apprehend the dog walker? Because otherwise how are they to know who the person is? It would have to be reported by someone who knows them, and where they live, which narrows things down considerably for the dog owner. Compare with drug dealers - how many of their neighbours dare report them despite them being responsible for mnay deaths?
In an ideal world insurance might work, but in the real world it will only increase the costs of owning a dog for responsible dog owners, and have little impact on getting dangerous dogs out of circulation
What a load of defeatist nonsense. A ban - with the threat of your dog being shot, if seen - means no one will walk the dogs, for fear of being spotted. These dogs will probably turn on their owners in madness (let's hope so). Anyway, end of problem
Without the demand for new dogs the breeders will stop spplying them, which mwans the breed disappears. This isn't hard. It works in Australia
Sorry to say it, but there are far too many dogs around now. Every third person seems to have one.
True, Andy.
Just had our little dog spayed. I was sad about it because she's a beuatiful dog, well bred and would be a good mum, but there are simply too many dogs around and the idea of putting another half-a-dozen or so border collie puppies on the market was just unacceptable.
Quite so.
A friend of mine had his dog (collie x lurcher or terrier) castrated as well. He was lying on its back on its bean bag with its four legs up in the air while I was playing chess with his "owner". I was hopelessly handicapped in the game by the utterly uneasy feeling there was something missing but I couldn't put my finger on it ...
Why were you playing chess next to a dog while it was being castrated?
I said 'had' not 'was having'. But yes, ambiguity there. I stand or rather lie corrected, thanks.
On the subject of dangerous dogs, what about mandatory insurance?
As mentioned earlier, that would be a de facto ban for XLs as you can’t get insurance for them. Probably not a bad idea.
The reason that an simple ban won’t work is the fuckwits* who like this kind of dog will simply move to the next “completely not a violent dog for thugs” breed.
With insurance, the next breed will either not be insurable or not assessed yet. And hence unobtainable.
*various people will start whining that proper owners can make such dogs lovable pets. Yeah and responsible owners can make ownership of nuclear weapons AOK. But I my right to own plutonium is a tad restricted for some reason.
Also, DIY crossbreeding to create a new breed. Happens all the time. How much is too much bully?
Imagine trying to ban poodles. Then PC Plod sees something with curly hair. Oh no Officer, this cockapoo is absolutely not a poodle. No sir. And this? It's its daughter. No siree, not a poodle at all. And I forgot, officer - their mummy and grannyt wasn't a poodle but a Bedlington Terrier, and no way can you prove it ...
Oh do shut up. I've told you how to ban it, do it the Aussie way. On the look of the dog. And err on the side of severity if there is any doubt, so no one can own any dog that looks remotely like this
Anyway, Suella the Brave is gonna ban them, yay. First time the Tories have done something sensible for several months
What I am saying is that focussing on the breed is useless and that you need something like the Aussie way, yet the panic is all about a specific breed - or is it two? You named two earlier ...
I'll be very interested to see what Ms Braverman has in mind for legislation. Seeing as she also has to deal with all the future replacements for the XL Bully as well.
The insurance route would work best.
An encrypted, injected chip, linking to the insurance.
Easy to detect and read. No chip, dog impounded and destroyed in 30 days of no evidence of insurance provided (for cases where chip is defective)
100k fine for possessing an un-insured dog.
Insurance doesn't stop the dog attacking someone.
Many of the people with dangerous dogs would not be able to afford insurance and /or would not insure.
They wouldn't be able to afford the fine either
What do you do then? Jail the person? Put the dog down? Both?
There will still be problems, but far far fewer
Because if the dogs are banned you can’t take the dog outside, coz you will immediately be reported and your dog will be shot and you will get a fine
Result: no more Satan dogs in parks or streets, lots more happy unmauled kids and smaller non-psycho dogs etc
I can imagine neighbours might be fearful of reporting the sort of person who has a dangerous dog. And those who own them can be pretty brazen about it. I know a few people who have someone with an aggressive dog living near them and their coping strategy is to avoid the person and the dog (eg crossing the street). They don't report to police of the council dog warden because they've done that before and nothing happens. Even if the dog has attacked their dog.
Yes, but now the cops will be given the powers they need. And the coppers hate these dogs as much as anyone
And anyone can anonymously report a dog in a park, and these dogs need to be walked; the owner won't know who did it
A ban, should it happen (I wouldn't put it past this inept govt to flub it) will, I think, be effecitve enough to get the menace off our streets
The cops don't have the resources/can't be bothered to do the work they already have
Yes, anyone can report an anonymous dog in the park or the street. Do you expect the police to turn up immediately and apprehend the dog walker? Because otherwise how are they to know who the person is? It would have to be reported by someone who knows them, and where they live, which narrows things down considerably for the dog owner. Compare with drug dealers - how many of their neighbours dare report them despite them being responsible for mnay deaths?
In an ideal world insurance might work, but in the real world it will only increase the costs of owning a dog for responsible dog owners, and have little impact on getting dangerous dogs out of circulation
What a load of defeatist nonsense. A ban - with the threat of your dog being shot, if seen - means no one will walk the dogs, for fear of being spotted. These dogs will probably turn on their owners in madness (let's hope so). Anyway, end of problem
Without the demand for new dogs the breeders will stop spplying them, which mwans the breed disappears. This isn't hard. It works in Australia
Sorry to say it, but there are far too many dogs around now. Every third person seems to have one.
I thought you were all for individual freedom.
For what it's worth I agree dangerous dog breed should be banned.
Braverman has total control over this since according to the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, the following dogs are banned:
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.
On the subject of dangerous dogs, what about mandatory insurance?
As mentioned earlier, that would be a de facto ban for XLs as you can’t get insurance for them. Probably not a bad idea.
The reason that an simple ban won’t work is the fuckwits* who like this kind of dog will simply move to the next “completely not a violent dog for thugs” breed.
With insurance, the next breed will either not be insurable or not assessed yet. And hence unobtainable.
*various people will start whining that proper owners can make such dogs lovable pets. Yeah and responsible owners can make ownership of nuclear weapons AOK. But I my right to own plutonium is a tad restricted for some reason.
Also, DIY crossbreeding to create a new breed. Happens all the time. How much is too much bully?
Imagine trying to ban poodles. Then PC Plod sees something with curly hair. Oh no Officer, this cockapoo is absolutely not a poodle. No sir. And this? It's its daughter. No siree, not a poodle at all. And I forgot, officer - their mummy and grannyt wasn't a poodle but a Bedlington Terrier, and no way can you prove it ...
Oh do shut up. I've told you how to ban it, do it the Aussie way. On the look of the dog. And err on the side of severity if there is any doubt, so no one can own any dog that looks remotely like this
Anyway, Suella the Brave is gonna ban them, yay. First time the Tories have done something sensible for several months
What I am saying is that focussing on the breed is useless and that you need something like the Aussie way, yet the panic is all about a specific breed - or is it two? You named two earlier ...
I'll be very interested to see what Ms Braverman has in mind for legislation. Seeing as she also has to deal with all the future replacements for the XL Bully as well.
The insurance route would work best.
An encrypted, injected chip, linking to the insurance.
Easy to detect and read. No chip, dog impounded and destroyed in 30 days of no evidence of insurance provided (for cases where chip is defective)
100k fine for possessing an un-insured dog.
Insurance doesn't stop the dog attacking someone.
Many of the people with dangerous dogs would not be able to afford insurance and /or would not insure.
They wouldn't be able to afford the fine either
What do you do then? Jail the person? Put the dog down? Both?
