I think the Special Mashed Potato Lady has arrived
Fantastique
Let me guess, that's not Smash is it?
It is, indeed, not Smash
It is aligot, a rib-sticking speciality of the region (Aubrac - think Yorkshire Dales but sunnier, yet not so pretty). It’s mash with cheese and garlic. It’s nice. I wouldn’t go mad about it
My honest expectation is that the food on this trip will not be as good as the food I had in the Welsh Marches, and so far that is the case. British food at the higher end is now commonly as good as French - or better, because more varied and less hidebound
But let’s see. The Frogs might surprise me
They still do the public realm better than us. The well kept villages, the lovely stone paving. Why can’t we have the same civic pride?
Local government with little freedom, no constitutional protection from government interference, a meagre tax base, and no money.
France has no more money than the UK. Its economy is a similar size, its debt is rather bigger
They just seem to “care” more. Plus I guess they don’t have the demographic pressures, due to lower immigration and more space. It is easier to keep a place looking nice if it isn’t overrun with inhabitants demanding crappy redbrick new-builds
France is also better at NOT despoiling towns with hideously inappropriate new buildings
But have you seen the approach roads to most french towns/cities? My memory is that it is like US, mile after mile of low slung crap looking retail joints with huge signs.
It's easy to get rose-tinted.
Plenty of its major cities, and banlieues, are total shitholes.
In my experience the vast majority of “major French cities” - Paris, Bordeaux, Toulouse, Lyon, Nantes, Nice, even Marseille, are all rather lovely, in the centre. They know how to do urbanism. They bury the parking underground. They benefit from being feeble surrender monkeys so the Germans never had to bomb their cities to fuckaroo
However, as others have pointed out, they have plenty of grim places, but they tend to be hidden away in the bainlieus or in bleak dormitory towns
Saint Denis in far northern Paris is the most menacing place I have been in all of Europe, with the exception of the the ‘Ndrangheta Calabrian Mafia capital of Plati
Like you, I was struck by the immaculate town and village centres when I was in France earlier this year (
I think the Special Mashed Potato Lady has arrived
Fantastique
Let me guess, that's not Smash is it?
It is, indeed, not Smash
It is aligot, a rib-sticking speciality of the region (Aubrac - think Yorkshire Dales but sunnier, yet not so pretty). It’s mash with cheese and garlic. It’s nice. I wouldn’t go mad about it
My honest expectation is that the food on this trip will not be as good as the food I had in the Welsh Marches, and so far that is the case. British food at the higher end is now commonly as good as French - or better, because more varied and less hidebound
But let’s see. The Frogs might surprise me
They still do the public realm better than us. The well kept villages, the lovely stone paving. Why can’t we have the same civic pride?
Local government with little freedom, no constitutional protection from government interference, a meagre tax base, and no money.
France has no more money than the UK. Its economy is a similar size, its debt is rather bigger
They just seem to “care” more. Plus I guess they don’t have the demographic pressures, due to lower immigration and more space. It is easier to keep a place looking nice if it isn’t overrun with inhabitants demanding crappy redbrick new-builds
France is also better at NOT despoiling towns with hideously inappropriate new buildings
But have you seen the approach roads to most french towns/cities? My memory is that it is like US, mile after mile of low slung crap looking retail joints with huge signs.
It's easy to get rose-tinted.
Plenty of its major cities, and banlieues, are total shitholes.
In my experience the vast majority of “major French cities” - Paris, Bordeaux, Toulouse, Lyon, Nantes, Nice, even Marseille, are all rather lovely, in the centre. They know how to do urbanism. They bury the parking underground. They benefit from being feeble surrender monkeys so the Germans never had to bomb their cities to fuckaroo
However, as others have pointed out, they have plenty of grim places, but they tend to be hidden away in the bainlieus or in bleak dormitory towns
Saint Denis in far northern Paris is the most menacing place I have been in all of Europe, with the exception of the the ‘Ndrangheta Calabrian Mafia capital of Plati
Like you, I was struck by the immaculate town and village centres when I was in France earlier this year (Brittany). It was quite extraordinary, the contrast.
There are, as you say, ghettos. Yet the general standard of urban centres seems to be vastly higher.
Their centres are much nicer, their ethnic ghettoes much worse
‘Look, we’ll give you chappies some money as long as you accept one the most respected members of our family as Commodore in the JDF. Looks good in a white uniform, doesn’t sweat..’
I must confess reading the Evening Standard tonight I'm tempted to channel my usually well-hidden but always present inner anarchist.
At first glance, the fact 13 new hotels are opening in London should be positive news - after all, London thrives on tourism whether domestic or international and having hotels to suit all budgets across the capital would seem a pre-requisite.
However, it seems none of these new openings is going to charge less than £1000 per night for a room and the Standard goes on to laud the fact London is a magnet for the ultra-elite. While I've no issue with the "ultra elite" per se, I'm more concerned they are considered the group to whom we must now prostitute ourselves.
I think London deserves to be more than a multi-billionaires playground. It should be an open, welcoming city for all and while I know we can't dictate to the luxury hotel chains what they charge, it would be nice to think we were ensuring there was a good mix of accommodation for all and those of us less financially endowed could still come and stay and enjoy the wonders London has to offer.
The Standard itself is a symptom of the issue as well. It's a really peculiar paper these days, that seems very distant from the city it covers, as well as being awfully thin as a journalistic product.
And I fear we kind of brought it on ourselves. It's very nice having a newspaper shaped object that you don't have to pay for. But that makes it liable to be a poop like as the emojis in the weather forecast, and the plaything of a rich weirdo whose priorities aren't necessarily those of the rest of us.
On the other hand, we can grab it without paying for it or having to wait for someone to leave their copy on the train somewhere like Guildford (my father) or Chadwell Heath (me).
My auntie kept a Rhodesian Ridgebacks. These were (to me) massive dogs, and felt aggressive even when running around. But they lived on a farm, and had a couple of acres to run around. There were also always at least two on the farm. They were as soppy as anything, and the only time they caused me any hard was when one knocked me over whilst I was on one leg pulling on my workboots. They were lovely.
A South London friend kept greyhaunds on a high floor of a tower block. The greyhounds - usually seen as soppy dogs - were mad. Because they only got exercised once a day.
It is the dogs; but it is also the owner.
RRs are wonderful dogs.
Surprised at what you say about the greyhounds. They need remarkably little exercise, and are typically gentle creatures.
Perhaps I didn't say that correctly. They were gentle, but they wanted to be out and about. They were living in a tower block in South London, and did not get regular, good exercise.
My auntie's Rhodesian Ridgeback's are the only ones I have known, and I agree. They were wonderful.
Myself and a friend got attacked by a Doberman once in a pub, and it put me off large dogs for life. My friend had to have stitches in his nose. It was the landlord's dog...
Sorry to hear about your experience with the Doberman. There is nothing wrong with the breed but your experience does help to highlight the shortcomings of simplistic attitudes towards dog control. A lead is not a lot of help with an out of control Doberman. The animal is simply too strong. There is an argument for saying a dog of that type should not generally be in a public space - and a pub is nothing if not public - at all unless the owner can clearly demonstrate his/her control of the animal through normal means. That clearly did not apply in your example.
I assume some formal action and compensation followed?
It was a Peak District pub. You turned left into either the bar or lounge (I forget which). My friend entered ahead of me, turning right. The landlord had just taken his doberman for a walk, and had sat down to talk to a customer. The dog was lying in the doorway.
My friend turns right, and (we think) hit the Doberman's nose with his knee. The next thing I know, my friend is falling backwards with his hands over his nose, blood everywhere. I push past. and ask the barmaid for some napkins (I knew nothing about the dog, and thought my friend had walked into the door). We get taken to a local A&E. They found part of the dog's tooth in my friend's cartilage. I got slashed by it when I went past, and at the hospital they treated my arm.
It turned out the dog had previously attacked a barmaid's young daughter. The landlord move soon afterwards; the dog ended up at a scrapyard.
It was horrifying for a young (and underage...) lad. The landlord turned up to the hospital with a couple of pints (God knows how he got them there without spilling). He said the dog had suffered; it had lost a tooth. The one they found part of in my friend's nose...
Hence I'm uneasy around big dogs. Sue me.
OK, it was a long time ago but even then you could have sued the landlord to buggery. He was bang out of order, and obviously a brainless dog owner.
I think the Special Mashed Potato Lady has arrived
Fantastique
Let me guess, that's not Smash is it?
It is, indeed, not Smash
It is aligot, a rib-sticking speciality of the region (Aubrac - think Yorkshire Dales but sunnier, yet not so pretty). It’s mash with cheese and garlic. It’s nice. I wouldn’t go mad about it
My honest expectation is that the food on this trip will not be as good as the food I had in the Welsh Marches, and so far that is the case. British food at the higher end is now commonly as good as French - or better, because more varied and less hidebound
But let’s see. The Frogs might surprise me
They still do the public realm better than us. The well kept villages, the lovely stone paving. Why can’t we have the same civic pride?
I've eaten a lot in France and most of the time it has been ok but nothing special and then every so often I get blown away by a fantastic meal that isn't even expensive.
Yes, that’s my experience
However, over the years the mediocre French meals have got more common, and the wonderful French meals less common. At least that is my perception, but is is of course coloured by several factors:: I have much more experience of food worldwide, I have eaten better and better food as I’ve got more affluent (and experienced), British food (and other cuisines - eg Oz) have improved markedly in the last 20-30 years, meaning French food is less impressive from the get-go
However in certain areas French food has absolutely declined, cf the problems with microwaved food shipped frozen from Paris to “authentic bistros” nationwide
I was quite taken by Rick Stein's last France series where he set out to show that French food is still amazing. I kept thinking 'Sure, if you've got a team of researchers to find interesting spots, a BBC budget to blow, a fancy car and six months to spend - great!'.
Here’s an interesting sociopolitical phenomenon/theory I have not encountered before
I am in Lozere, the emptiest department in France. But Lozere, apparently, is just part of the “empty diagonal” a solidus across France where (almost) no one lives
The Tories are not gonna replace Sunak. They don’t have the moral and emotional energy. They are like a dog with no fight left
They are essentially resigned to their fate, apart from a few delusional types. They will go down with their ship and their captain, saluting the king as they do so
Even @HYUFD on here has accepted a near certain defeat
A dog with no fight left, but which has mauled enough children in the last 13 years that the public wish to ban it anyway.
Today’s PB where am I quiz:
I can just spy a rather constructivist radio tower
Berlin?
Sorry all, I posted the question then disappeared for dinner.
My auntie kept a Rhodesian Ridgebacks. These were (to me) massive dogs, and felt aggressive even when running around. But they lived on a farm, and had a couple of acres to run around. There were also always at least two on the farm. They were as soppy as anything, and the only time they caused me any hard was when one knocked me over whilst I was on one leg pulling on my workboots. They were lovely.
A South London friend kept greyhaunds on a high floor of a tower block. The greyhounds - usually seen as soppy dogs - were mad. Because they only got exercised once a day.
It is the dogs; but it is also the owner.
RRs are wonderful dogs.
Surprised at what you say about the greyhounds. They need remarkably little exercise, and are typically gentle creatures.
Perhaps I didn't say that correctly. They were gentle, but they wanted to be out and about. They were living in a tower block in South London, and did not get regular, good exercise.
My auntie's Rhodesian Ridgeback's are the only ones I have known, and I agree. They were wonderful.
Myself and a friend got attacked by a Doberman once in a pub, and it put me off large dogs for life. My friend had to have stitches in his nose. It was the landlord's dog...
Sorry to hear about your experience with the Doberman. There is nothing wrong with the breed but your experience does help to highlight the shortcomings of simplistic attitudes towards dog control. A lead is not a lot of help with an out of control Doberman. The animal is simply too strong. There is an argument for saying a dog of that type should not generally be in a public space - and a pub is nothing if not public - at all unless the owner can clearly demonstrate his/her control of the animal through normal means. That clearly did not apply in your example.
I assume some formal action and compensation followed?
It was a Peak District pub. You turned left into either the bar or lounge (I forget which). My friend entered ahead of me, turning right. The landlord had just taken his doberman for a walk, and had sat down to talk to a customer. The dog was lying in the doorway.
My friend turns right, and (we think) hit the Doberman's nose with his knee. The next thing I know, my friend is falling backwards with his hands over his nose, blood everywhere. I push past. and ask the barmaid for some napkins (I knew nothing about the dog, and thought my friend had walked into the door). We get taken to a local A&E. They found part of the dog's tooth in my friend's cartilage. I got slashed by it when I went past, and at the hospital they treated my arm.
It turned out the dog had previously attacked a barmaid's young daughter. The landlord move soon afterwards; the dog ended up at a scrapyard.
It was horrifying for a young (and underage...) lad. The landlord turned up to the hospital with a couple of pints (God knows how he got them there without spilling). He said the dog had suffered; it had lost a tooth. The one they found part of in my friend's nose...
Hence I'm uneasy around big dogs. Sue me.
OK, it was a long time ago but even then you could have sued the landlord to buggery. He was bang out of order, and obviously a brainless dog owner.
Omn the hound front, this is an interesting piece - with real experts involved.
Last I heard Corbyn was still a member of the Labour party and has not been expelled.
The whip has merely been withdrawn and the national executive committee has decided they don't want him standing as a Labour candidate, which it has the power to do.
Many people might see that as outrageous, but if so it should be accurate outrage.
My auntie kept a Rhodesian Ridgebacks. These were (to me) massive dogs, and felt aggressive even when running around. But they lived on a farm, and had a couple of acres to run around. There were also always at least two on the farm. They were as soppy as anything, and the only time they caused me any hard was when one knocked me over whilst I was on one leg pulling on my workboots. They were lovely.
A South London friend kept greyhaunds on a high floor of a tower block. The greyhounds - usually seen as soppy dogs - were mad. Because they only got exercised once a day.
It is the dogs; but it is also the owner.
RRs are wonderful dogs.
Surprised at what you say about the greyhounds. They need remarkably little exercise, and are typically gentle creatures.
Perhaps I didn't say that correctly. They were gentle, but they wanted to be out and about. They were living in a tower block in South London, and did not get regular, good exercise.
My auntie's Rhodesian Ridgeback's are the only ones I have known, and I agree. They were wonderful.
Myself and a friend got attacked by a Doberman once in a pub, and it put me off large dogs for life. My friend had to have stitches in his nose. It was the landlord's dog...
Sorry to hear about your experience with the Doberman. There is nothing wrong with the breed but your experience does help to highlight the shortcomings of simplistic attitudes towards dog control. A lead is not a lot of help with an out of control Doberman. The animal is simply too strong. There is an argument for saying a dog of that type should not generally be in a public space - and a pub is nothing if not public - at all unless the owner can clearly demonstrate his/her control of the animal through normal means. That clearly did not apply in your example.
I assume some formal action and compensation followed?
It was a Peak District pub. You turned left into either the bar or lounge (I forget which). My friend entered ahead of me, turning right. The landlord had just taken his doberman for a walk, and had sat down to talk to a customer. The dog was lying in the doorway.
My friend turns right, and (we think) hit the Doberman's nose with his knee. The next thing I know, my friend is falling backwards with his hands over his nose, blood everywhere. I push past. and ask the barmaid for some napkins (I knew nothing about the dog, and thought my friend had walked into the door). We get taken to a local A&E. They found part of the dog's tooth in my friend's cartilage. I got slashed by it when I went past, and at the hospital they treated my arm.
It turned out the dog had previously attacked a barmaid's young daughter. The landlord move soon afterwards; the dog ended up at a scrapyard.
It was horrifying for a young (and underage...) lad. The landlord turned up to the hospital with a couple of pints (God knows how he got them there without spilling). He said the dog had suffered; it had lost a tooth. The one they found part of in my friend's nose...
Hence I'm uneasy around big dogs. Sue me.
OK, it was a long time ago but even then you could have sued the landlord to buggery. He was bang out of order, and obviously a brainless dog owner.
As an adult, possibly. I was 17 or 18, and I got free drinks in the pub (when I was up there) for a few weeks until he left. My mate was worse off, and I don't think he sued. He became known as 'Doberman nose' thereafter...
From the landlord's perspective, it was a natural thing. The pub's open but quiet, take the dog for a walk. Come back in, see a regular, and sit down with them for a chat. Don't realise your dog is in the doorway...
I think the Special Mashed Potato Lady has arrived
Fantastique
Let me guess, that's not Smash is it?
It is, indeed, not Smash
It is aligot, a rib-sticking speciality of the region (Aubrac - think Yorkshire Dales but sunnier, yet not so pretty). It’s mash with cheese and garlic. It’s nice. I wouldn’t go mad about it
My honest expectation is that the food on this trip will not be as good as the food I had in the Welsh Marches, and so far that is the case. British food at the higher end is now commonly as good as French - or better, because more varied and less hidebound
But let’s see. The Frogs might surprise me
They still do the public realm better than us. The well kept villages, the lovely stone paving. Why can’t we have the same civic pride?
I've eaten a lot in France and most of the time it has been ok but nothing special and then every so often I get blown away by a fantastic meal that isn't even expensive.
Yes, that’s my experience
However, over the years the mediocre French meals have got more common, and the wonderful French meals less common. At least that is my perception, but is is of course coloured by several factors:: I have much more experience of food worldwide, I have eaten better and better food as I’ve got more affluent (and experienced), British food (and other cuisines - eg Oz) have improved markedly in the last 20-30 years, meaning French food is less impressive from the get-go
However in certain areas French food has absolutely declined, cf the problems with microwaved food shipped frozen from Paris to “authentic bistros” nationwide
I was quite taken by Rick Stein's last France series where he set out to show that French food is still amazing. I kept thinking 'Sure, if you've got a team of researchers to find interesting spots, a BBC budget to blow, a fancy car and six months to spend - great!'.
Yes, French food has stagnated. Not necessarily declined absolutely, it’s just the rest of the continent has caught up.
However it’s declined most at the upper-medium level. Basic brasserie food remains better than its British or German or Dutch equivalent. Haute haute cuisine is similar in most places but the continent of Europe has fallen a bit behind overall. But food at the tier between bib gourmand and the first star is definitely staid.
What do people think the Labour VI lead, & Betfair price for Labour overall majority would be now had Boris never faced a vote of confidence last year, the mass resignations didn’t happen, & he was still PM?
Did the resignations not happen because Boris had a character implant and apologised early on or because his opponents were too frit and didn't pull the trigger?
The former the Tories probably 8-10 behind. The latter 20-25 behind.
What happens with the Privileges Committee report? Is that just not happening, or is it now an investigation into the PM, rather than a gone yesterday, definitely gone tomorrow, backbencher?
The second would be messy, in a grimly fascinating way.
Let’s say it happened the second way, and whatever the result was, he is still PM now
Would the Tories be 20 points behind in the polls & 10/1 for a majority?
It sounds vaguely like Guy Burgess. Did the China spy go to Oxford or Cambridge? I think TSE has already done the joke about his being a privately educated son of a GP.
The other obvious question is why nothing much happened since March, compared with the major panic around the alleged Iranian spy who broke out of Wandsworth (and who was not spirited out of the country via their embassy!).
I suspect I know the GP in question, but not his son.
I imagine the alleged spy is being leaked now as part of a get tough on China policy linked to the G20 meeting and Sunak's meeting with the Chinese FM. So a political move rather than a crime prevention one.
Clearly China does have spies in the UK and maybe the policy advisor really is one such, but it feels random to me. Being right on the actual spy matters it seems to me if you broadcast their name, as the Sunday Times did. I have no reason to believe this guy is a spy, but then I don't know anything about it beyond the fact the police attested him on suspicion and released him six months ago. I get the impression the Sunday Times doesn't know much more than I do.
I think the Special Mashed Potato Lady has arrived
Fantastique
Let me guess, that's not Smash is it?
It is, indeed, not Smash
It is aligot, a rib-sticking speciality of the region (Aubrac - think Yorkshire Dales but sunnier, yet not so pretty). It’s mash with cheese and garlic. It’s nice. I wouldn’t go mad about it
My honest expectation is that the food on this trip will not be as good as the food I had in the Welsh Marches, and so far that is the case. British food at the higher end is now commonly as good as French - or better, because more varied and less hidebound
But let’s see. The Frogs might surprise me
They still do the public realm better than us. The well kept villages, the lovely stone paving. Why can’t we have the same civic pride?
I've eaten a lot in France and most of the time it has been ok but nothing special and then every so often I get blown away by a fantastic meal that isn't even expensive.
Yes, that’s my experience
However, over the years the mediocre French meals have got more common, and the wonderful French meals less common. At least that is my perception, but is is of course coloured by several factors:: I have much more experience of food worldwide, I have eaten better and better food as I’ve got more affluent (and experienced), British food (and other cuisines - eg Oz) have improved markedly in the last 20-30 years, meaning French food is less impressive from the get-go
However in certain areas French food has absolutely declined, cf the problems with microwaved food shipped frozen from Paris to “authentic bistros” nationwide
I was quite taken by Rick Stein's last France series where he set out to show that French food is still amazing. I kept thinking 'Sure, if you've got a team of researchers to find interesting spots, a BBC budget to blow, a fancy car and six months to spend - great!'.
Oui. Also, he didn’t really find anywhere that amazing, to my mind
I must confess reading the Evening Standard tonight I'm tempted to channel my usually well-hidden but always present inner anarchist.
At first glance, the fact 13 new hotels are opening in London should be positive news - after all, London thrives on tourism whether domestic or international and having hotels to suit all budgets across the capital would seem a pre-requisite.
However, it seems none of these new openings is going to charge less than £1000 per night for a room and the Standard goes on to laud the fact London is a magnet for the ultra-elite. While I've no issue with the "ultra elite" per se, I'm more concerned they are considered the group to whom we must now prostitute ourselves.
I think London deserves to be more than a multi-billionaires playground. It should be an open, welcoming city for all and while I know we can't dictate to the luxury hotel chains what they charge, it would be nice to think we were ensuring there was a good mix of accommodation for all and those of us less financially endowed could still come and stay and enjoy the wonders London has to offer.
The Standard itself is a symptom of the issue as well. It's a really peculiar paper these days, that seems very distant from the city it covers, as well as being awfully thin as a journalistic product.
And I fear we kind of brought it on ourselves. It's very nice having a newspaper shaped object that you don't have to pay for. But that makes it liable to be a poop like as the emojis in the weather forecast, and the plaything of a rich weirdo whose priorities aren't necessarily those of the rest of us.
On the other hand, we can grab it without paying for it or having to wait for someone to leave their copy on the train somewhere like Guildford (my father) or Chadwell Heath (me).
That's a very valid point, my friend.
I confess apart from the puzzles, which keep me entertained on the tube journey home, I don't really read it. I glance at the first couple of pages - the pandemic and the fall of his friend Boris Johnson has really hit home. The advertising revenue has returned to a degree but the paper is an emaciated version of its pre-pandemic self.
The paper is trying to be more even-handed these days having been very pro-Boris and isn't keen on Sunak, Khan or Hall.
Corbyn hasn't been ejected just because he's a tit.
Corbyn wouldn't accept that he tacitly condoned anti-Semitism when he was leader. If he could agree that on his watch some very unpleasant people indulged in racist bullying I daresay there might have been a way back. Instead there is talk of him unseating Khan and Starmer.
He was never a big figure in Labour politics. He was always just and awkward footnote. Then he delivered Boris Johnson an 80 seat majority, that was his legacy.
I think the Special Mashed Potato Lady has arrived
Fantastique
Let me guess, that's not Smash is it?
It is, indeed, not Smash
It is aligot, a rib-sticking speciality of the region (Aubrac - think Yorkshire Dales but sunnier, yet not so pretty). It’s mash with cheese and garlic. It’s nice. I wouldn’t go mad about it
My honest expectation is that the food on this trip will not be as good as the food I had in the Welsh Marches, and so far that is the case. British food at the higher end is now commonly as good as French - or better, because more varied and less hidebound
But let’s see. The Frogs might surprise me
They still do the public realm better than us. The well kept villages, the lovely stone paving. Why can’t we have the same civic pride?
I've eaten a lot in France and most of the time it has been ok but nothing special and then every so often I get blown away by a fantastic meal that isn't even expensive.
Yes, that’s my experience
However, over the years the mediocre French meals have got more common, and the wonderful French meals less common. At least that is my perception, but is is of course coloured by several factors:: I have much more experience of food worldwide, I have eaten better and better food as I’ve got more affluent (and experienced), British food (and other cuisines - eg Oz) have improved markedly in the last 20-30 years, meaning French food is less impressive from the get-go
However in certain areas French food has absolutely declined, cf the problems with microwaved food shipped frozen from Paris to “authentic bistros” nationwide
I was quite taken by Rick Stein's last France series where he set out to show that French food is still amazing. I kept thinking 'Sure, if you've got a team of researchers to find interesting spots, a BBC budget to blow, a fancy car and six months to spend - great!'.
Yes, French food has stagnated. Not necessarily declined absolutely, it’s just the rest of the continent has caught up.
However it’s declined most at the upper-medium level. Basic brasserie food remains better than its British or German or Dutch equivalent. Haute haute cuisine is similar in most places but the continent of Europe has fallen a bit behind overall. But food at the tier between bib gourmand and the first star is definitely staid.
German and Dutch food is generally disgusting; like British food 30-50 years ago
And for anecdotal purposes, every single meal I ate in the Welsh Marches was significantly better than the meal I just ate here, in Nasbinals, Lozere
Now this is just one meal, and I will therefore reserve judgement. But I get the sense the tourist board sent me here coz it is the best place to eat in town. Certainly it is proud of its food - photos of chefs in the menu etc - and has a lot of custom. But: meh
My auntie kept a Rhodesian Ridgebacks. These were (to me) massive dogs, and felt aggressive even when running around. But they lived on a farm, and had a couple of acres to run around. There were also always at least two on the farm. They were as soppy as anything, and the only time they caused me any hard was when one knocked me over whilst I was on one leg pulling on my workboots. They were lovely.
A South London friend kept greyhaunds on a high floor of a tower block. The greyhounds - usually seen as soppy dogs - were mad. Because they only got exercised once a day.
It is the dogs; but it is also the owner.
RRs are wonderful dogs.
Surprised at what you say about the greyhounds. They need remarkably little exercise, and are typically gentle creatures.
Perhaps I didn't say that correctly. They were gentle, but they wanted to be out and about. They were living in a tower block in South London, and did not get regular, good exercise.
My auntie's Rhodesian Ridgeback's are the only ones I have known, and I agree. They were wonderful.
Myself and a friend got attacked by a Doberman once in a pub, and it put me off large dogs for life. My friend had to have stitches in his nose. It was the landlord's dog...
Sorry to hear about your experience with the Doberman. There is nothing wrong with the breed but your experience does help to highlight the shortcomings of simplistic attitudes towards dog control. A lead is not a lot of help with an out of control Doberman. The animal is simply too strong. There is an argument for saying a dog of that type should not generally be in a public space - and a pub is nothing if not public - at all unless the owner can clearly demonstrate his/her control of the animal through normal means. That clearly did not apply in your example.
I assume some formal action and compensation followed?
It was a Peak District pub. You turned left into either the bar or lounge (I forget which). My friend entered ahead of me, turning right. The landlord had just taken his doberman for a walk, and had sat down to talk to a customer. The dog was lying in the doorway.
My friend turns right, and (we think) hit the Doberman's nose with his knee. The next thing I know, my friend is falling backwards with his hands over his nose, blood everywhere. I push past. and ask the barmaid for some napkins (I knew nothing about the dog, and thought my friend had walked into the door). We get taken to a local A&E. They found part of the dog's tooth in my friend's cartilage. I got slashed by it when I went past, and at the hospital they treated my arm.
It turned out the dog had previously attacked a barmaid's young daughter. The landlord move soon afterwards; the dog ended up at a scrapyard.
It was horrifying for a young (and underage...) lad. The landlord turned up to the hospital with a couple of pints (God knows how he got them there without spilling). He said the dog had suffered; it had lost a tooth. The one they found part of in my friend's nose...
Hence I'm uneasy around big dogs. Sue me.
OK, it was a long time ago but even then you could have sued the landlord to buggery. He was bang out of order, and obviously a brainless dog owner.
Omn the hound front, this is an interesting piece - with real experts involved.
I have only once seen a truly dangerous attack by a dog on a human and I had a lump taken out of my hand when I intervened. It was a 7 month old border collie. We had been trying to foster it after it had been cruelly treated by the previous owner. We had to give up. It was beyond our capabilities.
It was a nasty experience but at least it was possible for me to restrain the animal. That wouldn't be possible with some breeds, which is why some governmental control over certain breeds and their owners is appropriate.
But yes, the article is right. It's largely nurture, not nature, and restricting certain breeds is fraught with difficulty and has to be done carefully and thoughtfully.
My auntie kept a Rhodesian Ridgebacks. These were (to me) massive dogs, and felt aggressive even when running around. But they lived on a farm, and had a couple of acres to run around. There were also always at least two on the farm. They were as soppy as anything, and the only time they caused me any hard was when one knocked me over whilst I was on one leg pulling on my workboots. They were lovely.
A South London friend kept greyhaunds on a high floor of a tower block. The greyhounds - usually seen as soppy dogs - were mad. Because they only got exercised once a day.
It is the dogs; but it is also the owner.
RRs are wonderful dogs.
Surprised at what you say about the greyhounds. They need remarkably little exercise, and are typically gentle creatures.
Perhaps I didn't say that correctly. They were gentle, but they wanted to be out and about. They were living in a tower block in South London, and did not get regular, good exercise.
My auntie's Rhodesian Ridgeback's are the only ones I have known, and I agree. They were wonderful.
Myself and a friend got attacked by a Doberman once in a pub, and it put me off large dogs for life. My friend had to have stitches in his nose. It was the landlord's dog...
Sorry to hear about your experience with the Doberman. There is nothing wrong with the breed but your experience does help to highlight the shortcomings of simplistic attitudes towards dog control. A lead is not a lot of help with an out of control Doberman. The animal is simply too strong. There is an argument for saying a dog of that type should not generally be in a public space - and a pub is nothing if not public - at all unless the owner can clearly demonstrate his/her control of the animal through normal means. That clearly did not apply in your example.
I assume some formal action and compensation followed?
It was a Peak District pub. You turned left into either the bar or lounge (I forget which). My friend entered ahead of me, turning right. The landlord had just taken his doberman for a walk, and had sat down to talk to a customer. The dog was lying in the doorway.
My friend turns right, and (we think) hit the Doberman's nose with his knee. The next thing I know, my friend is falling backwards with his hands over his nose, blood everywhere. I push past. and ask the barmaid for some napkins (I knew nothing about the dog, and thought my friend had walked into the door). We get taken to a local A&E. They found part of the dog's tooth in my friend's cartilage. I got slashed by it when I went past, and at the hospital they treated my arm.
It turned out the dog had previously attacked a barmaid's young daughter. The landlord move soon afterwards; the dog ended up at a scrapyard.
It was horrifying for a young (and underage...) lad. The landlord turned up to the hospital with a couple of pints (God knows how he got them there without spilling). He said the dog had suffered; it had lost a tooth. The one they found part of in my friend's nose...
Hence I'm uneasy around big dogs. Sue me.
OK, it was a long time ago but even then you could have sued the landlord to buggery. He was bang out of order, and obviously a brainless dog owner.
Omn the hound front, this is an interesting piece - with real experts involved.
My auntie kept a Rhodesian Ridgebacks. These were (to me) massive dogs, and felt aggressive even when running around. But they lived on a farm, and had a couple of acres to run around. There were also always at least two on the farm. They were as soppy as anything, and the only time they caused me any hard was when one knocked me over whilst I was on one leg pulling on my workboots. They were lovely.