There will still be problems, but far far fewer
Because if the dogs are banned you can’t take the dog outside, coz you will immediately be reported and your dog will be shot and you will get a fine
Result: no more Satan dogs in parks or streets, lots more happy unmauled kids and smaller non-psycho dogs etc
I can imagine neighbours might be fearful of reporting the sort of person who has a dangerous dog. And those who own them can be pretty brazen about it. I know a few people who have someone with an aggressive dog living near them and their coping strategy is to avoid the person and the dog (eg crossing the street). They don't report to police of the council dog warden because they've done that before and nothing happens. Even if the dog has attacked their dog.
Yes, but now the cops will be given the powers they need. And the coppers hate these dogs as much as anyone
And anyone can anonymously report a dog in a park, and these dogs need to be walked; the owner won't know who did it
A ban, should it happen (I wouldn't put it past this inept govt to flub it) will, I think, be effecitve enough to get the menace off our streets
The cops don't have the resources/can't be bothered to do the work they already have
Yes, anyone can report an anonymous dog in the park or the street. Do you expect the police to turn up immediately and apprehend the dog walker? Because otherwise how are they to know who the person is? It would have to be reported by someone who knows them, and where they live, which narrows things down considerably for the dog owner. Compare with drug dealers - how many of their neighbours dare report them despite them being responsible for mnay deaths?
In an ideal world insurance might work, but in the real world it will only increase the costs of owning a dog for responsible dog owners, and have little impact on getting dangerous dogs out of circulation
What a load of defeatist nonsense. A ban - with the threat of your dog being shot, if seen - means no one will walk the dogs, for fear of being spotted. These dogs will probably turn on their owners in madness (let's hope so). Anyway, end of problem
Without the demand for new dogs the breeders will stop spplying them, which mwans the breed disappears. This isn't hard. It works in Australia
Sorry to say it, but there are far too many dogs around now. Every third person seems to have one.
I thought you were all for individual freedom.
For what it's worth I agree dangerous dog breed should be banned. Braverman has total controll over this since according to the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, the following dogs are banned:
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.
Yes, as the legal expert on Twitter has pointed out, all that is needed is for the Home Sec to tick a box marked "XL Bully?" and that's that. No new legislation required, no Parliamentary debate. Just do it
What would be the effect of removing national insurance on employment income and putting it on non-employment income ?
I suppose you could do it on a gradual basis by decreasing the first and increasing the second by 1% a year until they were level.
Obviously the rentiers and oldies would hate it but part of the reason for introducing it would be to transfer wealth to workers and the young.
Absolutely not. The whole reason national insurance was created in the first place was so workers would contribute for insurance and benefits if unemployed and that expanded to contributions to fund state pensions and also some healthcare.
National insurance should be hypothecated and return to those aims. The inheritance tax threshold should be increased to £2 million instead so older people can ultimately pass on more of their assets to their children and grandchildren, nephews and nieces
Why shouldn't non-workers contribute to those things ?
And given that only about 5% of estates pay inheritance tax your idea would be a tax cut on unearned income for the very rich.
Is this really your view as to what the Conservative party should be for ?
They did, they paid in national insurance when they were working. Now most estates in the south especially are above the IHT threshold. Absolutely the Conservative party should be about preserving wealth and inheritance in the family, that is what Toryism has always been about, even before free market liberals joined it to keep out Labour
"preserving wealth and inheritance in the family" = not paying their fair share of taxes, especially on massive capital gains orchestrated by the "Conservative" Party. Which used to be one of hard work and self-respect. Now, no longer.
They already paid tax on that estate and income and assets their working life.
The Tory party has always been a party which has supported inherited wealth, indeed even Thatcher would arguably have been a Gladstone free market Liberal rather than a Tory in the 19th century. Today's Conservative Party does indeed support hard work and the free market on the whole (certainly compared to Labour) but those are add ons from free market liberals, inheritance is more a cornerstone of Toryism
THEY DID NOT PAY TAX ON THAT INCOME FROM MASSIVE CAPITAL GAINS.
Look at how estates are de facto immune from CGT.
CGT allowance when you are alive - 6k, 3K next year.
On the subject of dangerous dogs, what about mandatory insurance?
As mentioned earlier, that would be a de facto ban for XLs as you can’t get insurance for them. Probably not a bad idea.
The reason that an simple ban won’t work is the fuckwits* who like this kind of dog will simply move to the next “completely not a violent dog for thugs” breed.
With insurance, the next breed will either not be insurable or not assessed yet. And hence unobtainable.
*various people will start whining that proper owners can make such dogs lovable pets. Yeah and responsible owners can make ownership of nuclear weapons AOK. But I my right to own plutonium is a tad restricted for some reason.
Also, DIY crossbreeding to create a new breed. Happens all the time. How much is too much bully?
Imagine trying to ban poodles. Then PC Plod sees something with curly hair. Oh no Officer, this cockapoo is absolutely not a poodle. No sir. And this? It's its daughter. No siree, not a poodle at all. And I forgot, officer - their mummy and grannyt wasn't a poodle but a Bedlington Terrier, and no way can you prove it ...
Oh do shut up. I've told you how to ban it, do it the Aussie way. On the look of the dog. And err on the side of severity if there is any doubt, so no one can own any dog that looks remotely like this
Anyway, Suella the Brave is gonna ban them, yay. First time the Tories have done something sensible for several months
What I am saying is that focussing on the breed is useless and that you need something like the Aussie way, yet the panic is all about a specific breed - or is it two? You named two earlier ...
I'll be very interested to see what Ms Braverman has in mind for legislation. Seeing as she also has to deal with all the future replacements for the XL Bully as well.
The insurance route would work best.
An encrypted, injected chip, linking to the insurance.
Easy to detect and read. No chip, dog impounded and destroyed in 30 days of no evidence of insurance provided (for cases where chip is defective)
100k fine for possessing an un-insured dog.
Insurance doesn't stop the dog attacking someone.
Many of the people with dangerous dogs would not be able to afford insurance and /or would not insure.
They wouldn't be able to afford the fine either
What do you do then? Jail the person? Put the dog down? Both?
There will still be problems, but far far fewer
Because if the dogs are banned you can’t take the dog outside, coz you will immediately be reported and your dog will be shot and you will get a fine
Result: no more Satan dogs in parks or streets, lots more happy unmauled kids and smaller non-psycho dogs etc
I can imagine neighbours might be fearful of reporting the sort of person who has a dangerous dog. And those who own them can be pretty brazen about it. I know a few people who have someone with an aggressive dog living near them and their coping strategy is to avoid the person and the dog (eg crossing the street). They don't report to police of the council dog warden because they've done that before and nothing happens. Even if the dog has attacked their dog.
Yes, but now the cops will be given the powers they need. And the coppers hate these dogs as much as anyone
And anyone can anonymously report a dog in a park, and these dogs need to be walked; the owner won't know who did it
A ban, should it happen (I wouldn't put it past this inept govt to flub it) will, I think, be effecitve enough to get the menace off our streets
The cops don't have the resources/can't be bothered to do the work they already have
Yes, anyone can report an anonymous dog in the park or the street. Do you expect the police to turn up immediately and apprehend the dog walker? Because otherwise how are they to know who the person is? It would have to be reported by someone who knows them, and where they live, which narrows things down considerably for the dog owner. Compare with drug dealers - how many of their neighbours dare report them despite them being responsible for mnay deaths?
In an ideal world insurance might work, but in the real world it will only increase the costs of owning a dog for responsible dog owners, and have little impact on getting dangerous dogs out of circulation
What a load of defeatist nonsense. A ban - with the threat of your dog being shot, if seen - means no one will walk the dogs, for fear of being spotted. These dogs will probably turn on their owners in madness (let's hope so). Anyway, end of problem
Without the demand for new dogs the breeders will stop spplying them, which mwans the breed disappears. This isn't hard. It works in Australia
Not defeatist, just pointing out some potential pitfalls
If we just implemented every first idea someone suggested that sounded good, we'd be in a right mess.
Anyway, I'm sure the government will. Introduce some totally ineffective control measures, so this is probably a redundant discussion
OK, Kommissar Sensible, what would you do if you were Home Sec, confronted by that awful vid from Brum? Do nothing? That doesn't work. If you do nothing there will inevitably be another video in a day or two, possibly worse (a child dying? An old lady ripped apart) and then still more videos, and the public is clamouring for a ban, and social media is demanding a ban, and YOU will get the blame for any deaths after this video
She really had no choice. A ban it is. But what would you do that's "better"?
Well, she could have said she would be speaking to all people and agencies involved to understand the incident, what led to it and get any background information. To try to gain an understanding of the situation and how it could have been prevented. And to discuss with the police and the council what the barriers were for them to take pre-emptive action, and how these could be removed. (I suspect Birmingham City Council financial woes might feature heavily in the reposnse to that one)
An effective politician would take the time to find out the details and get a thorough understanding of the problem, and get input from people, like the community, local councils, police, vets, rspca etc before deciding on the best way forward.
I think it's an incredibly difficult problem, and tbh, I can't come up with a solution. A ban may seem obvious, but you have to game all the possible consequences. The first question is: *what* do you ban? If the breed, how do you define it? If the behaviour, how do you define that?
OK, lol, pathetic: don't become a politician
Hahaha, I *couldn't* be a politician, Leon, I'm too honest!
Don't you become a politician either, I suffer to think what knee jerk ideas you might implement!
On the subject of dangerous dogs, what about mandatory insurance?
As mentioned earlier, that would be a de facto ban for XLs as you can’t get insurance for them. Probably not a bad idea.
The reason that an simple ban won’t work is the fuckwits* who like this kind of dog will simply move to the next “completely not a violent dog for thugs” breed.
With insurance, the next breed will either not be insurable or not assessed yet. And hence unobtainable.
*various people will start whining that proper owners can make such dogs lovable pets. Yeah and responsible owners can make ownership of nuclear weapons AOK. But I my right to own plutonium is a tad restricted for some reason.
Also, DIY crossbreeding to create a new breed. Happens all the time. How much is too much bully?
Imagine trying to ban poodles. Then PC Plod sees something with curly hair. Oh no Officer, this cockapoo is absolutely not a poodle. No sir. And this? It's its daughter. No siree, not a poodle at all. And I forgot, officer - their mummy and grannyt wasn't a poodle but a Bedlington Terrier, and no way can you prove it ...
Oh do shut up. I've told you how to ban it, do it the Aussie way. On the look of the dog. And err on the side of severity if there is any doubt, so no one can own any dog that looks remotely like this
Anyway, Suella the Brave is gonna ban them, yay. First time the Tories have done something sensible for several months
What I am saying is that focussing on the breed is useless and that you need something like the Aussie way, yet the panic is all about a specific breed - or is it two? You named two earlier ...
I'll be very interested to see what Ms Braverman has in mind for legislation. Seeing as she also has to deal with all the future replacements for the XL Bully as well.
The insurance route would work best.
An encrypted, injected chip, linking to the insurance.
Easy to detect and read. No chip, dog impounded and destroyed in 30 days of no evidence of insurance provided (for cases where chip is defective)
100k fine for possessing an un-insured dog.
Insurance doesn't stop the dog attacking someone.
Many of the people with dangerous dogs would not be able to afford insurance and /or would not insure.
They wouldn't be able to afford the fine either
What do you do then? Jail the person? Put the dog down? Both?
There will still be problems, but far far fewer
Because if the dogs are banned you can’t take the dog outside, coz you will immediately be reported and your dog will be shot and you will get a fine
Result: no more Satan dogs in parks or streets, lots more happy unmauled kids and smaller non-psycho dogs etc
I can imagine neighbours might be fearful of reporting the sort of person who has a dangerous dog. And those who own them can be pretty brazen about it. I know a few people who have someone with an aggressive dog living near them and their coping strategy is to avoid the person and the dog (eg crossing the street). They don't report to police of the council dog warden because they've done that before and nothing happens. Even if the dog has attacked their dog.
Yes, but now the cops will be given the powers they need. And the coppers hate these dogs as much as anyone
And anyone can anonymously report a dog in a park, and these dogs need to be walked; the owner won't know who did it
A ban, should it happen (I wouldn't put it past this inept govt to flub it) will, I think, be effecitve enough to get the menace off our streets
The cops don't have the resources/can't be bothered to do the work they already have
Yes, anyone can report an anonymous dog in the park or the street. Do you expect the police to turn up immediately and apprehend the dog walker? Because otherwise how are they to know who the person is? It would have to be reported by someone who knows them, and where they live, which narrows things down considerably for the dog owner. Compare with drug dealers - how many of their neighbours dare report them despite them being responsible for mnay deaths?
In an ideal world insurance might work, but in the real world it will only increase the costs of owning a dog for responsible dog owners, and have little impact on getting dangerous dogs out of circulation
What a load of defeatist nonsense. A ban - with the threat of your dog being shot, if seen - means no one will walk the dogs, for fear of being spotted. These dogs will probably turn on their owners in madness (let's hope so). Anyway, end of problem
Without the demand for new dogs the breeders will stop spplying them, which mwans the breed disappears. This isn't hard. It works in Australia
Sorry to say it, but there are far too many dogs around now. Every third person seems to have one.
I thought you were all for individual freedom.
For what it's worth I agree dangerous dog breed should be banned. Braverman has total controll over this since according to the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, the following dogs are banned:
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.
Yes, as the legal expert on Twitter has pointed out, all that is needed is for the Home Sec to tick a box marked "XL Bully?" and that's that. No new legislation required, no Parliamentary debate. Just do it
Although Barverman may have to change gender ("...a type appearing to him to be bred for fighting...") but fortunately that's very simple these days.
On the subject of dangerous dogs, what about mandatory insurance?
As mentioned earlier, that would be a de facto ban for XLs as you can’t get insurance for them. Probably not a bad idea.
The reason that an simple ban won’t work is the fuckwits* who like this kind of dog will simply move to the next “completely not a violent dog for thugs” breed.
With insurance, the next breed will either not be insurable or not assessed yet. And hence unobtainable.
*various people will start whining that proper owners can make such dogs lovable pets. Yeah and responsible owners can make ownership of nuclear weapons AOK. But I my right to own plutonium is a tad restricted for some reason.
Also, DIY crossbreeding to create a new breed. Happens all the time. How much is too much bully?
Imagine trying to ban poodles. Then PC Plod sees something with curly hair. Oh no Officer, this cockapoo is absolutely not a poodle. No sir. And this? It's its daughter. No siree, not a poodle at all. And I forgot, officer - their mummy and grannyt wasn't a poodle but a Bedlington Terrier, and no way can you prove it ...
Oh do shut up. I've told you how to ban it, do it the Aussie way. On the look of the dog. And err on the side of severity if there is any doubt, so no one can own any dog that looks remotely like this
Anyway, Suella the Brave is gonna ban them, yay. First time the Tories have done something sensible for several months
What I am saying is that focussing on the breed is useless and that you need something like the Aussie way, yet the panic is all about a specific breed - or is it two? You named two earlier ...
I'll be very interested to see what Ms Braverman has in mind for legislation. Seeing as she also has to deal with all the future replacements for the XL Bully as well.
The insurance route would work best.
An encrypted, injected chip, linking to the insurance.
Easy to detect and read. No chip, dog impounded and destroyed in 30 days of no evidence of insurance provided (for cases where chip is defective)
100k fine for possessing an un-insured dog.
Insurance doesn't stop the dog attacking someone.
Many of the people with dangerous dogs would not be able to afford insurance and /or would not insure.
They wouldn't be able to afford the fine either
What do you do then? Jail the person? Put the dog down? Both?