A South London friend kept greyhaunds on a high floor of a tower block. The greyhounds - usually seen as soppy dogs - were mad. Because they only got exercised once a day.
It is the dogs; but it is also the owner.
RRs are wonderful dogs.
Surprised at what you say about the greyhounds. They need remarkably little exercise, and are typically gentle creatures.
Perhaps I didn't say that correctly. They were gentle, but they wanted to be out and about. They were living in a tower block in South London, and did not get regular, good exercise.
My auntie's Rhodesian Ridgeback's are the only ones I have known, and I agree. They were wonderful.
Myself and a friend got attacked by a Doberman once in a pub, and it put me off large dogs for life. My friend had to have stitches in his nose. It was the landlord's dog...
Sorry to hear about your experience with the Doberman. There is nothing wrong with the breed but your experience does help to highlight the shortcomings of simplistic attitudes towards dog control. A lead is not a lot of help with an out of control Doberman. The animal is simply too strong. There is an argument for saying a dog of that type should not generally be in a public space - and a pub is nothing if not public - at all unless the owner can clearly demonstrate his/her control of the animal through normal means. That clearly did not apply in your example.
I assume some formal action and compensation followed?
It was a Peak District pub. You turned left into either the bar or lounge (I forget which). My friend entered ahead of me, turning right. The landlord had just taken his doberman for a walk, and had sat down to talk to a customer. The dog was lying in the doorway.
My friend turns right, and (we think) hit the Doberman's nose with his knee. The next thing I know, my friend is falling backwards with his hands over his nose, blood everywhere. I push past. and ask the barmaid for some napkins (I knew nothing about the dog, and thought my friend had walked into the door). We get taken to a local A&E. They found part of the dog's tooth in my friend's cartilage. I got slashed by it when I went past, and at the hospital they treated my arm.
It turned out the dog had previously attacked a barmaid's young daughter. The landlord move soon afterwards; the dog ended up at a scrapyard.
It was horrifying for a young (and underage...) lad. The landlord turned up to the hospital with a couple of pints (God knows how he got them there without spilling). He said the dog had suffered; it had lost a tooth. The one they found part of in my friend's nose...
Hence I'm uneasy around big dogs. Sue me.
OK, it was a long time ago but even then you could have sued the landlord to buggery. He was bang out of order, and obviously a brainless dog owner.
Omn the hound front, this is an interesting piece - with real experts involved.
My auntie kept a Rhodesian Ridgebacks. These were (to me) massive dogs, and felt aggressive even when running around. But they lived on a farm, and had a couple of acres to run around. There were also always at least two on the farm. They were as soppy as anything, and the only time they caused me any hard was when one knocked me over whilst I was on one leg pulling on my workboots. They were lovely.
A South London friend kept greyhaunds on a high floor of a tower block. The greyhounds - usually seen as soppy dogs - were mad. Because they only got exercised once a day.
It is the dogs; but it is also the owner.
RRs are wonderful dogs.
Surprised at what you say about the greyhounds. They need remarkably little exercise, and are typically gentle creatures.
Perhaps I didn't say that correctly. They were gentle, but they wanted to be out and about. They were living in a tower block in South London, and did not get regular, good exercise.
My auntie's Rhodesian Ridgeback's are the only ones I have known, and I agree. They were wonderful.
Myself and a friend got attacked by a Doberman once in a pub, and it put me off large dogs for life. My friend had to have stitches in his nose. It was the landlord's dog...
Sorry to hear about your experience with the Doberman. There is nothing wrong with the breed but your experience does help to highlight the shortcomings of simplistic attitudes towards dog control. A lead is not a lot of help with an out of control Doberman. The animal is simply too strong. There is an argument for saying a dog of that type should not generally be in a public space - and a pub is nothing if not public - at all unless the owner can clearly demonstrate his/her control of the animal through normal means. That clearly did not apply in your example.
I assume some formal action and compensation followed?
It was a Peak District pub. You turned left into either the bar or lounge (I forget which). My friend entered ahead of me, turning right. The landlord had just taken his doberman for a walk, and had sat down to talk to a customer. The dog was lying in the doorway.
My friend turns right, and (we think) hit the Doberman's nose with his knee. The next thing I know, my friend is falling backwards with his hands over his nose, blood everywhere. I push past. and ask the barmaid for some napkins (I knew nothing about the dog, and thought my friend had walked into the door). We get taken to a local A&E. They found part of the dog's tooth in my friend's cartilage. I got slashed by it when I went past, and at the hospital they treated my arm.
It turned out the dog had previously attacked a barmaid's young daughter. The landlord move soon afterwards; the dog ended up at a scrapyard.
It was horrifying for a young (and underage...) lad. The landlord turned up to the hospital with a couple of pints (God knows how he got them there without spilling). He said the dog had suffered; it had lost a tooth. The one they found part of in my friend's nose...
Hence I'm uneasy around big dogs. Sue me.
OK, it was a long time ago but even then you could have sued the landlord to buggery. He was bang out of order, and obviously a brainless dog owner.
Omn the hound front, this is an interesting piece - with real experts involved.
I have only once seen a truly dangerous attack by a dog on a human and I had a lump taken out of my hand when I intervened. It was a 7 month old border collie. We had been trying to foster it after it had been cruelly treated by the previous owner. We had to give up. It was beyond our capabilities.
It was a nasty experience but at least it was possible for me to restrain the animal. That wouldn't be possible with some breeds, which is why some governmental control over certain breeds and their owners is appropriate.
But yes, the article is right. It's largely nurture, not nature, and restricting certain breeds is fraught with difficulty and has to be done carefully and thoughtfully.
Quite so to both.
Though small dogs are still dangerous to small children, of course!
I think the Special Mashed Potato Lady has arrived
Fantastique
Let me guess, that's not Smash is it?
It is, indeed, not Smash
It is aligot, a rib-sticking speciality of the region (Aubrac - think Yorkshire Dales but sunnier, yet not so pretty). It’s mash with cheese and garlic. It’s nice. I wouldn’t go mad about it
My honest expectation is that the food on this trip will not be as good as the food I had in the Welsh Marches, and so far that is the case. British food at the higher end is now commonly as good as French - or better, because more varied and less hidebound
But let’s see. The Frogs might surprise me
They still do the public realm better than us. The well kept villages, the lovely stone paving. Why can’t we have the same civic pride?
Local government with little freedom, no constitutional protection from government interference, a meagre tax base, and no money.
France has no more money than the UK. Its economy is a similar size, its debt is rather bigger
They just seem to “care” more. Plus I guess they don’t have the demographic pressures, due to lower immigration and more space. It is easier to keep a place looking nice if it isn’t overrun with inhabitants demanding crappy redbrick new-builds
France is also better at NOT despoiling towns with hideously inappropriate new buildings
France has loads of immigrants, they just house them in ghettoes that no one from outside of France would ever go to because they're dangerous.
So why don't we do the same? Simply wall off Sutton-in-Ashfield as a Ghetto, and tranship all the foreigners we don't want. As Lee Anderson can feed them for 30p a day this would surely be far cheaper than the Rwanda nonsense.
My auntie kept a Rhodesian Ridgebacks. These were (to me) massive dogs, and felt aggressive even when running around. But they lived on a farm, and had a couple of acres to run around. There were also always at least two on the farm. They were as soppy as anything, and the only time they caused me any hard was when one knocked me over whilst I was on one leg pulling on my workboots. They were lovely.
A South London friend kept greyhaunds on a high floor of a tower block. The greyhounds - usually seen as soppy dogs - were mad. Because they only got exercised once a day.
It is the dogs; but it is also the owner.
RRs are wonderful dogs.
Surprised at what you say about the greyhounds. They need remarkably little exercise, and are typically gentle creatures.
Perhaps I didn't say that correctly. They were gentle, but they wanted to be out and about. They were living in a tower block in South London, and did not get regular, good exercise.
My auntie's Rhodesian Ridgeback's are the only ones I have known, and I agree. They were wonderful.
Myself and a friend got attacked by a Doberman once in a pub, and it put me off large dogs for life. My friend had to have stitches in his nose. It was the landlord's dog...
Sorry to hear about your experience with the Doberman. There is nothing wrong with the breed but your experience does help to highlight the shortcomings of simplistic attitudes towards dog control. A lead is not a lot of help with an out of control Doberman. The animal is simply too strong. There is an argument for saying a dog of that type should not generally be in a public space - and a pub is nothing if not public - at all unless the owner can clearly demonstrate his/her control of the animal through normal means. That clearly did not apply in your example.
I assume some formal action and compensation followed?
It was a Peak District pub. You turned left into either the bar or lounge (I forget which). My friend entered ahead of me, turning right. The landlord had just taken his doberman for a walk, and had sat down to talk to a customer. The dog was lying in the doorway.
My friend turns right, and (we think) hit the Doberman's nose with his knee. The next thing I know, my friend is falling backwards with his hands over his nose, blood everywhere. I push past. and ask the barmaid for some napkins (I knew nothing about the dog, and thought my friend had walked into the door). We get taken to a local A&E. They found part of the dog's tooth in my friend's cartilage. I got slashed by it when I went past, and at the hospital they treated my arm.
It turned out the dog had previously attacked a barmaid's young daughter. The landlord move soon afterwards; the dog ended up at a scrapyard.
It was horrifying for a young (and underage...) lad. The landlord turned up to the hospital with a couple of pints (God knows how he got them there without spilling). He said the dog had suffered; it had lost a tooth. The one they found part of in my friend's nose...
Hence I'm uneasy around big dogs. Sue me.
OK, it was a long time ago but even then you could have sued the landlord to buggery. He was bang out of order, and obviously a brainless dog owner.
Omn the hound front, this is an interesting piece - with real experts involved.
I have only once seen a truly dangerous attack by a dog on a human and I had a lump taken out of my hand when I intervened. It was a 7 month old border collie. We had been trying to foster it after it had been cruelly treated by the previous owner. We had to give up. It was beyond our capabilities.
It was a nasty experience but at least it was possible for me to restrain the animal. That wouldn't be possible with some breeds, which is why some governmental control over certain breeds and their owners is appropriate.
But yes, the article is right. It's largely nurture, not nature, and restricting certain breeds is fraught with difficulty and has to be done carefully and thoughtfully.
But if we ban Bully XLs then savage attacks by these dogs will stop tomorrow. Just get the fuck on with it
Once the ban is in place, we can talk about finessing it, I suggest we copy the highly effective Australian law which bans all dogs that look like fighting dogs
That will deter anyone from buying or owning such dogs, as you are highly likely to see it seized and killed, and your money wasted
My auntie kept a Rhodesian Ridgebacks. These were (to me) massive dogs, and felt aggressive even when running around. But they lived on a farm, and had a couple of acres to run around. There were also always at least two on the farm. They were as soppy as anything, and the only time they caused me any hard was when one knocked me over whilst I was on one leg pulling on my workboots. They were lovely.
A South London friend kept greyhaunds on a high floor of a tower block. The greyhounds - usually seen as soppy dogs - were mad. Because they only got exercised once a day.
It is the dogs; but it is also the owner.
RRs are wonderful dogs.
Surprised at what you say about the greyhounds. They need remarkably little exercise, and are typically gentle creatures.
Perhaps I didn't say that correctly. They were gentle, but they wanted to be out and about. They were living in a tower block in South London, and did not get regular, good exercise.
My auntie's Rhodesian Ridgeback's are the only ones I have known, and I agree. They were wonderful.
Myself and a friend got attacked by a Doberman once in a pub, and it put me off large dogs for life. My friend had to have stitches in his nose. It was the landlord's dog...
Sorry to hear about your experience with the Doberman. There is nothing wrong with the breed but your experience does help to highlight the shortcomings of simplistic attitudes towards dog control. A lead is not a lot of help with an out of control Doberman. The animal is simply too strong. There is an argument for saying a dog of that type should not generally be in a public space - and a pub is nothing if not public - at all unless the owner can clearly demonstrate his/her control of the animal through normal means. That clearly did not apply in your example.
I assume some formal action and compensation followed?
It was a Peak District pub. You turned left into either the bar or lounge (I forget which). My friend entered ahead of me, turning right. The landlord had just taken his doberman for a walk, and had sat down to talk to a customer. The dog was lying in the doorway.
My friend turns right, and (we think) hit the Doberman's nose with his knee. The next thing I know, my friend is falling backwards with his hands over his nose, blood everywhere. I push past. and ask the barmaid for some napkins (I knew nothing about the dog, and thought my friend had walked into the door). We get taken to a local A&E. They found part of the dog's tooth in my friend's cartilage. I got slashed by it when I went past, and at the hospital they treated my arm.
It turned out the dog had previously attacked a barmaid's young daughter. The landlord move soon afterwards; the dog ended up at a scrapyard.
It was horrifying for a young (and underage...) lad. The landlord turned up to the hospital with a couple of pints (God knows how he got them there without spilling). He said the dog had suffered; it had lost a tooth. The one they found part of in my friend's nose...
Hence I'm uneasy around big dogs. Sue me.
OK, it was a long time ago but even then you could have sued the landlord to buggery. He was bang out of order, and obviously a brainless dog owner.
Omn the hound front, this is an interesting piece - with real experts involved.
I have only once seen a truly dangerous attack by a dog on a human and I had a lump taken out of my hand when I intervened. It was a 7 month old border collie. We had been trying to foster it after it had been cruelly treated by the previous owner. We had to give up. It was beyond our capabilities.
It was a nasty experience but at least it was possible for me to restrain the animal. That wouldn't be possible with some breeds, which is why some governmental control over certain breeds and their owners is appropriate.
But yes, the article is right. It's largely nurture, not nature, and restricting certain breeds is fraught with difficulty and has to be done carefully and thoughtfully.
But if we ban Bully XLs then savage attacks by these dogs will stop tomorrow. Just get the fuck on with it
Once the ban is in place, we can talk about finessing it, I suggest we copy the highly effective Australian law which bans all dogs that look like fighting dogs
That will deter anyone from buying or owning such dogs, as you are highly likely to see it seized and killed, and your money wasted
Problem solved
Also make it illegal to own such dogs, with the option of a prison sentence for the owner. It would also give the police an opportunity to get some of the owners off the streets - who are probably people that they, and us, would like off the streets for other reasons; violent crime, drugs, etc, which are harder to prove.
In a slightly macabre turn, the last thread made me realise that I am personal friends with the people who manufacture and supply 100% of the US canine euthanasia drug market
Do you think they could be behind the recent spate of dog bites man stories? I mean, cui bono and all that.
My auntie kept a Rhodesian Ridgebacks. These were (to me) massive dogs, and felt aggressive even when running around. But they lived on a farm, and had a couple of acres to run around. There were also always at least two on the farm. They were as soppy as anything, and the only time they caused me any hard was when one knocked me over whilst I was on one leg pulling on my workboots. They were lovely.
A South London friend kept greyhaunds on a high floor of a tower block. The greyhounds - usually seen as soppy dogs - were mad. Because they only got exercised once a day.
It is the dogs; but it is also the owner.
RRs are wonderful dogs.
Surprised at what you say about the greyhounds. They need remarkably little exercise, and are typically gentle creatures.
Perhaps I didn't say that correctly. They were gentle, but they wanted to be out and about. They were living in a tower block in South London, and did not get regular, good exercise.
My auntie's Rhodesian Ridgeback's are the only ones I have known, and I agree. They were wonderful.
Myself and a friend got attacked by a Doberman once in a pub, and it put me off large dogs for life. My friend had to have stitches in his nose. It was the landlord's dog...
Sorry to hear about your experience with the Doberman. There is nothing wrong with the breed but your experience does help to highlight the shortcomings of simplistic attitudes towards dog control. A lead is not a lot of help with an out of control Doberman. The animal is simply too strong. There is an argument for saying a dog of that type should not generally be in a public space - and a pub is nothing if not public - at all unless the owner can clearly demonstrate his/her control of the animal through normal means. That clearly did not apply in your example.
I assume some formal action and compensation followed?