There will still be problems, but far far fewer
Because if the dogs are banned you can’t take the dog outside, coz you will immediately be reported and your dog will be shot and you will get a fine
Result: no more Satan dogs in parks or streets, lots more happy unmauled kids and smaller non-psycho dogs etc
I can imagine neighbours might be fearful of reporting the sort of person who has a dangerous dog. And those who own them can be pretty brazen about it. I know a few people who have someone with an aggressive dog living near them and their coping strategy is to avoid the person and the dog (eg crossing the street). They don't report to police of the council dog warden because they've done that before and nothing happens. Even if the dog has attacked their dog.
Yes, but now the cops will be given the powers they need. And the coppers hate these dogs as much as anyone
And anyone can anonymously report a dog in a park, and these dogs need to be walked; the owner won't know who did it
A ban, should it happen (I wouldn't put it past this inept govt to flub it) will, I think, be effecitve enough to get the menace off our streets
The cops don't have the resources/can't be bothered to do the work they already have
Yes, anyone can report an anonymous dog in the park or the street. Do you expect the police to turn up immediately and apprehend the dog walker? Because otherwise how are they to know who the person is? It would have to be reported by someone who knows them, and where they live, which narrows things down considerably for the dog owner. Compare with drug dealers - how many of their neighbours dare report them despite them being responsible for mnay deaths?
In an ideal world insurance might work, but in the real world it will only increase the costs of owning a dog for responsible dog owners, and have little impact on getting dangerous dogs out of circulation
What a load of defeatist nonsense. A ban - with the threat of your dog being shot, if seen - means no one will walk the dogs, for fear of being spotted. These dogs will probably turn on their owners in madness (let's hope so). Anyway, end of problem
Without the demand for new dogs the breeders will stop spplying them, which mwans the breed disappears. This isn't hard. It works in Australia
Not defeatist, just pointing out some potential pitfalls
If we just implemented every first idea someone suggested that sounded good, we'd be in a right mess.
Anyway, I'm sure the government will. Introduce some totally ineffective control measures, so this is probably a redundant discussion
OK, Kommissar Sensible, what would you do if you were Home Sec, confronted by that awful vid from Brum? Do nothing? That doesn't work. If you do nothing there will inevitably be another video in a day or two, possibly worse (a child dying? An old lady ripped apart) and then still more videos, and the public is clamouring for a ban, and social media is demanding a ban, and YOU will get the blame for any deaths after this video
She really had no choice. A ban it is. But what would you do that's "better"?
Well, she could have said she would be speaking to all people and agencies involved to understand the incident, what led to it and get any background information. To try to gain an understanding of the situation and how it could have been prevented. And to discuss with the police and the council what the barriers were for them to take pre-emptive action, and how these could be removed. (I suspect Birmingham City Council financial woes might feature heavily in the reposnse to that one)
An effective politician would take the time to find out the details and get a thorough understanding of the problem, and get input from people, like the community, local councils, police, vets, rspca etc before deciding on the best way forward.
I think it's an incredibly difficult problem, and tbh, I can't come up with a solution. A ban may seem obvious, but you have to game all the possible consequences. The first question is: *what* do you ban? If the breed, how do you define it? If the behaviour, how do you define that?
OK, lol, pathetic: don't become a politician
Hahaha, I *couldn't* be a politician, Leon, I'm too honest!
Don't you become a politician either, I suffer to think what knee jerk ideas you might implement!
Oh God, I'd be terrible
I think I'd be quite good as a dictator, tho. I am quite capable of merciless cruelty. Not much fun for anyone else
On the subject of dangerous dogs, what about mandatory insurance?
As mentioned earlier, that would be a de facto ban for XLs as you can’t get insurance for them. Probably not a bad idea.
The reason that an simple ban won’t work is the fuckwits* who like this kind of dog will simply move to the next “completely not a violent dog for thugs” breed.
With insurance, the next breed will either not be insurable or not assessed yet. And hence unobtainable.
*various people will start whining that proper owners can make such dogs lovable pets. Yeah and responsible owners can make ownership of nuclear weapons AOK. But I my right to own plutonium is a tad restricted for some reason.
Also, DIY crossbreeding to create a new breed. Happens all the time. How much is too much bully?
Imagine trying to ban poodles. Then PC Plod sees something with curly hair. Oh no Officer, this cockapoo is absolutely not a poodle. No sir. And this? It's its daughter. No siree, not a poodle at all. And I forgot, officer - their mummy and grannyt wasn't a poodle but a Bedlington Terrier, and no way can you prove it ...
Oh do shut up. I've told you how to ban it, do it the Aussie way. On the look of the dog. And err on the side of severity if there is any doubt, so no one can own any dog that looks remotely like this
Anyway, Suella the Brave is gonna ban them, yay. First time the Tories have done something sensible for several months
What I am saying is that focussing on the breed is useless and that you need something like the Aussie way, yet the panic is all about a specific breed - or is it two? You named two earlier ...
I'll be very interested to see what Ms Braverman has in mind for legislation. Seeing as she also has to deal with all the future replacements for the XL Bully as well.
The insurance route would work best.
An encrypted, injected chip, linking to the insurance.
Easy to detect and read. No chip, dog impounded and destroyed in 30 days of no evidence of insurance provided (for cases where chip is defective)
100k fine for possessing an un-insured dog.
Insurance doesn't stop the dog attacking someone.
Many of the people with dangerous dogs would not be able to afford insurance and /or would not insure.
They wouldn't be able to afford the fine either
What do you do then? Jail the person? Put the dog down? Both?
There will still be problems, but far far fewer
Because if the dogs are banned you can’t take the dog outside, coz you will immediately be reported and your dog will be shot and you will get a fine
Result: no more Satan dogs in parks or streets, lots more happy unmauled kids and smaller non-psycho dogs etc
I can imagine neighbours might be fearful of reporting the sort of person who has a dangerous dog. And those who own them can be pretty brazen about it. I know a few people who have someone with an aggressive dog living near them and their coping strategy is to avoid the person and the dog (eg crossing the street). They don't report to police of the council dog warden because they've done that before and nothing happens. Even if the dog has attacked their dog.
Yes, but now the cops will be given the powers they need. And the coppers hate these dogs as much as anyone
And anyone can anonymously report a dog in a park, and these dogs need to be walked; the owner won't know who did it
A ban, should it happen (I wouldn't put it past this inept govt to flub it) will, I think, be effecitve enough to get the menace off our streets
The cops don't have the resources/can't be bothered to do the work they already have
Yes, anyone can report an anonymous dog in the park or the street. Do you expect the police to turn up immediately and apprehend the dog walker? Because otherwise how are they to know who the person is? It would have to be reported by someone who knows them, and where they live, which narrows things down considerably for the dog owner. Compare with drug dealers - how many of their neighbours dare report them despite them being responsible for mnay deaths?
In an ideal world insurance might work, but in the real world it will only increase the costs of owning a dog for responsible dog owners, and have little impact on getting dangerous dogs out of circulation
What a load of defeatist nonsense. A ban - with the threat of your dog being shot, if seen - means no one will walk the dogs, for fear of being spotted. These dogs will probably turn on their owners in madness (let's hope so). Anyway, end of problem
Without the demand for new dogs the breeders will stop spplying them, which mwans the breed disappears. This isn't hard. It works in Australia
Sorry to say it, but there are far too many dogs around now. Every third person seems to have one.
I think you're right, although the cost of living may result in the number of pet dogs reducing. The sheer volume of poo produced by pet dogs every day is quite phenomenal and is a big environmental problem, as well as a potential health hazard.
Cats are problematic too, in that they are a threat to birds and small mammals.
What would be the effect of removing national insurance on employment income and putting it on non-employment income ?
I suppose you could do it on a gradual basis by decreasing the first and increasing the second by 1% a year until they were level.
Obviously the rentiers and oldies would hate it but part of the reason for introducing it would be to transfer wealth to workers and the young.