It was a Peak District pub. You turned left into either the bar or lounge (I forget which). My friend entered ahead of me, turning right. The landlord had just taken his doberman for a walk, and had sat down to talk to a customer. The dog was lying in the doorway.
My friend turns right, and (we think) hit the Doberman's nose with his knee. The next thing I know, my friend is falling backwards with his hands over his nose, blood everywhere. I push past. and ask the barmaid for some napkins (I knew nothing about the dog, and thought my friend had walked into the door). We get taken to a local A&E. They found part of the dog's tooth in my friend's cartilage. I got slashed by it when I went past, and at the hospital they treated my arm.
It turned out the dog had previously attacked a barmaid's young daughter. The landlord move soon afterwards; the dog ended up at a scrapyard.
It was horrifying for a young (and underage...) lad. The landlord turned up to the hospital with a couple of pints (God knows how he got them there without spilling). He said the dog had suffered; it had lost a tooth. The one they found part of in my friend's nose...
Hence I'm uneasy around big dogs. Sue me.
OK, it was a long time ago but even then you could have sued the landlord to buggery. He was bang out of order, and obviously a brainless dog owner.
Omn the hound front, this is an interesting piece - with real experts involved.
I have only once seen a truly dangerous attack by a dog on a human and I had a lump taken out of my hand when I intervened. It was a 7 month old border collie. We had been trying to foster it after it had been cruelly treated by the previous owner. We had to give up. It was beyond our capabilities.
It was a nasty experience but at least it was possible for me to restrain the animal. That wouldn't be possible with some breeds, which is why some governmental control over certain breeds and their owners is appropriate.
But yes, the article is right. It's largely nurture, not nature, and restricting certain breeds is fraught with difficulty and has to be done carefully and thoughtfully.
But if we ban Bully XLs then savage attacks by these dogs will stop tomorrow. Just get the fuck on with it
Once the ban is in place, we can talk about finessing it, I suggest we copy the highly effective Australian law which bans all dogs that look like fighting dogs
That will deter anyone from buying or owning such dogs, as you are highly likely to see it seized and killed, and your money wasted
Problem solved
Also make it illegal to own such dogs, with the option of a prison sentence for the owner. It would also give the police an opportunity to get some of the owners off the streets - who are probably people that they, and us, would like off the streets for other reasons; violent crime, drugs, etc, which are harder to prove.
Where would they fit in our prison system?
(TBH I'd rather have killer drivers in prison than the owners of dangerous dogs !)
I think the Special Mashed Potato Lady has arrived
Fantastique
Let me guess, that's not Smash is it?
It is, indeed, not Smash
It is aligot, a rib-sticking speciality of the region (Aubrac - think Yorkshire Dales but sunnier, yet not so pretty). It’s mash with cheese and garlic. It’s nice. I wouldn’t go mad about it
My honest expectation is that the food on this trip will not be as good as the food I had in the Welsh Marches, and so far that is the case. British food at the higher end is now commonly as good as French - or better, because more varied and less hidebound
But let’s see. The Frogs might surprise me
They still do the public realm better than us. The well kept villages, the lovely stone paving. Why can’t we have the same civic pride?
Local government with little freedom, no constitutional protection from government interference, a meagre tax base, and no money.
France has no more money than the UK. Its economy is a similar size, its debt is rather bigger
They just seem to “care” more. Plus I guess they don’t have the demographic pressures, due to lower immigration and more space. It is easier to keep a place looking nice if it isn’t overrun with inhabitants demanding crappy redbrick new-builds
France is also better at NOT despoiling towns with hideously inappropriate new buildings
France has loads of immigrants, they just house them in ghettoes that no one from outside of France would ever go to because they're dangerous.
So why don't we do the same? Simply wall off Sutton-in-Ashfield as a Ghetto, and tranship all the foreigners we don't want. As Lee Anderson can feed them for 30p a day this would surely be far cheaper than the Rwanda nonsense.
Oi.
We aren't taking any lessons from Rochdale! If you like we can gift you Mr Anderson.
Discovered yesterday that we have a wonderful Polish mini-supermarket with a deli counter with *umpteen* varieties of salami, and heaven knows what else - all the labels in Polish.
My auntie kept a Rhodesian Ridgebacks. These were (to me) massive dogs, and felt aggressive even when running around. But they lived on a farm, and had a couple of acres to run around. There were also always at least two on the farm. They were as soppy as anything, and the only time they caused me any hard was when one knocked me over whilst I was on one leg pulling on my workboots. They were lovely.
A South London friend kept greyhaunds on a high floor of a tower block. The greyhounds - usually seen as soppy dogs - were mad. Because they only got exercised once a day.
It is the dogs; but it is also the owner.
RRs are wonderful dogs.
Surprised at what you say about the greyhounds. They need remarkably little exercise, and are typically gentle creatures.
Perhaps I didn't say that correctly. They were gentle, but they wanted to be out and about. They were living in a tower block in South London, and did not get regular, good exercise.
My auntie's Rhodesian Ridgeback's are the only ones I have known, and I agree. They were wonderful.
Myself and a friend got attacked by a Doberman once in a pub, and it put me off large dogs for life. My friend had to have stitches in his nose. It was the landlord's dog...
Sorry to hear about your experience with the Doberman. There is nothing wrong with the breed but your experience does help to highlight the shortcomings of simplistic attitudes towards dog control. A lead is not a lot of help with an out of control Doberman. The animal is simply too strong. There is an argument for saying a dog of that type should not generally be in a public space - and a pub is nothing if not public - at all unless the owner can clearly demonstrate his/her control of the animal through normal means. That clearly did not apply in your example.
I assume some formal action and compensation followed?
It was a Peak District pub. You turned left into either the bar or lounge (I forget which). My friend entered ahead of me, turning right. The landlord had just taken his doberman for a walk, and had sat down to talk to a customer. The dog was lying in the doorway.
My friend turns right, and (we think) hit the Doberman's nose with his knee. The next thing I know, my friend is falling backwards with his hands over his nose, blood everywhere. I push past. and ask the barmaid for some napkins (I knew nothing about the dog, and thought my friend had walked into the door). We get taken to a local A&E. They found part of the dog's tooth in my friend's cartilage. I got slashed by it when I went past, and at the hospital they treated my arm.
It turned out the dog had previously attacked a barmaid's young daughter. The landlord move soon afterwards; the dog ended up at a scrapyard.
It was horrifying for a young (and underage...) lad. The landlord turned up to the hospital with a couple of pints (God knows how he got them there without spilling). He said the dog had suffered; it had lost a tooth. The one they found part of in my friend's nose...
Hence I'm uneasy around big dogs. Sue me.
OK, it was a long time ago but even then you could have sued the landlord to buggery. He was bang out of order, and obviously a brainless dog owner.
Omn the hound front, this is an interesting piece - with real experts involved.
Yeah, but no matter how badly behaved, a chihuahua is never going to be as dangerous as a mastiff.
Obviously, but that touches on a point overlooked in this debate by those not familiar with dog ownership in this country.
Things have changed a lot since the 1961 Dangerous Dogs Act was introduced (in a bit of a panic as I recall, in response to a similar kind of public hysteria to that which we are now witnessing.)
Small dogs have become much more popular. They are not always suitable for walking in public areas. They are highly vulnerable. Apart from being occasionally trodden on, they are also apt to be mistaken for prey by bigger breeds.
We have also seen a big influx in 'rescues', particularly from overseas. A dog that has had to learn to cut it on the Streets of Bucharest is not likely to be socialised in a way that will allow it to get on with the Pomeranians of Primrose Hill, for example. 'The best of intentions' and all that. You see the problem?
I actually thing the emphasis the law places on 'control' is sound, as it allows for flexibility, requires the owner to take responsibility for assessing the level of control necessary in the circumstances, and does not place unnecessary restrictions on good owners of perfectly well-behaved pooches. It also obviates the need for categorical banning of certain breeds. Clearly you have to exercise considerably more control of your Doberman than you would a Chihuahua, as J Jessop's illustrative post earlier indicated, though in my experience small dogs can often be the source of a lot of trouble even if they don't often tear anyone limb from limb. And if an owner of such a tiny creature lets it lose in the local park and a passing Greyhound mistakes it for a rabbit, I know where my sympathies would lie.
Maybe we need to replace the 1961 Act with something more sensitive to the changes in dog ownership since then, but please...not by Ms Braverman! Even if it is the Home Office's remit (which I doubt) I think I'd prefer to entrust her successor with the task, whoever that may be,
Dogs? Meh. Can't wait for BAN THE BULLY to be the new slogan. Rishi berating Keith Starmer for owning a Bully sanctuary. The only issue people care about. Tory majority of 704 incoming.
My auntie kept a Rhodesian Ridgebacks. These were (to me) massive dogs, and felt aggressive even when running around. But they lived on a farm, and had a couple of acres to run around. There were also always at least two on the farm. They were as soppy as anything, and the only time they caused me any hard was when one knocked me over whilst I was on one leg pulling on my workboots. They were lovely.
A South London friend kept greyhaunds on a high floor of a tower block. The greyhounds - usually seen as soppy dogs - were mad. Because they only got exercised once a day.
It is the dogs; but it is also the owner.
RRs are wonderful dogs.
Surprised at what you say about the greyhounds. They need remarkably little exercise, and are typically gentle creatures.
Perhaps I didn't say that correctly. They were gentle, but they wanted to be out and about. They were living in a tower block in South London, and did not get regular, good exercise.
My auntie's Rhodesian Ridgeback's are the only ones I have known, and I agree. They were wonderful.
Myself and a friend got attacked by a Doberman once in a pub, and it put me off large dogs for life. My friend had to have stitches in his nose. It was the landlord's dog...
Sorry to hear about your experience with the Doberman. There is nothing wrong with the breed but your experience does help to highlight the shortcomings of simplistic attitudes towards dog control. A lead is not a lot of help with an out of control Doberman. The animal is simply too strong. There is an argument for saying a dog of that type should not generally be in a public space - and a pub is nothing if not public - at all unless the owner can clearly demonstrate his/her control of the animal through normal means. That clearly did not apply in your example.
I assume some formal action and compensation followed?
It was a Peak District pub. You turned left into either the bar or lounge (I forget which). My friend entered ahead of me, turning right. The landlord had just taken his doberman for a walk, and had sat down to talk to a customer. The dog was lying in the doorway.
My friend turns right, and (we think) hit the Doberman's nose with his knee. The next thing I know, my friend is falling backwards with his hands over his nose, blood everywhere. I push past. and ask the barmaid for some napkins (I knew nothing about the dog, and thought my friend had walked into the door). We get taken to a local A&E. They found part of the dog's tooth in my friend's cartilage. I got slashed by it when I went past, and at the hospital they treated my arm.
It turned out the dog had previously attacked a barmaid's young daughter. The landlord move soon afterwards; the dog ended up at a scrapyard.
It was horrifying for a young (and underage...) lad. The landlord turned up to the hospital with a couple of pints (God knows how he got them there without spilling). He said the dog had suffered; it had lost a tooth. The one they found part of in my friend's nose...
Hence I'm uneasy around big dogs. Sue me.
OK, it was a long time ago but even then you could have sued the landlord to buggery. He was bang out of order, and obviously a brainless dog owner.
Omn the hound front, this is an interesting piece - with real experts involved.
I have only once seen a truly dangerous attack by a dog on a human and I had a lump taken out of my hand when I intervened. It was a 7 month old border collie. We had been trying to foster it after it had been cruelly treated by the previous owner. We had to give up. It was beyond our capabilities.
It was a nasty experience but at least it was possible for me to restrain the animal. That wouldn't be possible with some breeds, which is why some governmental control over certain breeds and their owners is appropriate.
But yes, the article is right. It's largely nurture, not nature, and restricting certain breeds is fraught with difficulty and has to be done carefully and thoughtfully.
But if we ban Bully XLs then savage attacks by these dogs will stop tomorrow. Just get the fuck on with it
Once the ban is in place, we can talk about finessing it, I suggest we copy the highly effective Australian law which bans all dogs that look like fighting dogs
That will deter anyone from buying or owning such dogs, as you are highly likely to see it seized and killed, and your money wasted
Problem solved
Also make it illegal to own such dogs, with the option of a prison sentence for the owner. It would also give the police an opportunity to get some of the owners off the streets - who are probably people that they, and us, would like off the streets for other reasons; violent crime, drugs, etc, which are harder to prove.
Bring back mandatory dog licences with insurance required. Link licences to microchips, and thereby cut dog thefts too, and get responsible dog owners on board.
A couple of years ago, I was out walking my pup (weighs 6kg, a Portuguese Podengo) when up bounded a Neapolitan Mastiff puppy, probably weighing 50 kg. It only wanted to play with my dog, as evident by its body language, but it was owned as a first dog by a family with a couple of kids under 5. The owner clearly wasn't in control, and with the size of the dog couldn't physically restrain it. Crazy choice for a first dog with small children.
I must confess reading the Evening Standard tonight I'm tempted to channel my usually well-hidden but always present inner anarchist.
At first glance, the fact 13 new hotels are opening in London should be positive news - after all, London thrives on tourism whether domestic or international and having hotels to suit all budgets across the capital would seem a pre-requisite.
However, it seems none of these new openings is going to charge less than £1000 per night for a room and the Standard goes on to laud the fact London is a magnet for the ultra-elite. While I've no issue with the "ultra elite" per se, I'm more concerned they are considered the group to whom we must now prostitute ourselves.
I think London deserves to be more than a multi-billionaires playground. It should be an open, welcoming city for all and while I know we can't dictate to the luxury hotel chains what they charge, it would be nice to think we were ensuring there was a good mix of accommodation for all and those of us less financially endowed could still come and stay and enjoy the wonders London has to offer.
The Standard itself is a symptom of the issue as well. It's a really peculiar paper these days, that seems very distant from the city it covers, as well as being awfully thin as a journalistic product.
And I fear we kind of brought it on ourselves. It's very nice having a newspaper shaped object that you don't have to pay for. But that makes it liable to be a poop like as the emojis in the weather forecast, and the plaything of a rich weirdo whose priorities aren't necessarily those of the rest of us.
On the other hand, we can grab it without paying for it or having to wait for someone to leave their copy on the train somewhere like Guildford (my father) or Chadwell Heath (me).
That's a very valid point, my friend.
I confess apart from the puzzles, which keep me entertained on the tube journey home, I don't really read it. I glance at the first couple of pages - the pandemic and the fall of his friend Boris Johnson has really hit home. The advertising revenue has returned to a degree but the paper is an emaciated version of its pre-pandemic self.
The paper is trying to be more even-handed these days having been very pro-Boris and isn't keen on Sunak, Khan or Hall.
The Standard has always been a paper for the Home Counties commuter set, not Londoners.
I remember before it went freesheet they tried giving away all kinds of crap if you bought a copy - books you didn't want to read, umbrellas that would fall apart the first time you used them, you name it.
When the approach is "Buy this paper so you can read something else" or "Buy this paper to keep the rain off" then you know that you have got a product not worth the money.
“Oh, let’s not ban them, let’s take two years to think about some complex licensing system which will never work because I own dogs and I don’t want a ban thanks it’s the other owners blah blah”
I think the Special Mashed Potato Lady has arrived
Fantastique
Let me guess, that's not Smash is it?
It is, indeed, not Smash
It is aligot, a rib-sticking speciality of the region (Aubrac - think Yorkshire Dales but sunnier, yet not so pretty). It’s mash with cheese and garlic. It’s nice. I wouldn’t go mad about it
My honest expectation is that the food on this trip will not be as good as the food I had in the Welsh Marches, and so far that is the case. British food at the higher end is now commonly as good as French - or better, because more varied and less hidebound
But let’s see. The Frogs might surprise me
They still do the public realm better than us. The well kept villages, the lovely stone paving. Why can’t we have the same civic pride?
Local government with little freedom, no constitutional protection from government interference, a meagre tax base, and no money.
France has no more money than the UK. Its economy is a similar size, its debt is rather bigger
They just seem to “care” more. Plus I guess they don’t have the demographic pressures, due to lower immigration and more space. It is easier to keep a place looking nice if it isn’t overrun with inhabitants demanding crappy redbrick new-builds
France is also better at NOT despoiling towns with hideously inappropriate new buildings
France has loads of immigrants, they just house them in ghettoes that no one from outside of France would ever go to because they're dangerous.
So why don't we do the same? Simply wall off Sutton-in-Ashfield as a Ghetto, and tranship all the foreigners we don't want. As Lee Anderson can feed them for 30p a day this would surely be far cheaper than the Rwanda nonsense.
Oi.
We aren't taking any lessons from Rochdale! If you like we can gift you Mr Anderson.
Discovered yesterday that we have a wonderful Polish mini-supermarket with a deli counter with *umpteen* varieties of salami, and heaven knows what else - all the labels in Polish.
Reflecting, Ghettoes are supposed to have walls - so that's York or Chester, plus perhaps a few others.
My auntie kept a Rhodesian Ridgebacks. These were (to me) massive dogs, and felt aggressive even when running around. But they lived on a farm, and had a couple of acres to run around. There were also always at least two on the farm. They were as soppy as anything, and the only time they caused me any hard was when one knocked me over whilst I was on one leg pulling on my workboots. They were lovely.
A South London friend kept greyhaunds on a high floor of a tower block. The greyhounds - usually seen as soppy dogs - were mad. Because they only got exercised once a day.
It is the dogs; but it is also the owner.
RRs are wonderful dogs.
Surprised at what you say about the greyhounds. They need remarkably little exercise, and are typically gentle creatures.
Perhaps I didn't say that correctly. They were gentle, but they wanted to be out and about. They were living in a tower block in South London, and did not get regular, good exercise.
My auntie's Rhodesian Ridgeback's are the only ones I have known, and I agree. They were wonderful.
Myself and a friend got attacked by a Doberman once in a pub, and it put me off large dogs for life. My friend had to have stitches in his nose. It was the landlord's dog...
Sorry to hear about your experience with the Doberman. There is nothing wrong with the breed but your experience does help to highlight the shortcomings of simplistic attitudes towards dog control. A lead is not a lot of help with an out of control Doberman. The animal is simply too strong. There is an argument for saying a dog of that type should not generally be in a public space - and a pub is nothing if not public - at all unless the owner can clearly demonstrate his/her control of the animal through normal means. That clearly did not apply in your example.
I assume some formal action and compensation followed?
It was a Peak District pub. You turned left into either the bar or lounge (I forget which). My friend entered ahead of me, turning right. The landlord had just taken his doberman for a walk, and had sat down to talk to a customer. The dog was lying in the doorway.
My friend turns right, and (we think) hit the Doberman's nose with his knee. The next thing I know, my friend is falling backwards with his hands over his nose, blood everywhere. I push past. and ask the barmaid for some napkins (I knew nothing about the dog, and thought my friend had walked into the door). We get taken to a local A&E. They found part of the dog's tooth in my friend's cartilage. I got slashed by it when I went past, and at the hospital they treated my arm.
It turned out the dog had previously attacked a barmaid's young daughter. The landlord move soon afterwards; the dog ended up at a scrapyard.
It was horrifying for a young (and underage...) lad. The landlord turned up to the hospital with a couple of pints (God knows how he got them there without spilling). He said the dog had suffered; it had lost a tooth. The one they found part of in my friend's nose...
Hence I'm uneasy around big dogs. Sue me.
OK, it was a long time ago but even then you could have sued the landlord to buggery. He was bang out of order, and obviously a brainless dog owner.
Omn the hound front, this is an interesting piece - with real experts involved.
Yeah, but no matter how badly behaved, a chihuahua is never going to be as dangerous as a mastiff.
Obviously, but that touches on a point overlooked in this debate by those not familiar with dog ownership in this country.
Things have changed a lot since the 1961 Dangerous Dogs Act was introduced (in a bit of a panic as I recall, in response to a similar kind of public hysteria to that which we are now witnessing.)
Small dogs have become much more popular. They are not always suitable for walking in public areas. They are highly vulnerable. Apart from being occasionally trodden on, they are also apt to be mistaken for prey by bigger breeds.
We have also seen a big influx in 'rescues', particularly from overseas. A dog that has had to learn to cut it on the Streets of Bucharest is not likely to be socialised in a way that will allow it to get on with the Pomeranians of Primrose Hill, for example. 'The best of intentions' and all that. You see the problem?
I actually thing the emphasis the law places on 'control' is sound, as it allows for flexibility, requires the owner to take responsibility for assessing the level of control necessary in the circumstances, and does not place unnecessary restrictions on good owners of perfectly well-behaved pooches. It also obviates the need for categorical banning of certain breeds. Clearly you have to exercise considerably more control of your Doberman than you would a Chihuahua, as J Jessop's illustrative post earlier indicated, though in my experience small dogs can often be the source of a lot of trouble even if they don't often tear anyone limb from limb. And if an owner of such a tiny creature lets it lose in the local park and a passing Greyhound mistakes it for a rabbit, I know where my sympathies would lie.
Maybe we need to replace the 1961 Act with something more sensitive to the changes in dog ownership since then, but please...not by Ms Braverman! Even if it is the Home Office's remit (which I doubt) I think I'd prefer to entrust her successor with the task, whoever that may be,
What a load of pointless twaddle
The great advantage of an immediate ban is that it will terrify the scrotes that own these hideous dogs, and they will be too scared to walk them in case they get seen and nicked and the dog killed = the dogs disappearing from public life NOW
That means children can play freely again, mums can walk in parks, other dog owners can relax, and kids won’t have their faces ripped off, starting tomorrow
What do people think the Labour VI lead, & Betfair price for Labour overall majority would be now had Boris never faced a vote of confidence last year, the mass resignations didn’t happen, & he was still PM?
Did the resignations not happen because Boris had a character implant and apologised early on or because his opponents were too frit and didn't pull the trigger?
The former the Tories probably 8-10 behind. The latter 20-25 behind.
What happens with the Privileges Committee report? Is that just not happening, or is it now an investigation into the PM, rather than a gone yesterday, definitely gone tomorrow, backbencher?
The second would be messy, in a grimly fascinating way.
Let’s say it happened the second way, and whatever the result was, he is still PM now
Would the Tories be 20 points behind in the polls & 10/1 for a majority?
He would have done other things, and the end days might still have come over something else. He would still have been Boris.
But, let's say he was still blustering his way through an inevitable procession of scandal still. I think 15-20 points might still be approaching, but perhaps there would be some residual mystique around him as a campaigner, so maybe not the 10/1.
Corbyn hasn't been ejected just because he's a tit.
Corbyn wouldn't accept that he tacitly condoned anti-Semitism when he was leader. If he could agree that on his watch some very unpleasant people indulged in racist bullying I daresay there might have been a way back. Instead there is talk of him unseating Khan and Starmer.
He was never a big figure in Labour politics. He was always just and awkward footnote. Then he delivered Boris Johnson an 80 seat majority, that was his legacy.
Corbyn hasn't been ejected just because he's a tit.
Corbyn wouldn't accept that he tacitly condoned anti-Semitism when he was leader. If he could agree that on his watch some very unpleasant people indulged in racist bullying I daresay there might have been a way back. Instead there is talk of him unseating Khan and Starmer.
He was never a big figure in Labour politics. He was always just and awkward footnote. Then he delivered Boris Johnson an 80 seat majority, that was his legacy.
No complete BS re Jezza although according to the Independent report by a black lawyer SKS Labour does have "a hierarchy of racism"
My auntie kept a Rhodesian Ridgebacks. These were (to me) massive dogs, and felt aggressive even when running around. But they lived on a farm, and had a couple of acres to run around. There were also always at least two on the farm. They were as soppy as anything, and the only time they caused me any hard was when one knocked me over whilst I was on one leg pulling on my workboots. They were lovely.
A South London friend kept greyhaunds on a high floor of a tower block. The greyhounds - usually seen as soppy dogs - were mad. Because they only got exercised once a day.
It is the dogs; but it is also the owner.
RRs are wonderful dogs.
Surprised at what you say about the greyhounds. They need remarkably little exercise, and are typically gentle creatures.
Perhaps I didn't say that correctly. They were gentle, but they wanted to be out and about. They were living in a tower block in South London, and did not get regular, good exercise.
My auntie's Rhodesian Ridgeback's are the only ones I have known, and I agree. They were wonderful.
Myself and a friend got attacked by a Doberman once in a pub, and it put me off large dogs for life. My friend had to have stitches in his nose. It was the landlord's dog...
Sorry to hear about your experience with the Doberman. There is nothing wrong with the breed but your experience does help to highlight the shortcomings of simplistic attitudes towards dog control. A lead is not a lot of help with an out of control Doberman. The animal is simply too strong. There is an argument for saying a dog of that type should not generally be in a public space - and a pub is nothing if not public - at all unless the owner can clearly demonstrate his/her control of the animal through normal means. That clearly did not apply in your example.
I assume some formal action and compensation followed?
It was a Peak District pub. You turned left into either the bar or lounge (I forget which). My friend entered ahead of me, turning right. The landlord had just taken his doberman for a walk, and had sat down to talk to a customer. The dog was lying in the doorway.
My friend turns right, and (we think) hit the Doberman's nose with his knee. The next thing I know, my friend is falling backwards with his hands over his nose, blood everywhere. I push past. and ask the barmaid for some napkins (I knew nothing about the dog, and thought my friend had walked into the door). We get taken to a local A&E. They found part of the dog's tooth in my friend's cartilage. I got slashed by it when I went past, and at the hospital they treated my arm.
It turned out the dog had previously attacked a barmaid's young daughter. The landlord move soon afterwards; the dog ended up at a scrapyard.
It was horrifying for a young (and underage...) lad. The landlord turned up to the hospital with a couple of pints (God knows how he got them there without spilling). He said the dog had suffered; it had lost a tooth. The one they found part of in my friend's nose...
Hence I'm uneasy around big dogs. Sue me.
OK, it was a long time ago but even then you could have sued the landlord to buggery. He was bang out of order, and obviously a brainless dog owner.
Omn the hound front, this is an interesting piece - with real experts involved.
Yeah, but no matter how badly behaved, a chihuahua is never going to be as dangerous as a mastiff.
Obviously, but that touches on a point overlooked in this debate by those not familiar with dog ownership in this country.
Things have changed a lot since the 1961 Dangerous Dogs Act was introduced (in a bit of a panic as I recall, in response to a similar kind of public hysteria to that which we are now witnessing.)
Small dogs have become much more popular. They are not always suitable for walking in public areas. They are highly vulnerable. Apart from being occasionally trodden on, they are also apt to be mistaken for prey by bigger breeds.
We have also seen a big influx in 'rescues', particularly from overseas. A dog that has had to learn to cut it on the Streets of Bucharest is not likely to be socialised in a way that will allow it to get on with the Pomeranians of Primrose Hill, for example. 'The best of intentions' and all that. You see the problem?
I actually thing the emphasis the law places on 'control' is sound, as it allows for flexibility, requires the owner to take responsibility for assessing the level of control necessary in the circumstances, and does not place unnecessary restrictions on good owners of perfectly well-behaved pooches. It also obviates the need for categorical banning of certain breeds. Clearly you have to exercise considerably more control of your Doberman than you would a Chihuahua, as J Jessop's illustrative post earlier indicated, though in my experience small dogs can often be the source of a lot of trouble even if they don't often tear anyone limb from limb. And if an owner of such a tiny creature lets it lose in the local park and a passing Greyhound mistakes it for a rabbit, I know where my sympathies would lie.
Maybe we need to replace the 1961 Act with something more sensitive to the changes in dog ownership since then, but please...not by Ms Braverman! Even if it is the Home Office's remit (which I doubt) I think I'd prefer to entrust her successor with the task, whoever that may be,
What a load of pointless twaddle
The great advantage of an immediate ban is that it will terrify the scrotes that own these hideous dogs, and they will be too scared to walk them in case they get seen and nicked and the dog killed = the dogs disappearing from public life NOW
That means children can play freely again, mums can walk in parks, other dog owners can relax, and kids won’t have their faces ripped off, starting tomorrow
Sigh... Why do you resort to such hyperbole?
I agree that dogs bred for fighting should be banned right away. I cannot for the life of me think why this government, which usually seems only to ready to jump on any popular bandwagon, hasn't done so already. (Oh, wait, got it: total f*cking ineptitude.)
I also think the rules and controls around dog ownership should be reviewed and strengthened.
But let's not pretend any of this is the difference between kids being able to play freely or not.
My auntie kept a Rhodesian Ridgebacks. These were (to me) massive dogs, and felt aggressive even when running around. But they lived on a farm, and had a couple of acres to run around. There were also always at least two on the farm. They were as soppy as anything, and the only time they caused me any hard was when one knocked me over whilst I was on one leg pulling on my workboots. They were lovely.
A South London friend kept greyhaunds on a high floor of a tower block. The greyhounds - usually seen as soppy dogs - were mad. Because they only got exercised once a day.
It is the dogs; but it is also the owner.
RRs are wonderful dogs.
Surprised at what you say about the greyhounds. They need remarkably little exercise, and are typically gentle creatures.
Perhaps I didn't say that correctly. They were gentle, but they wanted to be out and about. They were living in a tower block in South London, and did not get regular, good exercise.
My auntie's Rhodesian Ridgeback's are the only ones I have known, and I agree. They were wonderful.
Myself and a friend got attacked by a Doberman once in a pub, and it put me off large dogs for life. My friend had to have stitches in his nose. It was the landlord's dog...
Sorry to hear about your experience with the Doberman. There is nothing wrong with the breed but your experience does help to highlight the shortcomings of simplistic attitudes towards dog control. A lead is not a lot of help with an out of control Doberman. The animal is simply too strong. There is an argument for saying a dog of that type should not generally be in a public space - and a pub is nothing if not public - at all unless the owner can clearly demonstrate his/her control of the animal through normal means. That clearly did not apply in your example.
I assume some formal action and compensation followed?
It was a Peak District pub. You turned left into either the bar or lounge (I forget which). My friend entered ahead of me, turning right. The landlord had just taken his doberman for a walk, and had sat down to talk to a customer. The dog was lying in the doorway.
My friend turns right, and (we think) hit the Doberman's nose with his knee. The next thing I know, my friend is falling backwards with his hands over his nose, blood everywhere. I push past. and ask the barmaid for some napkins (I knew nothing about the dog, and thought my friend had walked into the door). We get taken to a local A&E. They found part of the dog's tooth in my friend's cartilage. I got slashed by it when I went past, and at the hospital they treated my arm.
It turned out the dog had previously attacked a barmaid's young daughter. The landlord move soon afterwards; the dog ended up at a scrapyard.
It was horrifying for a young (and underage...) lad. The landlord turned up to the hospital with a couple of pints (God knows how he got them there without spilling). He said the dog had suffered; it had lost a tooth. The one they found part of in my friend's nose...
Hence I'm uneasy around big dogs. Sue me.
OK, it was a long time ago but even then you could have sued the landlord to buggery. He was bang out of order, and obviously a brainless dog owner.
Omn the hound front, this is an interesting piece - with real experts involved.
Yeah, but no matter how badly behaved, a chihuahua is never going to be as dangerous as a mastiff.
Obviously, but that touches on a point overlooked in this debate by those not familiar with dog ownership in this country.
Things have changed a lot since the 1961 Dangerous Dogs Act was introduced (in a bit of a panic as I recall, in response to a similar kind of public hysteria to that which we are now witnessing.)
Small dogs have become much more popular. They are not always suitable for walking in public areas. They are highly vulnerable. Apart from being occasionally trodden on, they are also apt to be mistaken for prey by bigger breeds.
We have also seen a big influx in 'rescues', particularly from overseas. A dog that has had to learn to cut it on the Streets of Bucharest is not likely to be socialised in a way that will allow it to get on with the Pomeranians of Primrose Hill, for example. 'The best of intentions' and all that. You see the problem?