Absolutely not. The whole reason national insurance was created in the first place was so workers would contribute for insurance and benefits if unemployed and that expanded to contributions to fund state pensions and also some healthcare.
National insurance should be hypothecated and return to those aims. The inheritance tax threshold should be increased to £2 million instead so older people can ultimately pass on more of their assets to their children and grandchildren, nephews and nieces
Why shouldn't non-workers contribute to those things ?
And given that only about 5% of estates pay inheritance tax your idea would be a tax cut on unearned income for the very rich.
Is this really your view as to what the Conservative party should be for ?
They did, they paid in national insurance when they were working. Now most estates in the south especially are above the IHT threshold. Absolutely the Conservative party should be about preserving wealth and inheritance in the family, that is what Toryism has always been about, even before free market liberals joined it to keep out Labour
"preserving wealth and inheritance in the family" = not paying their fair share of taxes, especially on massive capital gains orchestrated by the "Conservative" Party. Which used to be one of hard work and self-respect. Now, no longer.
They already paid tax on that estate and income and assets their working life.
The Tory party has always been a party which has supported inherited wealth, indeed even Thatcher would arguably have been a Gladstone free market Liberal rather than a Tory in the 19th century. Today's Conservative Party does indeed support hard work and the free market on the whole (certainly compared to Labour) but those are add ons from free market liberals, inheritance is more a cornerstone of Toryism
Even if Fiji lose I can see them giving Australia a torrid time
On another subject - on your tour of the English side of the border with Wales, you missed out the city I visited today: Chester. Which, it feels, is just as attractive as ever and is in rude health. I think Chester gets a bit overlooked; the instinctive reaction to it always seems to be "it's not as good as York". Which is true, but 99% of England also fails on that metric. There certainly isn't as much for the touristin Chester as in York. But there are few more pleasant cities to be in. The city walls, the rows and the riverside are all remarkable, the cathedral as fine as any; the city is awash with Roman ruins, and there are more interesting historical buildings than you can shake a stick at (I'm sure a curious visitor accompanying fewer children could have found out a bit more about this but that's all I can give you.) In common with Hereford, Shrewsbury and so on, it feels a long way west, but isn't really remote; it's only 45 minutes from Manchester and less from Liverpool, but doesn't feel like a satellite of either. Mainly, it's a very pleasant place to be. We fantasised vaguely of retiring there.
On the subject of dangerous dogs, what about mandatory insurance?
As mentioned earlier, that would be a de facto ban for XLs as you can’t get insurance for them. Probably not a bad idea.
The reason that an simple ban won’t work is the fuckwits* who like this kind of dog will simply move to the next “completely not a violent dog for thugs” breed.
With insurance, the next breed will either not be insurable or not assessed yet. And hence unobtainable.
*various people will start whining that proper owners can make such dogs lovable pets. Yeah and responsible owners can make ownership of nuclear weapons AOK. But I my right to own plutonium is a tad restricted for some reason.
Also, DIY crossbreeding to create a new breed. Happens all the time. How much is too much bully?
Imagine trying to ban poodles. Then PC Plod sees something with curly hair. Oh no Officer, this cockapoo is absolutely not a poodle. No sir. And this? It's its daughter. No siree, not a poodle at all. And I forgot, officer - their mummy and grannyt wasn't a poodle but a Bedlington Terrier, and no way can you prove it ...
Oh do shut up. I've told you how to ban it, do it the Aussie way. On the look of the dog. And err on the side of severity if there is any doubt, so no one can own any dog that looks remotely like this
Anyway, Suella the Brave is gonna ban them, yay. First time the Tories have done something sensible for several months
What I am saying is that focussing on the breed is useless and that you need something like the Aussie way, yet the panic is all about a specific breed - or is it two? You named two earlier ...
I'll be very interested to see what Ms Braverman has in mind for legislation. Seeing as she also has to deal with all the future replacements for the XL Bully as well.
The insurance route would work best.
An encrypted, injected chip, linking to the insurance.
Easy to detect and read. No chip, dog impounded and destroyed in 30 days of no evidence of insurance provided (for cases where chip is defective)
100k fine for possessing an un-insured dog.
Insurance doesn't stop the dog attacking someone.
Many of the people with dangerous dogs would not be able to afford insurance and /or would not insure.
They wouldn't be able to afford the fine either
What do you do then? Jail the person? Put the dog down? Both?
There will still be problems, but far far fewer
Because if the dogs are banned you can’t take the dog outside, coz you will immediately be reported and your dog will be shot and you will get a fine
Result: no more Satan dogs in parks or streets, lots more happy unmauled kids and smaller non-psycho dogs etc
I can imagine neighbours might be fearful of reporting the sort of person who has a dangerous dog. And those who own them can be pretty brazen about it. I know a few people who have someone with an aggressive dog living near them and their coping strategy is to avoid the person and the dog (eg crossing the street). They don't report to police of the council dog warden because they've done that before and nothing happens. Even if the dog has attacked their dog.
Yes, but now the cops will be given the powers they need. And the coppers hate these dogs as much as anyone
And anyone can anonymously report a dog in a park, and these dogs need to be walked; the owner won't know who did it
A ban, should it happen (I wouldn't put it past this inept govt to flub it) will, I think, be effecitve enough to get the menace off our streets
The cops don't have the resources/can't be bothered to do the work they already have
Yes, anyone can report an anonymous dog in the park or the street. Do you expect the police to turn up immediately and apprehend the dog walker? Because otherwise how are they to know who the person is? It would have to be reported by someone who knows them, and where they live, which narrows things down considerably for the dog owner. Compare with drug dealers - how many of their neighbours dare report them despite them being responsible for mnay deaths?
In an ideal world insurance might work, but in the real world it will only increase the costs of owning a dog for responsible dog owners, and have little impact on getting dangerous dogs out of circulation
What a load of defeatist nonsense. A ban - with the threat of your dog being shot, if seen - means no one will walk the dogs, for fear of being spotted. These dogs will probably turn on their owners in madness (let's hope so). Anyway, end of problem
Without the demand for new dogs the breeders will stop spplying them, which mwans the breed disappears. This isn't hard. It works in Australia
Not defeatist, just pointing out some potential pitfalls
If we just implemented every first idea someone suggested that sounded good, we'd be in a right mess.
Anyway, I'm sure the government will. Introduce some totally ineffective control measures, so this is probably a redundant discussion
OK, Kommissar Sensible, what would you do if you were Home Sec, confronted by that awful vid from Brum? Do nothing? That doesn't work. If you do nothing there will inevitably be another video in a day or two, possibly worse (a child dying? An old lady ripped apart) and then still more videos, and the public is clamouring for a ban, and social media is demanding a ban, and YOU will get the blame for any deaths after this video
She really had no choice. A ban it is. But what would you do that's "better"?
Well, she could have said she would be speaking to all people and agencies involved to understand the incident, what led to it and get any background information. To try to gain an understanding of the situation and how it could have been prevented. And to discuss with the police and the council what the barriers were for them to take pre-emptive action, and how these could be removed. (I suspect Birmingham City Council financial woes might feature heavily in the reposnse to that one)
An effective politician would take the time to find out the details and get a thorough understanding of the problem, and get input from people, like the community, local councils, police, vets, rspca etc before deciding on the best way forward.
I think it's an incredibly difficult problem, and tbh, I can't come up with a solution. A ban may seem obvious, but you have to game all the possible consequences. The first question is: *what* do you ban? If the breed, how do you define it? If the behaviour, how do you define that?
OK, lol, pathetic: don't become a politician
Hahaha, I *couldn't* be a politician, Leon, I'm too honest!
Don't you become a politician either, I suffer to think what knee jerk ideas you might implement!