I actually thing the emphasis the law places on 'control' is sound, as it allows for flexibility, requires the owner to take responsibility for assessing the level of control necessary in the circumstances, and does not place unnecessary restrictions on good owners of perfectly well-behaved pooches. It also obviates the need for categorical banning of certain breeds. Clearly you have to exercise considerably more control of your Doberman than you would a Chihuahua, as J Jessop's illustrative post earlier indicated, though in my experience small dogs can often be the source of a lot of trouble even if they don't often tear anyone limb from limb. And if an owner of such a tiny creature lets it lose in the local park and a passing Greyhound mistakes it for a rabbit, I know where my sympathies would lie.
Maybe we need to replace the 1961 Act with something more sensitive to the changes in dog ownership since then, but please...not by Ms Braverman! Even if it is the Home Office's remit (which I doubt) I think I'd prefer to entrust her successor with the task, whoever that may be,
What a load of pointless twaddle
The great advantage of an immediate ban is that it will terrify the scrotes that own these hideous dogs, and they will be too scared to walk them in case they get seen and nicked and the dog killed = the dogs disappearing from public life NOW
That means children can play freely again, mums can walk in parks, other dog owners can relax, and kids won’t have their faces ripped off, starting tomorrow
Sigh... Why do you resort to such hyperbole?
I agree that dogs bred for fighting should be banned right away. I cannot for the life of me think why this government, which usually seems only to ready to jump on any popular bandwagon, hasn't done so already.
I also think the rules and controls around dog ownership should be reviewed and strengthened.
But let's not pretend any of this is the difference between kids being able to play freely or not.
But it really IS
I’ve been following the Daily Mirror campaign and one of their big lines is that the government elite don’t care because they don’t live on council estates where these dogs are very common, and where they subtly terrorise mums and kids
I am sure they are right. This is a class issue, posh people don’t have to walk past these dogs every day, terrified that they or their dog or their baby will be bitten or worse
What do people think the Labour VI lead, & Betfair price for Labour overall majority would be now had Boris never faced a vote of confidence last year, the mass resignations didn’t happen, & he was still PM?
Did the resignations not happen because Boris had a character implant and apologised early on or because his opponents were too frit and didn't pull the trigger?
The former the Tories probably 8-10 behind. The latter 20-25 behind.
What happens with the Privileges Committee report? Is that just not happening, or is it now an investigation into the PM, rather than a gone yesterday, definitely gone tomorrow, backbencher?
The second would be messy, in a grimly fascinating way.
Let’s say it happened the second way, and whatever the result was, he is still PM now
Would the Tories be 20 points behind in the polls & 10/1 for a majority?
He would have done other things, and the end days might still have come over something else. He would still have been Boris.
But, let's say he was still blustering his way through an inevitable procession of scandal still. I think 15-20 points might still be approaching, but perhaps there would be some residual mystique around him as a campaigner, so maybe not the 10/1.
The difficulty is the whole "lying in the House of Commons" thing. It may be a Small Thing felling a Great Man, but I don't see how you unhappen the report or its conclusion.
And a report like that landing while Boris is PM... Do the Conservatives try to whip their MPs into a token punishment? Or do they dump him then?
I don't see how either ends well, or even better than the situation now. To return to something I've been saying about Boris for ages. On first encounter, most people think he's great. They continue thinking he's great until they experience him doing something awful, usually to them. That happens to everyone eventually, and it's nearly always a one-way process.
On that basis, by now he'd be doing roughly as badly in the polls as Sunak is now; maybe sightly better or slightly worse. But still with some (slightly shabby) mystique.
My auntie kept a Rhodesian Ridgebacks. These were (to me) massive dogs, and felt aggressive even when running around. But they lived on a farm, and had a couple of acres to run around. There were also always at least two on the farm. They were as soppy as anything, and the only time they caused me any hard was when one knocked me over whilst I was on one leg pulling on my workboots. They were lovely.
A South London friend kept greyhaunds on a high floor of a tower block. The greyhounds - usually seen as soppy dogs - were mad. Because they only got exercised once a day.
It is the dogs; but it is also the owner.
RRs are wonderful dogs.
Surprised at what you say about the greyhounds. They need remarkably little exercise, and are typically gentle creatures.
Perhaps I didn't say that correctly. They were gentle, but they wanted to be out and about. They were living in a tower block in South London, and did not get regular, good exercise.
My auntie's Rhodesian Ridgeback's are the only ones I have known, and I agree. They were wonderful.
Myself and a friend got attacked by a Doberman once in a pub, and it put me off large dogs for life. My friend had to have stitches in his nose. It was the landlord's dog...
Sorry to hear about your experience with the Doberman. There is nothing wrong with the breed but your experience does help to highlight the shortcomings of simplistic attitudes towards dog control. A lead is not a lot of help with an out of control Doberman. The animal is simply too strong. There is an argument for saying a dog of that type should not generally be in a public space - and a pub is nothing if not public - at all unless the owner can clearly demonstrate his/her control of the animal through normal means. That clearly did not apply in your example.
I assume some formal action and compensation followed?
It was a Peak District pub. You turned left into either the bar or lounge (I forget which). My friend entered ahead of me, turning right. The landlord had just taken his doberman for a walk, and had sat down to talk to a customer. The dog was lying in the doorway.
My friend turns right, and (we think) hit the Doberman's nose with his knee. The next thing I know, my friend is falling backwards with his hands over his nose, blood everywhere. I push past. and ask the barmaid for some napkins (I knew nothing about the dog, and thought my friend had walked into the door). We get taken to a local A&E. They found part of the dog's tooth in my friend's cartilage. I got slashed by it when I went past, and at the hospital they treated my arm.
It turned out the dog had previously attacked a barmaid's young daughter. The landlord move soon afterwards; the dog ended up at a scrapyard.
It was horrifying for a young (and underage...) lad. The landlord turned up to the hospital with a couple of pints (God knows how he got them there without spilling). He said the dog had suffered; it had lost a tooth. The one they found part of in my friend's nose...
Hence I'm uneasy around big dogs. Sue me.
OK, it was a long time ago but even then you could have sued the landlord to buggery. He was bang out of order, and obviously a brainless dog owner.
Omn the hound front, this is an interesting piece - with real experts involved.
I have only once seen a truly dangerous attack by a dog on a human and I had a lump taken out of my hand when I intervened. It was a 7 month old border collie. We had been trying to foster it after it had been cruelly treated by the previous owner. We had to give up. It was beyond our capabilities.
It was a nasty experience but at least it was possible for me to restrain the animal. That wouldn't be possible with some breeds, which is why some governmental control over certain breeds and their owners is appropriate.
But yes, the article is right. It's largely nurture, not nature, and restricting certain breeds is fraught with difficulty and has to be done carefully and thoughtfully.
We have an incredibly aggressive dog, who will attempt to maul other dogs who looks at her funny, and who attacks anyone who gets near my wife.
She's, basically, a psycho.
Fortunately, she's also lost almost all her teeth and is increasingly blind. This leads to her regularly attacking postboxes because they... well, I don't know exactly how they offended her. But she will snarl at them and then leap and sink her tooth into them. (And then sheepishly pretend it didn't happen when the postbox doesn't fight back and she got a mouthful of paint.)
(Edit to add: she's a chihuahua. In case you were wondering.)
Any PBer not watching Laura Kuenssberg: State of Chaos should watch it on iplayer. Interviews with leading politicians and civil servants covering the aftermath of the Brexit referendum, specifically in this first of three episodes, the May government.
The luxury communist lifestyle will do that for you.
Tbf she does also note in her Twitter blurb that she is a 'kebab aficionado'.
Rory Stewart looking more like Lester Piggott every day.
I find her a laughable character. I assume she has read of Soviet Russia and assumes she will be shopping in the party supermarkets come the revolution, not the ones the ordinary folk use.
My auntie kept a Rhodesian Ridgebacks. These were (to me) massive dogs, and felt aggressive even when running around. But they lived on a farm, and had a couple of acres to run around. There were also always at least two on the farm. They were as soppy as anything, and the only time they caused me any hard was when one knocked me over whilst I was on one leg pulling on my workboots. They were lovely.
A South London friend kept greyhaunds on a high floor of a tower block. The greyhounds - usually seen as soppy dogs - were mad. Because they only got exercised once a day.
It is the dogs; but it is also the owner.
RRs are wonderful dogs.
Surprised at what you say about the greyhounds. They need remarkably little exercise, and are typically gentle creatures.
Perhaps I didn't say that correctly. They were gentle, but they wanted to be out and about. They were living in a tower block in South London, and did not get regular, good exercise.
My auntie's Rhodesian Ridgeback's are the only ones I have known, and I agree. They were wonderful.
Myself and a friend got attacked by a Doberman once in a pub, and it put me off large dogs for life. My friend had to have stitches in his nose. It was the landlord's dog...
Sorry to hear about your experience with the Doberman. There is nothing wrong with the breed but your experience does help to highlight the shortcomings of simplistic attitudes towards dog control. A lead is not a lot of help with an out of control Doberman. The animal is simply too strong. There is an argument for saying a dog of that type should not generally be in a public space - and a pub is nothing if not public - at all unless the owner can clearly demonstrate his/her control of the animal through normal means. That clearly did not apply in your example.
I assume some formal action and compensation followed?
It was a Peak District pub. You turned left into either the bar or lounge (I forget which). My friend entered ahead of me, turning right. The landlord had just taken his doberman for a walk, and had sat down to talk to a customer. The dog was lying in the doorway.
My friend turns right, and (we think) hit the Doberman's nose with his knee. The next thing I know, my friend is falling backwards with his hands over his nose, blood everywhere. I push past. and ask the barmaid for some napkins (I knew nothing about the dog, and thought my friend had walked into the door). We get taken to a local A&E. They found part of the dog's tooth in my friend's cartilage. I got slashed by it when I went past, and at the hospital they treated my arm.
It turned out the dog had previously attacked a barmaid's young daughter. The landlord move soon afterwards; the dog ended up at a scrapyard.
It was horrifying for a young (and underage...) lad. The landlord turned up to the hospital with a couple of pints (God knows how he got them there without spilling). He said the dog had suffered; it had lost a tooth. The one they found part of in my friend's nose...
Hence I'm uneasy around big dogs. Sue me.
OK, it was a long time ago but even then you could have sued the landlord to buggery. He was bang out of order, and obviously a brainless dog owner.
Omn the hound front, this is an interesting piece - with real experts involved.
Yeah, but no matter how badly behaved, a chihuahua is never going to be as dangerous as a mastiff.
Obviously, but that touches on a point overlooked in this debate by those not familiar with dog ownership in this country.
Things have changed a lot since the 1961 Dangerous Dogs Act was introduced (in a bit of a panic as I recall, in response to a similar kind of public hysteria to that which we are now witnessing.)
Small dogs have become much more popular. They are not always suitable for walking in public areas. They are highly vulnerable. Apart from being occasionally trodden on, they are also apt to be mistaken for prey by bigger breeds.
We have also seen a big influx in 'rescues', particularly from overseas. A dog that has had to learn to cut it on the Streets of Bucharest is not likely to be socialised in a way that will allow it to get on with the Pomeranians of Primrose Hill, for example. 'The best of intentions' and all that. You see the problem?
I actually thing the emphasis the law places on 'control' is sound, as it allows for flexibility, requires the owner to take responsibility for assessing the level of control necessary in the circumstances, and does not place unnecessary restrictions on good owners of perfectly well-behaved pooches. It also obviates the need for categorical banning of certain breeds. Clearly you have to exercise considerably more control of your Doberman than you would a Chihuahua, as J Jessop's illustrative post earlier indicated, though in my experience small dogs can often be the source of a lot of trouble even if they don't often tear anyone limb from limb. And if an owner of such a tiny creature lets it lose in the local park and a passing Greyhound mistakes it for a rabbit, I know where my sympathies would lie.
Maybe we need to replace the 1961 Act with something more sensitive to the changes in dog ownership since then, but please...not by Ms Braverman! Even if it is the Home Office's remit (which I doubt) I think I'd prefer to entrust her successor with the task, whoever that may be,
What a load of pointless twaddle
The great advantage of an immediate ban is that it will terrify the scrotes that own these hideous dogs, and they will be too scared to walk them in case they get seen and nicked and the dog killed = the dogs disappearing from public life NOW
That means children can play freely again, mums can walk in parks, other dog owners can relax, and kids won’t have their faces ripped off, starting tomorrow
Sigh... Why do you resort to such hyperbole?
I agree that dogs bred for fighting should be banned right away. I cannot for the life of me think why this government, which usually seems only to ready to jump on any popular bandwagon, hasn't done so already.
I also think the rules and controls around dog ownership should be reviewed and strengthened.
But let's not pretend any of this is the difference between kids being able to play freely or not.
But it really IS
I’ve been following the Daily Mirror campaign and one of their big lines is that the government elite don’t care because they don’t live on council estates where these dogs are very common, and where they subtly terrorise mums and kids
I am sure they are right. This is a class issue, posh people don’t have to walk past these dogs every day, terrified that they or their dog or their baby will be bitten or worse
You make a good point re the menace on certain estates.
My auntie kept a Rhodesian Ridgebacks. These were (to me) massive dogs, and felt aggressive even when running around. But they lived on a farm, and had a couple of acres to run around. There were also always at least two on the farm. They were as soppy as anything, and the only time they caused me any hard was when one knocked me over whilst I was on one leg pulling on my workboots. They were lovely.
A South London friend kept greyhaunds on a high floor of a tower block. The greyhounds - usually seen as soppy dogs - were mad. Because they only got exercised once a day.
It is the dogs; but it is also the owner.
RRs are wonderful dogs.
Surprised at what you say about the greyhounds. They need remarkably little exercise, and are typically gentle creatures.
Perhaps I didn't say that correctly. They were gentle, but they wanted to be out and about. They were living in a tower block in South London, and did not get regular, good exercise.
My auntie's Rhodesian Ridgeback's are the only ones I have known, and I agree. They were wonderful.
Myself and a friend got attacked by a Doberman once in a pub, and it put me off large dogs for life. My friend had to have stitches in his nose. It was the landlord's dog...
Sorry to hear about your experience with the Doberman. There is nothing wrong with the breed but your experience does help to highlight the shortcomings of simplistic attitudes towards dog control. A lead is not a lot of help with an out of control Doberman. The animal is simply too strong. There is an argument for saying a dog of that type should not generally be in a public space - and a pub is nothing if not public - at all unless the owner can clearly demonstrate his/her control of the animal through normal means. That clearly did not apply in your example.
I assume some formal action and compensation followed?
It was a Peak District pub. You turned left into either the bar or lounge (I forget which). My friend entered ahead of me, turning right. The landlord had just taken his doberman for a walk, and had sat down to talk to a customer. The dog was lying in the doorway.
My friend turns right, and (we think) hit the Doberman's nose with his knee. The next thing I know, my friend is falling backwards with his hands over his nose, blood everywhere. I push past. and ask the barmaid for some napkins (I knew nothing about the dog, and thought my friend had walked into the door). We get taken to a local A&E. They found part of the dog's tooth in my friend's cartilage. I got slashed by it when I went past, and at the hospital they treated my arm.
It turned out the dog had previously attacked a barmaid's young daughter. The landlord move soon afterwards; the dog ended up at a scrapyard.
It was horrifying for a young (and underage...) lad. The landlord turned up to the hospital with a couple of pints (God knows how he got them there without spilling). He said the dog had suffered; it had lost a tooth. The one they found part of in my friend's nose...
Hence I'm uneasy around big dogs. Sue me.
OK, it was a long time ago but even then you could have sued the landlord to buggery. He was bang out of order, and obviously a brainless dog owner.
Omn the hound front, this is an interesting piece - with real experts involved.
I have only once seen a truly dangerous attack by a dog on a human and I had a lump taken out of my hand when I intervened. It was a 7 month old border collie. We had been trying to foster it after it had been cruelly treated by the previous owner. We had to give up. It was beyond our capabilities.
It was a nasty experience but at least it was possible for me to restrain the animal. That wouldn't be possible with some breeds, which is why some governmental control over certain breeds and their owners is appropriate.
But yes, the article is right. It's largely nurture, not nature, and restricting certain breeds is fraught with difficulty and has to be done carefully and thoughtfully.
We have an incredibly aggressive dog, who will attempt to maul other dogs who looks at her funny, and who attacks anyone who gets near my wife.
She's, basically, a psycho.
Fortunately, she's also lost almost all her teeth and is increasingly blind. This leads to her regularly attacking postboxes because they... well, I don't know exactly how they offended her. But she will snarl at them and then leap and sink her tooth into them. (And then sheepishly pretend it didn't happen when the postbox doesn't fight back and she got a mouthful of paint.)
(Edit to add: she's a chihuahua. In case you were wondering.)
My auntie kept a Rhodesian Ridgebacks. These were (to me) massive dogs, and felt aggressive even when running around. But they lived on a farm, and had a couple of acres to run around. There were also always at least two on the farm. They were as soppy as anything, and the only time they caused me any hard was when one knocked me over whilst I was on one leg pulling on my workboots. They were lovely.
A South London friend kept greyhaunds on a high floor of a tower block. The greyhounds - usually seen as soppy dogs - were mad. Because they only got exercised once a day.
It is the dogs; but it is also the owner.
RRs are wonderful dogs.
Surprised at what you say about the greyhounds. They need remarkably little exercise, and are typically gentle creatures.
Perhaps I didn't say that correctly. They were gentle, but they wanted to be out and about. They were living in a tower block in South London, and did not get regular, good exercise.
My auntie's Rhodesian Ridgeback's are the only ones I have known, and I agree. They were wonderful.
Myself and a friend got attacked by a Doberman once in a pub, and it put me off large dogs for life. My friend had to have stitches in his nose. It was the landlord's dog...
Sorry to hear about your experience with the Doberman. There is nothing wrong with the breed but your experience does help to highlight the shortcomings of simplistic attitudes towards dog control. A lead is not a lot of help with an out of control Doberman. The animal is simply too strong. There is an argument for saying a dog of that type should not generally be in a public space - and a pub is nothing if not public - at all unless the owner can clearly demonstrate his/her control of the animal through normal means. That clearly did not apply in your example.
I assume some formal action and compensation followed?
It was a Peak District pub. You turned left into either the bar or lounge (I forget which). My friend entered ahead of me, turning right. The landlord had just taken his doberman for a walk, and had sat down to talk to a customer. The dog was lying in the doorway.
My friend turns right, and (we think) hit the Doberman's nose with his knee. The next thing I know, my friend is falling backwards with his hands over his nose, blood everywhere. I push past. and ask the barmaid for some napkins (I knew nothing about the dog, and thought my friend had walked into the door). We get taken to a local A&E. They found part of the dog's tooth in my friend's cartilage. I got slashed by it when I went past, and at the hospital they treated my arm.
It turned out the dog had previously attacked a barmaid's young daughter. The landlord move soon afterwards; the dog ended up at a scrapyard.
It was horrifying for a young (and underage...) lad. The landlord turned up to the hospital with a couple of pints (God knows how he got them there without spilling). He said the dog had suffered; it had lost a tooth. The one they found part of in my friend's nose...
Hence I'm uneasy around big dogs. Sue me.
OK, it was a long time ago but even then you could have sued the landlord to buggery. He was bang out of order, and obviously a brainless dog owner.
Omn the hound front, this is an interesting piece - with real experts involved.
Yeah, but no matter how badly behaved, a chihuahua is never going to be as dangerous as a mastiff.
Obviously, but that touches on a point overlooked in this debate by those not familiar with dog ownership in this country.
Things have changed a lot since the 1961 Dangerous Dogs Act was introduced (in a bit of a panic as I recall, in response to a similar kind of public hysteria to that which we are now witnessing.)
Small dogs have become much more popular. They are not always suitable for walking in public areas. They are highly vulnerable. Apart from being occasionally trodden on, they are also apt to be mistaken for prey by bigger breeds.
We have also seen a big influx in 'rescues', particularly from overseas. A dog that has had to learn to cut it on the Streets of Bucharest is not likely to be socialised in a way that will allow it to get on with the Pomeranians of Primrose Hill, for example. 'The best of intentions' and all that. You see the problem?
I actually thing the emphasis the law places on 'control' is sound, as it allows for flexibility, requires the owner to take responsibility for assessing the level of control necessary in the circumstances, and does not place unnecessary restrictions on good owners of perfectly well-behaved pooches. It also obviates the need for categorical banning of certain breeds. Clearly you have to exercise considerably more control of your Doberman than you would a Chihuahua, as J Jessop's illustrative post earlier indicated, though in my experience small dogs can often be the source of a lot of trouble even if they don't often tear anyone limb from limb. And if an owner of such a tiny creature lets it lose in the local park and a passing Greyhound mistakes it for a rabbit, I know where my sympathies would lie.
Maybe we need to replace the 1961 Act with something more sensitive to the changes in dog ownership since then, but please...not by Ms Braverman! Even if it is the Home Office's remit (which I doubt) I think I'd prefer to entrust her successor with the task, whoever that may be,
What a load of pointless twaddle
The great advantage of an immediate ban is that it will terrify the scrotes that own these hideous dogs, and they will be too scared to walk them in case they get seen and nicked and the dog killed = the dogs disappearing from public life NOW
That means children can play freely again, mums can walk in parks, other dog owners can relax, and kids won’t have their faces ripped off, starting tomorrow
Sigh... Why do you resort to such hyperbole?
I agree that dogs bred for fighting should be banned right away. I cannot for the life of me think why this government, which usually seems only to ready to jump on any popular bandwagon, hasn't done so already.
I also think the rules and controls around dog ownership should be reviewed and strengthened.
But let's not pretend any of this is the difference between kids being able to play freely or not.
But it really IS
I’ve been following the Daily Mirror campaign and one of their big lines is that the government elite don’t care because they don’t live on council estates where these dogs are very common, and where they subtly terrorise mums and kids
I am sure they are right. This is a class issue, posh people don’t have to walk past these dogs every day, terrified that they or their dog or their baby will be bitten or worse
It really is. I had never come across this issue before my daughter joined a girls' football team - as a result of which I have been spending a lot more time on, and with people who live on, council estates. These dogs are worryingly common and a major source of anxiety for people who live close to them. Weirdly though you never see these dogs outside the estates. Their owners never appear to walk them in the pleasant parks in the more middle class parts of town.
My auntie kept a Rhodesian Ridgebacks. These were (to me) massive dogs, and felt aggressive even when running around. But they lived on a farm, and had a couple of acres to run around. There were also always at least two on the farm. They were as soppy as anything, and the only time they caused me any hard was when one knocked me over whilst I was on one leg pulling on my workboots. They were lovely.
A South London friend kept greyhaunds on a high floor of a tower block. The greyhounds - usually seen as soppy dogs - were mad. Because they only got exercised once a day.
It is the dogs; but it is also the owner.
RRs are wonderful dogs.
Surprised at what you say about the greyhounds. They need remarkably little exercise, and are typically gentle creatures.
Perhaps I didn't say that correctly. They were gentle, but they wanted to be out and about. They were living in a tower block in South London, and did not get regular, good exercise.
My auntie's Rhodesian Ridgeback's are the only ones I have known, and I agree. They were wonderful.
Myself and a friend got attacked by a Doberman once in a pub, and it put me off large dogs for life. My friend had to have stitches in his nose. It was the landlord's dog...
Sorry to hear about your experience with the Doberman. There is nothing wrong with the breed but your experience does help to highlight the shortcomings of simplistic attitudes towards dog control. A lead is not a lot of help with an out of control Doberman. The animal is simply too strong. There is an argument for saying a dog of that type should not generally be in a public space - and a pub is nothing if not public - at all unless the owner can clearly demonstrate his/her control of the animal through normal means. That clearly did not apply in your example.
I assume some formal action and compensation followed?
It was a Peak District pub. You turned left into either the bar or lounge (I forget which). My friend entered ahead of me, turning right. The landlord had just taken his doberman for a walk, and had sat down to talk to a customer. The dog was lying in the doorway.
My friend turns right, and (we think) hit the Doberman's nose with his knee. The next thing I know, my friend is falling backwards with his hands over his nose, blood everywhere. I push past. and ask the barmaid for some napkins (I knew nothing about the dog, and thought my friend had walked into the door). We get taken to a local A&E. They found part of the dog's tooth in my friend's cartilage. I got slashed by it when I went past, and at the hospital they treated my arm.
It turned out the dog had previously attacked a barmaid's young daughter. The landlord move soon afterwards; the dog ended up at a scrapyard.
It was horrifying for a young (and underage...) lad. The landlord turned up to the hospital with a couple of pints (God knows how he got them there without spilling). He said the dog had suffered; it had lost a tooth. The one they found part of in my friend's nose...
Hence I'm uneasy around big dogs. Sue me.
OK, it was a long time ago but even then you could have sued the landlord to buggery. He was bang out of order, and obviously a brainless dog owner.
Omn the hound front, this is an interesting piece - with real experts involved.
Yeah, but no matter how badly behaved, a chihuahua is never going to be as dangerous as a mastiff.
Obviously, but that touches on a point overlooked in this debate by those not familiar with dog ownership in this country.
Things have changed a lot since the 1961 Dangerous Dogs Act was introduced (in a bit of a panic as I recall, in response to a similar kind of public hysteria to that which we are now witnessing.)
Small dogs have become much more popular. They are not always suitable for walking in public areas. They are highly vulnerable. Apart from being occasionally trodden on, they are also apt to be mistaken for prey by bigger breeds.
We have also seen a big influx in 'rescues', particularly from overseas. A dog that has had to learn to cut it on the Streets of Bucharest is not likely to be socialised in a way that will allow it to get on with the Pomeranians of Primrose Hill, for example. 'The best of intentions' and all that. You see the problem?
I actually thing the emphasis the law places on 'control' is sound, as it allows for flexibility, requires the owner to take responsibility for assessing the level of control necessary in the circumstances, and does not place unnecessary restrictions on good owners of perfectly well-behaved pooches. It also obviates the need for categorical banning of certain breeds. Clearly you have to exercise considerably more control of your Doberman than you would a Chihuahua, as J Jessop's illustrative post earlier indicated, though in my experience small dogs can often be the source of a lot of trouble even if they don't often tear anyone limb from limb. And if an owner of such a tiny creature lets it lose in the local park and a passing Greyhound mistakes it for a rabbit, I know where my sympathies would lie.
Maybe we need to replace the 1961 Act with something more sensitive to the changes in dog ownership since then, but please...not by Ms Braverman! Even if it is the Home Office's remit (which I doubt) I think I'd prefer to entrust her successor with the task, whoever that may be,
What a load of pointless twaddle
The great advantage of an immediate ban is that it will terrify the scrotes that own these hideous dogs, and they will be too scared to walk them in case they get seen and nicked and the dog killed = the dogs disappearing from public life NOW
That means children can play freely again, mums can walk in parks, other dog owners can relax, and kids won’t have their faces ripped off, starting tomorrow
Sigh... Why do you resort to such hyperbole?
I agree that dogs bred for fighting should be banned right away. I cannot for the life of me think why this government, which usually seems only to ready to jump on any popular bandwagon, hasn't done so already. (Oh, wait, got it: total f*cking ineptitude.)
I also think the rules and controls around dog ownership should be reviewed and strengthened.
But let's not pretend any of this is the difference between kids being able to play freely or not.
Well, it is - responsible parents don't let their kids play out when there are violent monsters ready to leap over the fence from their front yard. If you are unlucky enough to live near one of these animals, your own garden will be out of bounds for large parts of the day.
My auntie kept a Rhodesian Ridgebacks. These were (to me) massive dogs, and felt aggressive even when running around. But they lived on a farm, and had a couple of acres to run around. There were also always at least two on the farm. They were as soppy as anything, and the only time they caused me any hard was when one knocked me over whilst I was on one leg pulling on my workboots. They were lovely.
A South London friend kept greyhaunds on a high floor of a tower block. The greyhounds - usually seen as soppy dogs - were mad. Because they only got exercised once a day.
It is the dogs; but it is also the owner.
RRs are wonderful dogs.
Surprised at what you say about the greyhounds. They need remarkably little exercise, and are typically gentle creatures.
Perhaps I didn't say that correctly. They were gentle, but they wanted to be out and about. They were living in a tower block in South London, and did not get regular, good exercise.
My auntie's Rhodesian Ridgeback's are the only ones I have known, and I agree. They were wonderful.
Myself and a friend got attacked by a Doberman once in a pub, and it put me off large dogs for life. My friend had to have stitches in his nose. It was the landlord's dog...
Sorry to hear about your experience with the Doberman. There is nothing wrong with the breed but your experience does help to highlight the shortcomings of simplistic attitudes towards dog control. A lead is not a lot of help with an out of control Doberman. The animal is simply too strong. There is an argument for saying a dog of that type should not generally be in a public space - and a pub is nothing if not public - at all unless the owner can clearly demonstrate his/her control of the animal through normal means. That clearly did not apply in your example.
I assume some formal action and compensation followed?
It was a Peak District pub. You turned left into either the bar or lounge (I forget which). My friend entered ahead of me, turning right. The landlord had just taken his doberman for a walk, and had sat down to talk to a customer. The dog was lying in the doorway.
My friend turns right, and (we think) hit the Doberman's nose with his knee. The next thing I know, my friend is falling backwards with his hands over his nose, blood everywhere. I push past. and ask the barmaid for some napkins (I knew nothing about the dog, and thought my friend had walked into the door). We get taken to a local A&E. They found part of the dog's tooth in my friend's cartilage. I got slashed by it when I went past, and at the hospital they treated my arm.
It turned out the dog had previously attacked a barmaid's young daughter. The landlord move soon afterwards; the dog ended up at a scrapyard.
It was horrifying for a young (and underage...) lad. The landlord turned up to the hospital with a couple of pints (God knows how he got them there without spilling). He said the dog had suffered; it had lost a tooth. The one they found part of in my friend's nose...
Hence I'm uneasy around big dogs. Sue me.
OK, it was a long time ago but even then you could have sued the landlord to buggery. He was bang out of order, and obviously a brainless dog owner.
Omn the hound front, this is an interesting piece - with real experts involved.
Yeah, but no matter how badly behaved, a chihuahua is never going to be as dangerous as a mastiff.
Obviously, but that touches on a point overlooked in this debate by those not familiar with dog ownership in this country.
Things have changed a lot since the 1961 Dangerous Dogs Act was introduced (in a bit of a panic as I recall, in response to a similar kind of public hysteria to that which we are now witnessing.)
Small dogs have become much more popular. They are not always suitable for walking in public areas. They are highly vulnerable. Apart from being occasionally trodden on, they are also apt to be mistaken for prey by bigger breeds.
We have also seen a big influx in 'rescues', particularly from overseas. A dog that has had to learn to cut it on the Streets of Bucharest is not likely to be socialised in a way that will allow it to get on with the Pomeranians of Primrose Hill, for example. 'The best of intentions' and all that. You see the problem?
I actually thing the emphasis the law places on 'control' is sound, as it allows for flexibility, requires the owner to take responsibility for assessing the level of control necessary in the circumstances, and does not place unnecessary restrictions on good owners of perfectly well-behaved pooches. It also obviates the need for categorical banning of certain breeds. Clearly you have to exercise considerably more control of your Doberman than you would a Chihuahua, as J Jessop's illustrative post earlier indicated, though in my experience small dogs can often be the source of a lot of trouble even if they don't often tear anyone limb from limb. And if an owner of such a tiny creature lets it lose in the local park and a passing Greyhound mistakes it for a rabbit, I know where my sympathies would lie.