Oh God, I'd be terrible
I think I'd be quite good as a dictator, tho. I am quite capable of merciless cruelty. Not much fun for anyone else
For some reason the name Caligula came into my head. Or maybe Nero
On the subject of dangerous dogs, what about mandatory insurance?
As mentioned earlier, that would be a de facto ban for XLs as you can’t get insurance for them. Probably not a bad idea.
The reason that an simple ban won’t work is the fuckwits* who like this kind of dog will simply move to the next “completely not a violent dog for thugs” breed.
With insurance, the next breed will either not be insurable or not assessed yet. And hence unobtainable.
*various people will start whining that proper owners can make such dogs lovable pets. Yeah and responsible owners can make ownership of nuclear weapons AOK. But I my right to own plutonium is a tad restricted for some reason.
Also, DIY crossbreeding to create a new breed. Happens all the time. How much is too much bully?
Imagine trying to ban poodles. Then PC Plod sees something with curly hair. Oh no Officer, this cockapoo is absolutely not a poodle. No sir. And this? It's its daughter. No siree, not a poodle at all. And I forgot, officer - their mummy and grannyt wasn't a poodle but a Bedlington Terrier, and no way can you prove it ...
Oh do shut up. I've told you how to ban it, do it the Aussie way. On the look of the dog. And err on the side of severity if there is any doubt, so no one can own any dog that looks remotely like this
Anyway, Suella the Brave is gonna ban them, yay. First time the Tories have done something sensible for several months
What I am saying is that focussing on the breed is useless and that you need something like the Aussie way, yet the panic is all about a specific breed - or is it two? You named two earlier ...
I'll be very interested to see what Ms Braverman has in mind for legislation. Seeing as she also has to deal with all the future replacements for the XL Bully as well.
The insurance route would work best.
An encrypted, injected chip, linking to the insurance.
Easy to detect and read. No chip, dog impounded and destroyed in 30 days of no evidence of insurance provided (for cases where chip is defective)
100k fine for possessing an un-insured dog.
Insurance doesn't stop the dog attacking someone.
Many of the people with dangerous dogs would not be able to afford insurance and /or would not insure.
They wouldn't be able to afford the fine either
What do you do then? Jail the person? Put the dog down? Both?
There will still be problems, but far far fewer
Because if the dogs are banned you can’t take the dog outside, coz you will immediately be reported and your dog will be shot and you will get a fine
Result: no more Satan dogs in parks or streets, lots more happy unmauled kids and smaller non-psycho dogs etc
I can imagine neighbours might be fearful of reporting the sort of person who has a dangerous dog. And those who own them can be pretty brazen about it. I know a few people who have someone with an aggressive dog living near them and their coping strategy is to avoid the person and the dog (eg crossing the street). They don't report to police of the council dog warden because they've done that before and nothing happens. Even if the dog has attacked their dog.
Yes, but now the cops will be given the powers they need. And the coppers hate these dogs as much as anyone
And anyone can anonymously report a dog in a park, and these dogs need to be walked; the owner won't know who did it
A ban, should it happen (I wouldn't put it past this inept govt to flub it) will, I think, be effecitve enough to get the menace off our streets
The cops don't have the resources/can't be bothered to do the work they already have
Yes, anyone can report an anonymous dog in the park or the street. Do you expect the police to turn up immediately and apprehend the dog walker? Because otherwise how are they to know who the person is? It would have to be reported by someone who knows them, and where they live, which narrows things down considerably for the dog owner. Compare with drug dealers - how many of their neighbours dare report them despite them being responsible for mnay deaths?
In an ideal world insurance might work, but in the real world it will only increase the costs of owning a dog for responsible dog owners, and have little impact on getting dangerous dogs out of circulation
What a load of defeatist nonsense. A ban - with the threat of your dog being shot, if seen - means no one will walk the dogs, for fear of being spotted. These dogs will probably turn on their owners in madness (let's hope so). Anyway, end of problem
Without the demand for new dogs the breeders will stop spplying them, which mwans the breed disappears. This isn't hard. It works in Australia
Sorry to say it, but there are far too many dogs around now. Every third person seems to have one.
I thought you were all for individual freedom.
For what it's worth I agree dangerous dog breed should be banned. Braverman has total controll over this since according to the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, the following dogs are banned:
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.
Yes, as the legal expert on Twitter has pointed out, all that is needed is for the Home Sec to tick a box marked "XL Bully?" and that's that. No new legislation required, no Parliamentary debate. Just do it
Although Barverman may have to change gender ("...a type appearing to him to be bred for fighting...") but fortunately that's very simple these days.
It's not often I preempt the lawyers on a point of law, but ALL TOGETHER NOW...
Even if Fiji lose I can see them giving Australia a torrid time
On another subject - on your tour of the English side of the border with Wales, you missed out the city I visited today: Chester. Which, it feels, is just as attractive as ever and is in rude health. I think Chester gets a bit overlooked; the instinctive reaction to it always seems to be "it's not as good as York". Which is true, but 99% of England also fails on that metric. There certainly isn't as much for the touristin Chester as in York. But there are few more pleasant cities to be in. The city walls, the rows and the riverside are all remarkable, the cathedral as fine as any; the city is awash with Roman ruins, and there are more interesting historical buildings than you can shake a stick at (I'm sure a curious visitor accompanying fewer children could have found out a bit more about this but that's all I can give you.) In common with Hereford, Shrewsbury and so on, it feels a long way west, but isn't really remote; it's only 45 minutes from Manchester and less from Liverpool, but doesn't feel like a satellite of either. Mainly, it's a very pleasant place to be. We fantasised vaguely of retiring there.
I was on a course in Chester about 25 years ago. A very nice city. I remember going for a jog around the city walls one morning.
On the subject of dangerous dogs, what about mandatory insurance?
As mentioned earlier, that would be a de facto ban for XLs as you can’t get insurance for them. Probably not a bad idea.
The reason that an simple ban won’t work is the fuckwits* who like this kind of dog will simply move to the next “completely not a violent dog for thugs” breed.
With insurance, the next breed will either not be insurable or not assessed yet. And hence unobtainable.
*various people will start whining that proper owners can make such dogs lovable pets. Yeah and responsible owners can make ownership of nuclear weapons AOK. But I my right to own plutonium is a tad restricted for some reason.
Also, DIY crossbreeding to create a new breed. Happens all the time. How much is too much bully?
Imagine trying to ban poodles. Then PC Plod sees something with curly hair. Oh no Officer, this cockapoo is absolutely not a poodle. No sir. And this? It's its daughter. No siree, not a poodle at all. And I forgot, officer - their mummy and grannyt wasn't a poodle but a Bedlington Terrier, and no way can you prove it ...
Oh do shut up. I've told you how to ban it, do it the Aussie way. On the look of the dog. And err on the side of severity if there is any doubt, so no one can own any dog that looks remotely like this
Anyway, Suella the Brave is gonna ban them, yay. First time the Tories have done something sensible for several months
What I am saying is that focussing on the breed is useless and that you need something like the Aussie way, yet the panic is all about a specific breed - or is it two? You named two earlier ...
I'll be very interested to see what Ms Braverman has in mind for legislation. Seeing as she also has to deal with all the future replacements for the XL Bully as well.
The insurance route would work best.
An encrypted, injected chip, linking to the insurance.
Easy to detect and read. No chip, dog impounded and destroyed in 30 days of no evidence of insurance provided (for cases where chip is defective)
100k fine for possessing an un-insured dog.
Insurance doesn't stop the dog attacking someone.
Many of the people with dangerous dogs would not be able to afford insurance and /or would not insure.
They wouldn't be able to afford the fine either
What do you do then? Jail the person? Put the dog down? Both?
There will still be problems, but far far fewer
Because if the dogs are banned you can’t take the dog outside, coz you will immediately be reported and your dog will be shot and you will get a fine
Result: no more Satan dogs in parks or streets, lots more happy unmauled kids and smaller non-psycho dogs etc
I can imagine neighbours might be fearful of reporting the sort of person who has a dangerous dog. And those who own them can be pretty brazen about it. I know a few people who have someone with an aggressive dog living near them and their coping strategy is to avoid the person and the dog (eg crossing the street). They don't report to police of the council dog warden because they've done that before and nothing happens. Even if the dog has attacked their dog.
Yes, but now the cops will be given the powers they need. And the coppers hate these dogs as much as anyone
And anyone can anonymously report a dog in a park, and these dogs need to be walked; the owner won't know who did it
A ban, should it happen (I wouldn't put it past this inept govt to flub it) will, I think, be effecitve enough to get the menace off our streets
The cops don't have the resources/can't be bothered to do the work they already have
Yes, anyone can report an anonymous dog in the park or the street. Do you expect the police to turn up immediately and apprehend the dog walker? Because otherwise how are they to know who the person is? It would have to be reported by someone who knows them, and where they live, which narrows things down considerably for the dog owner. Compare with drug dealers - how many of their neighbours dare report them despite them being responsible for mnay deaths?
In an ideal world insurance might work, but in the real world it will only increase the costs of owning a dog for responsible dog owners, and have little impact on getting dangerous dogs out of circulation
What a load of defeatist nonsense. A ban - with the threat of your dog being shot, if seen - means no one will walk the dogs, for fear of being spotted. These dogs will probably turn on their owners in madness (let's hope so). Anyway, end of problem
Without the demand for new dogs the breeders will stop spplying them, which mwans the breed disappears. This isn't hard. It works in Australia
Sorry to say it, but there are far too many dogs around now. Every third person seems to have one.
I think you're right, although the cost of living may result in the number of pet dogs reducing. The sheer volume of poo produced by pet dogs every day is quite phenomenal and is a big environmental problem, as well as a potential health hazard.
Cats are problematic too, in that they are a threat to birds and small mammals.
ISTR most of this board played rugby in the 80s. I can't be the only one who laments the demise of the well-choreographed tap penalty with dummy runners and a receiver with his back to defenders. Why does no-one do this any more?
On the subject of dangerous dogs, what about mandatory insurance?
As mentioned earlier, that would be a de facto ban for XLs as you can’t get insurance for them. Probably not a bad idea.
The reason that an simple ban won’t work is the fuckwits* who like this kind of dog will simply move to the next “completely not a violent dog for thugs” breed.
With insurance, the next breed will either not be insurable or not assessed yet. And hence unobtainable.
*various people will start whining that proper owners can make such dogs lovable pets. Yeah and responsible owners can make ownership of nuclear weapons AOK. But I my right to own plutonium is a tad restricted for some reason.
Also, DIY crossbreeding to create a new breed. Happens all the time. How much is too much bully?
Imagine trying to ban poodles. Then PC Plod sees something with curly hair. Oh no Officer, this cockapoo is absolutely not a poodle. No sir. And this? It's its daughter. No siree, not a poodle at all. And I forgot, officer - their mummy and grannyt wasn't a poodle but a Bedlington Terrier, and no way can you prove it ...
Oh do shut up. I've told you how to ban it, do it the Aussie way. On the look of the dog. And err on the side of severity if there is any doubt, so no one can own any dog that looks remotely like this
Anyway, Suella the Brave is gonna ban them, yay. First time the Tories have done something sensible for several months
What I am saying is that focussing on the breed is useless and that you need something like the Aussie way, yet the panic is all about a specific breed - or is it two? You named two earlier ...
I'll be very interested to see what Ms Braverman has in mind for legislation. Seeing as she also has to deal with all the future replacements for the XL Bully as well.
The insurance route would work best.
An encrypted, injected chip, linking to the insurance.
Easy to detect and read. No chip, dog impounded and destroyed in 30 days of no evidence of insurance provided (for cases where chip is defective)
100k fine for possessing an un-insured dog.
Insurance doesn't stop the dog attacking someone.
Many of the people with dangerous dogs would not be able to afford insurance and /or would not insure.
They wouldn't be able to afford the fine either
What do you do then? Jail the person? Put the dog down? Both?
There will still be problems, but far far fewer
Because if the dogs are banned you can’t take the dog outside, coz you will immediately be reported and your dog will be shot and you will get a fine
Result: no more Satan dogs in parks or streets, lots more happy unmauled kids and smaller non-psycho dogs etc
I can imagine neighbours might be fearful of reporting the sort of person who has a dangerous dog. And those who own them can be pretty brazen about it. I know a few people who have someone with an aggressive dog living near them and their coping strategy is to avoid the person and the dog (eg crossing the street). They don't report to police of the council dog warden because they've done that before and nothing happens. Even if the dog has attacked their dog.
Yes, but now the cops will be given the powers they need. And the coppers hate these dogs as much as anyone
And anyone can anonymously report a dog in a park, and these dogs need to be walked; the owner won't know who did it
A ban, should it happen (I wouldn't put it past this inept govt to flub it) will, I think, be effecitve enough to get the menace off our streets
The cops don't have the resources/can't be bothered to do the work they already have
Yes, anyone can report an anonymous dog in the park or the street. Do you expect the police to turn up immediately and apprehend the dog walker? Because otherwise how are they to know who the person is? It would have to be reported by someone who knows them, and where they live, which narrows things down considerably for the dog owner. Compare with drug dealers - how many of their neighbours dare report them despite them being responsible for mnay deaths?
In an ideal world insurance might work, but in the real world it will only increase the costs of owning a dog for responsible dog owners, and have little impact on getting dangerous dogs out of circulation
What a load of defeatist nonsense. A ban - with the threat of your dog being shot, if seen - means no one will walk the dogs, for fear of being spotted. These dogs will probably turn on their owners in madness (let's hope so). Anyway, end of problem
Without the demand for new dogs the breeders will stop spplying them, which mwans the breed disappears. This isn't hard. It works in Australia
Sorry to say it, but there are far too many dogs around now. Every third person seems to have one.
I think you're right, although the cost of living may result in the number of pet dogs reducing. The sheer volume of poo produced by pet dogs every day is quite phenomenal and is a big environmental problem, as well as a potential health hazard.
Cats are problematic too, in that they are a threat to birds and small mammals.
Cats are okay with me, because they don't threaten human life.
Comments
To summarise,
I don't think those with dangerous dogs would insure them.
Having insurance won't stop the dog attacking or killing someone (only pay medical costs or compensation)
There will need to be a resource for enforcement, otherwise it's ineffective
What will we do with uninsured dogs and people who fail to insure and can't afford the fine?
The owner loses all that money, they won't buy another
Or put them in a giant dog pound where they put Lucy Letby in as dog warden and replaced with another murderer once the inevitable happens.
Lethal Injections would be a bit of a cop out.
The resource for enforcement are local authorities and police. It's the same as antisocial parking - it's not seen as a priority so nothing happens (*), and becomes an accepted culture.
Personally I'd go for more thorough penalties, including destruction of dogs that attack, but I'm not an animal-sentimentalist.
The Braverman thing is just Politics by PR Stunt, whilst ignoring here real job.
* I'm currently writing an objection to an obstructed footpath, which includes amongst others German Shepherds roaming loose on the Public Highway and "beware of the dog" signs, plus threats from the part-landowner - all offences. It's part of an issue with illegal development of a gypsy site, involving attempts to close down the Right of Way, drive a bus through the planning system, and also steal land. I'm having a go at the pathway, which County have a duty to keep clear (District have been useless, and imo possibly corrupt).
Will save in the end.
We can send the dog, afterwards, to a private school and a Russell Group university….
Somebody who wants to own a spaniel crossbreed pays a fiver, somebody who wants to own an Akita has to have training in managing dogs, insurance and an inspection of their house before they can get one for £500.
Edit - apparently they were abandoned in 1987, but bringing them back would be fairly easy.
Out of the box thinking to enhance the KPIs, and turbocharge the team goals….
In a police museum.
Run by retired officers acting as volunteers.
Near Birmingham.
The looks we got...I swear that they followed us out of the room in the hope of catching us nicking stuff.
Yes, anyone can report an anonymous dog in the park or the street. Do you expect the police to turn up immediately and apprehend the dog walker? Because otherwise how are they to know who the person is? It would have to be reported by someone who knows them, and where they live, which narrows things down considerably for the dog owner. Compare with drug dealers - how many of their neighbours dare report them despite them being responsible for mnay deaths?
In an ideal world insurance might work, but in the real world it will only increase the costs of owning a dog for responsible dog owners, and have little impact on getting dangerous dogs out of circulation
Without the demand for new dogs the breeders will stop spplying them, which mwans the breed disappears. This isn't hard. It works in Australia
(In this area, dangerous dogs are often kept by men selling illegal drugs. Same in the UK?)
94%!
For you, mister Bully XL owner, ze war is over
If we just implemented every first idea someone suggested that sounded good, we'd be in a right mess.
Anyway, I'm sure the government will. Introduce some totally ineffective control measures, so this is probably a redundant discussion
Is the threshold level for Additional Rate Income Tax currently frozen, like the Basic and Higher rates?
(Reflecting on what measures I would adjust in response to HYUFD's "interesting" post.)
"Eat dog to help out"
From what I see a big grown man cannot always control them if they flip
The problem is the job satisfaction at the moment is off the scale in minus numbers.
And the people who have promised to turn it round are the selfsame twats who buggered it up to start with.
Whereas the term may be sexist, I do not believe it to be racist.
She really had no choice. A ban it is. But what would you do that's "better"?
Ukraine’s counter-offensive is stalling. The West must prepare for humiliation
We cannot have a repeat of the foreign-policy errors that followed Putin’s 2014 Crimean land grab
RICHARD KEMP10 September 2023 • 11:00am
Time is running out for Ukraine. After 18 months of war, it is no longer a question of if the Western alliance will falter, but when. Since the start, despite making many of the right noises and supplying some military hardware, France and Germany, in particular, have been reluctant partners. Their leaders have often seemed more concerned with finding an “off-ramp” for Vladimir Putin than ejecting his forces from Ukraine. As well as dependency on Russian energy, a pacifist instinct among Western European political classes has led to neglect of their armed forces and a corresponding fear of escalation.
As the provider of the lion’s share of backing for Ukraine, it is the US calling the shots in this war. Yet, since the earliest days, President Biden, too, has been dragging his heels, giving just about enough military assistance to keep Ukraine fighting, but intentionally not enough to enable a victory.
Like his Western European allies, Biden has been successfully deterred by Putin’s empty threats of widening the war. Faint-hearted concerns over provoking Putin explains his failure to provide urgently-needed weapons, including combat planes and long-range missiles, and for his obstinate resistance against Nato membership for Ukraine.
Now, polls in both Europe and the US show public support for military aid to Kyiv dropping away, with one recent survey indicating that less than 50 per cent of Americans are in favour of additional funding. This at least partially reflects sluggish progress in Ukraine’s counter-offensive, which has seen only limited gains so far.
Western military analysts and the media built expectations that, this summer, Kyiv would repeat its striking victories of last autumn at Kharkiv and Kherson. Now, people are wondering how much bang they are getting for their buck, and whether the significant investment made by their countries will ever achieve anything concrete.
Advertisement
There is also growing disquiet about Ukrainian corruption, amplified by those voices who oppose American engagement in Europe for other reasons. Corruption concerns do need to be addressed, but they do not trump the West’s overriding strategic interest in preventing a Russian victory.
Zelensky obviously recognises the coming hinge point in Western support, and his recent actions may indicate a degree of alarm. He has, for example, jailed the allegedly corrupt tycoon and former provincial governor Igor Kolomoisky, a long-term ally and supporter. He sacked defence minister Oleksii Reznikov at the height of the war, again amid corruption allegations. The latter may signal a coming change to Ukraine’s military strategy.
https://twitter.com/BowesChay/status/1700841794957615570?s=20
https://twitter.com/ArmchairW/status/1700352606034665744?s=20
Is the return of the Russki Troll a sign Putin having eliminated Fatso has successfully integrated his crew of drunken weirdos into Russian command structures?
You are late
Also, if a plane crashes on the Ukrainian/ Republic of China border, which side do you bury the survivors?
Putin's reign continues.
Well, she could have said she would be speaking to all people and agencies involved to understand the incident, what led to it and get any background information. To try to gain an understanding of the situation and how it could have been prevented. And to discuss with the police and the council what the barriers were for them to take pre-emptive action, and how these could be removed. (I suspect Birmingham City Council financial woes might feature heavily in the reposnse to that one)
An effective politician would take the time to find out the details and get a thorough understanding of the problem, and get input from people, like the community, local councils, police, vets, rspca etc before deciding on the best way forward.
I think it's an incredibly difficult problem, and tbh, I can't come up with a solution. A ban may seem obvious, but you have to game all the possible consequences. The first question is: *what* do you ban? If the breed, how do you define it? If the behaviour, how do you define that?
Nearly as quick as Putin's elimination of Prigozhin.
Just had our little dog spayed. I was sad about it because she's a beuatiful dog, well bred and would be a good mum, but there are simply too many dogs around and the idea of putting another half-a-dozen or so border collie puppies on the market was just unacceptable.
And re other dogs, see my posts below.
If you read the whole article rather than the semi-literate subeditor's headline and the selected quotations of Lardy Lad's associate, he's actually saying there are several things that can be done, the issue is they're not being done and if they aren't, things might go sour.
I've no idea whether he's right or not. I would say he seems to downplay the role of Biden in, for example, providing weapons based on what I know, but I could easily be wrong.
A friend of mine had his dog (collie x lurcher or terrier) castrated as well. He was lying on its back on its bean bag with its four legs up in the air while I was playing chess with his "owner". I was hopelessly handicapped in the game by the utterly uneasy feeling there was something missing but I couldn't put my finger on it ...
Fiji 2.8
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/en/rugby-union/world-cup/wales-v-fiji-betting-32223581
The Tory party has always been a party which has supported inherited wealth, indeed even Thatcher would arguably have been a Gladstone free market Liberal rather than a Tory in the 19th century. Today's Conservative Party does indeed support hard work and the free market on the whole (certainly compared to Labour) but those are add ons from free market liberals, inheritance is more a cornerstone of Toryism
For what it's worth I agree dangerous dog breed should be banned.
Braverman has total control over this since according to the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, the following dogs are banned:
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.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/65/section/1
No new legislation needed.
Look at how estates are de facto immune from CGT.
CGT allowance when you are alive - 6k, 3K next year.
Dead, effectively 500k for many.
Luis Rubiales resigns as president of Spanish FA over Jenni Hermoso kiss
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66637879
Don't you become a politician either, I suffer to think what knee jerk ideas you might implement!
I think I'd be quite good as a dictator, tho. I am quite capable of merciless cruelty. Not much fun for anyone else
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/S3IXhpQ-ATI
The sheer volume of poo produced by pet dogs every day is quite phenomenal and is a big environmental problem, as well as a potential health hazard.
Cats are problematic too, in that they are a threat to birds and small mammals.
In common with Hereford, Shrewsbury and so on, it feels a long way west, but isn't really remote; it's only 45 minutes from Manchester and less from Liverpool, but doesn't feel like a satellite of either.
Mainly, it's a very pleasant place to be. We fantasised vaguely of retiring there.
Interpretation Act 1978, section 6: Gender and number.
See https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/30/section/6
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/is-your-pet-killing-the-planet/