Maybe we need to replace the 1961 Act with something more sensitive to the changes in dog ownership since then, but please...not by Ms Braverman! Even if it is the Home Office's remit (which I doubt) I think I'd prefer to entrust her successor with the task, whoever that may be,
What a load of pointless twaddle
The great advantage of an immediate ban is that it will terrify the scrotes that own these hideous dogs, and they will be too scared to walk them in case they get seen and nicked and the dog killed = the dogs disappearing from public life NOW
That means children can play freely again, mums can walk in parks, other dog owners can relax, and kids won’t have their faces ripped off, starting tomorrow
Sigh... Why do you resort to such hyperbole?
I agree that dogs bred for fighting should be banned right away. I cannot for the life of me think why this government, which usually seems only to ready to jump on any popular bandwagon, hasn't done so already.
I also think the rules and controls around dog ownership should be reviewed and strengthened.
But let's not pretend any of this is the difference between kids being able to play freely or not.
But it really IS
I’ve been following the Daily Mirror campaign and one of their big lines is that the government elite don’t care because they don’t live on council estates where these dogs are very common, and where they subtly terrorise mums and kids
I am sure they are right. This is a class issue, posh people don’t have to walk past these dogs every day, terrified that they or their dog or their baby will be bitten or worse
It really is. I had never come across this issue before my daughter joined a girls' football team - as a result of which I have been spending a lot more time on, and with people who live on, council estates. These dogs are worryingly common and a major source of anxiety for people who live close to them. Weirdly though you never see these dogs outside the estates. Their owners never appear to walk them in the pleasant parks in the more middle class parts of town.
Indeed. So many posh liberals lack the empathy - or basic brains? - to work this out. Remarkable
How do you 'define' a breed of dog, particularly with crossbreeds? IS this a dangerous dog on the list, or something that looks just like one?
(A genuine question, as I've no idea how it's done, and it seems like an important question.)
Physical characteristics, down to very fine details
Sure, that sort of works for something like an Irish Setter. Or a Dobermann.
But when the so-called breed, the Bully XL, appears to be a new mishmash of different pre-existing breeds, a sort of standardised mongrel, you're going to get allsorts as a result.
It hasn't had many scores of generations of breeding to a Kennel Club UK specification. The KCUK don't even recognise it.
This imay well be a problem legally. I hope not, but we will have to see.
Now if we go on empirical characters like massive jaws, and forget the rest ...
My auntie kept a Rhodesian Ridgebacks. These were (to me) massive dogs, and felt aggressive even when running around. But they lived on a farm, and had a couple of acres to run around. There were also always at least two on the farm. They were as soppy as anything, and the only time they caused me any hard was when one knocked me over whilst I was on one leg pulling on my workboots. They were lovely.
A South London friend kept greyhaunds on a high floor of a tower block. The greyhounds - usually seen as soppy dogs - were mad. Because they only got exercised once a day.
It is the dogs; but it is also the owner.
RRs are wonderful dogs.
Surprised at what you say about the greyhounds. They need remarkably little exercise, and are typically gentle creatures.
Perhaps I didn't say that correctly. They were gentle, but they wanted to be out and about. They were living in a tower block in South London, and did not get regular, good exercise.
My auntie's Rhodesian Ridgeback's are the only ones I have known, and I agree. They were wonderful.
Myself and a friend got attacked by a Doberman once in a pub, and it put me off large dogs for life. My friend had to have stitches in his nose. It was the landlord's dog...
Sorry to hear about your experience with the Doberman. There is nothing wrong with the breed but your experience does help to highlight the shortcomings of simplistic attitudes towards dog control. A lead is not a lot of help with an out of control Doberman. The animal is simply too strong. There is an argument for saying a dog of that type should not generally be in a public space - and a pub is nothing if not public - at all unless the owner can clearly demonstrate his/her control of the animal through normal means. That clearly did not apply in your example.
I assume some formal action and compensation followed?
It was a Peak District pub. You turned left into either the bar or lounge (I forget which). My friend entered ahead of me, turning right. The landlord had just taken his doberman for a walk, and had sat down to talk to a customer. The dog was lying in the doorway.
My friend turns right, and (we think) hit the Doberman's nose with his knee. The next thing I know, my friend is falling backwards with his hands over his nose, blood everywhere. I push past. and ask the barmaid for some napkins (I knew nothing about the dog, and thought my friend had walked into the door). We get taken to a local A&E. They found part of the dog's tooth in my friend's cartilage. I got slashed by it when I went past, and at the hospital they treated my arm.
It turned out the dog had previously attacked a barmaid's young daughter. The landlord move soon afterwards; the dog ended up at a scrapyard.
It was horrifying for a young (and underage...) lad. The landlord turned up to the hospital with a couple of pints (God knows how he got them there without spilling). He said the dog had suffered; it had lost a tooth. The one they found part of in my friend's nose...
Hence I'm uneasy around big dogs. Sue me.
OK, it was a long time ago but even then you could have sued the landlord to buggery. He was bang out of order, and obviously a brainless dog owner.
Omn the hound front, this is an interesting piece - with real experts involved.
Yeah, but no matter how badly behaved, a chihuahua is never going to be as dangerous as a mastiff.
Obviously, but that touches on a point overlooked in this debate by those not familiar with dog ownership in this country.
Things have changed a lot since the 1961 Dangerous Dogs Act was introduced (in a bit of a panic as I recall, in response to a similar kind of public hysteria to that which we are now witnessing.)
Small dogs have become much more popular. They are not always suitable for walking in public areas. They are highly vulnerable. Apart from being occasionally trodden on, they are also apt to be mistaken for prey by bigger breeds.
We have also seen a big influx in 'rescues', particularly from overseas. A dog that has had to learn to cut it on the Streets of Bucharest is not likely to be socialised in a way that will allow it to get on with the Pomeranians of Primrose Hill, for example. 'The best of intentions' and all that. You see the problem?
I actually thing the emphasis the law places on 'control' is sound, as it allows for flexibility, requires the owner to take responsibility for assessing the level of control necessary in the circumstances, and does not place unnecessary restrictions on good owners of perfectly well-behaved pooches. It also obviates the need for categorical banning of certain breeds. Clearly you have to exercise considerably more control of your Doberman than you would a Chihuahua, as J Jessop's illustrative post earlier indicated, though in my experience small dogs can often be the source of a lot of trouble even if they don't often tear anyone limb from limb. And if an owner of such a tiny creature lets it lose in the local park and a passing Greyhound mistakes it for a rabbit, I know where my sympathies would lie.
Maybe we need to replace the 1961 Act with something more sensitive to the changes in dog ownership since then, but please...not by Ms Braverman! Even if it is the Home Office's remit (which I doubt) I think I'd prefer to entrust her successor with the task, whoever that may be,
What a load of pointless twaddle
The great advantage of an immediate ban is that it will terrify the scrotes that own these hideous dogs, and they will be too scared to walk them in case they get seen and nicked and the dog killed = the dogs disappearing from public life NOW
That means children can play freely again, mums can walk in parks, other dog owners can relax, and kids won’t have their faces ripped off, starting tomorrow
Sigh... Why do you resort to such hyperbole?
I agree that dogs bred for fighting should be banned right away. I cannot for the life of me think why this government, which usually seems only to ready to jump on any popular bandwagon, hasn't done so already. (Oh, wait, got it: total f*cking ineptitude.)
I also think the rules and controls around dog ownership should be reviewed and strengthened.
But let's not pretend any of this is the difference between kids being able to play freely or not.
Well, it is - responsible parents don't let their kids play out when there are violent monsters ready to leap over the fence from their front yard. If you are unlucky enough to live near one of these animals, your own garden will be out of bounds for large parts of the day.
My auntie kept a Rhodesian Ridgebacks. These were (to me) massive dogs, and felt aggressive even when running around. But they lived on a farm, and had a couple of acres to run around. There were also always at least two on the farm. They were as soppy as anything, and the only time they caused me any hard was when one knocked me over whilst I was on one leg pulling on my workboots. They were lovely.
A South London friend kept greyhaunds on a high floor of a tower block. The greyhounds - usually seen as soppy dogs - were mad. Because they only got exercised once a day.
It is the dogs; but it is also the owner.
RRs are wonderful dogs.
Surprised at what you say about the greyhounds. They need remarkably little exercise, and are typically gentle creatures.
Perhaps I didn't say that correctly. They were gentle, but they wanted to be out and about. They were living in a tower block in South London, and did not get regular, good exercise.
My auntie's Rhodesian Ridgeback's are the only ones I have known, and I agree. They were wonderful.
Myself and a friend got attacked by a Doberman once in a pub, and it put me off large dogs for life. My friend had to have stitches in his nose. It was the landlord's dog...
Sorry to hear about your experience with the Doberman. There is nothing wrong with the breed but your experience does help to highlight the shortcomings of simplistic attitudes towards dog control. A lead is not a lot of help with an out of control Doberman. The animal is simply too strong. There is an argument for saying a dog of that type should not generally be in a public space - and a pub is nothing if not public - at all unless the owner can clearly demonstrate his/her control of the animal through normal means. That clearly did not apply in your example.
I assume some formal action and compensation followed?
It was a Peak District pub. You turned left into either the bar or lounge (I forget which). My friend entered ahead of me, turning right. The landlord had just taken his doberman for a walk, and had sat down to talk to a customer. The dog was lying in the doorway.
My friend turns right, and (we think) hit the Doberman's nose with his knee. The next thing I know, my friend is falling backwards with his hands over his nose, blood everywhere. I push past. and ask the barmaid for some napkins (I knew nothing about the dog, and thought my friend had walked into the door). We get taken to a local A&E. They found part of the dog's tooth in my friend's cartilage. I got slashed by it when I went past, and at the hospital they treated my arm.
It turned out the dog had previously attacked a barmaid's young daughter. The landlord move soon afterwards; the dog ended up at a scrapyard.
It was horrifying for a young (and underage...) lad. The landlord turned up to the hospital with a couple of pints (God knows how he got them there without spilling). He said the dog had suffered; it had lost a tooth. The one they found part of in my friend's nose...
Hence I'm uneasy around big dogs. Sue me.
OK, it was a long time ago but even then you could have sued the landlord to buggery. He was bang out of order, and obviously a brainless dog owner.
Omn the hound front, this is an interesting piece - with real experts involved.
Yeah, but no matter how badly behaved, a chihuahua is never going to be as dangerous as a mastiff.
Obviously, but that touches on a point overlooked in this debate by those not familiar with dog ownership in this country.
Things have changed a lot since the 1961 Dangerous Dogs Act was introduced (in a bit of a panic as I recall, in response to a similar kind of public hysteria to that which we are now witnessing.)
Small dogs have become much more popular. They are not always suitable for walking in public areas. They are highly vulnerable. Apart from being occasionally trodden on, they are also apt to be mistaken for prey by bigger breeds.
We have also seen a big influx in 'rescues', particularly from overseas. A dog that has had to learn to cut it on the Streets of Bucharest is not likely to be socialised in a way that will allow it to get on with the Pomeranians of Primrose Hill, for example. 'The best of intentions' and all that. You see the problem?
I actually thing the emphasis the law places on 'control' is sound, as it allows for flexibility, requires the owner to take responsibility for assessing the level of control necessary in the circumstances, and does not place unnecessary restrictions on good owners of perfectly well-behaved pooches. It also obviates the need for categorical banning of certain breeds. Clearly you have to exercise considerably more control of your Doberman than you would a Chihuahua, as J Jessop's illustrative post earlier indicated, though in my experience small dogs can often be the source of a lot of trouble even if they don't often tear anyone limb from limb. And if an owner of such a tiny creature lets it lose in the local park and a passing Greyhound mistakes it for a rabbit, I know where my sympathies would lie.
Maybe we need to replace the 1961 Act with something more sensitive to the changes in dog ownership since then, but please...not by Ms Braverman! Even if it is the Home Office's remit (which I doubt) I think I'd prefer to entrust her successor with the task, whoever that may be,
What a load of pointless twaddle
The great advantage of an immediate ban is that it will terrify the scrotes that own these hideous dogs, and they will be too scared to walk them in case they get seen and nicked and the dog killed = the dogs disappearing from public life NOW
That means children can play freely again, mums can walk in parks, other dog owners can relax, and kids won’t have their faces ripped off, starting tomorrow
Sigh... Why do you resort to such hyperbole?
I agree that dogs bred for fighting should be banned right away. I cannot for the life of me think why this government, which usually seems only to ready to jump on any popular bandwagon, hasn't done so already.
I also think the rules and controls around dog ownership should be reviewed and strengthened.
But let's not pretend any of this is the difference between kids being able to play freely or not.
But it really IS
I’ve been following the Daily Mirror campaign and one of their big lines is that the government elite don’t care because they don’t live on council estates where these dogs are very common, and where they subtly terrorise mums and kids
I am sure they are right. This is a class issue, posh people don’t have to walk past these dogs every day, terrified that they or their dog or their baby will be bitten or worse
It really is. I had never come across this issue before my daughter joined a girls' football team - as a result of which I have been spending a lot more time on, and with people who live on, council estates. These dogs are worryingly common and a major source of anxiety for people who live close to them. Weirdly though you never see these dogs outside the estates. Their owners never appear to walk them in the pleasant parks in the more middle class parts of town.
It's almost as if they are not trying to sell their drugs in the pleasant parks. Surely that can't be right?
My auntie kept a Rhodesian Ridgebacks. These were (to me) massive dogs, and felt aggressive even when running around. But they lived on a farm, and had a couple of acres to run around. There were also always at least two on the farm. They were as soppy as anything, and the only time they caused me any hard was when one knocked me over whilst I was on one leg pulling on my workboots. They were lovely.
A South London friend kept greyhaunds on a high floor of a tower block. The greyhounds - usually seen as soppy dogs - were mad. Because they only got exercised once a day.
It is the dogs; but it is also the owner.
RRs are wonderful dogs.
Surprised at what you say about the greyhounds. They need remarkably little exercise, and are typically gentle creatures.
Perhaps I didn't say that correctly. They were gentle, but they wanted to be out and about. They were living in a tower block in South London, and did not get regular, good exercise.
My auntie's Rhodesian Ridgeback's are the only ones I have known, and I agree. They were wonderful.
Myself and a friend got attacked by a Doberman once in a pub, and it put me off large dogs for life. My friend had to have stitches in his nose. It was the landlord's dog...
Sorry to hear about your experience with the Doberman. There is nothing wrong with the breed but your experience does help to highlight the shortcomings of simplistic attitudes towards dog control. A lead is not a lot of help with an out of control Doberman. The animal is simply too strong. There is an argument for saying a dog of that type should not generally be in a public space - and a pub is nothing if not public - at all unless the owner can clearly demonstrate his/her control of the animal through normal means. That clearly did not apply in your example.
I assume some formal action and compensation followed?
It was a Peak District pub. You turned left into either the bar or lounge (I forget which). My friend entered ahead of me, turning right. The landlord had just taken his doberman for a walk, and had sat down to talk to a customer. The dog was lying in the doorway.
My friend turns right, and (we think) hit the Doberman's nose with his knee. The next thing I know, my friend is falling backwards with his hands over his nose, blood everywhere. I push past. and ask the barmaid for some napkins (I knew nothing about the dog, and thought my friend had walked into the door). We get taken to a local A&E. They found part of the dog's tooth in my friend's cartilage. I got slashed by it when I went past, and at the hospital they treated my arm.
It turned out the dog had previously attacked a barmaid's young daughter. The landlord move soon afterwards; the dog ended up at a scrapyard.
It was horrifying for a young (and underage...) lad. The landlord turned up to the hospital with a couple of pints (God knows how he got them there without spilling). He said the dog had suffered; it had lost a tooth. The one they found part of in my friend's nose...
Hence I'm uneasy around big dogs. Sue me.
OK, it was a long time ago but even then you could have sued the landlord to buggery. He was bang out of order, and obviously a brainless dog owner.
Omn the hound front, this is an interesting piece - with real experts involved.
Yeah, but no matter how badly behaved, a chihuahua is never going to be as dangerous as a mastiff.
Obviously, but that touches on a point overlooked in this debate by those not familiar with dog ownership in this country.
Things have changed a lot since the 1961 Dangerous Dogs Act was introduced (in a bit of a panic as I recall, in response to a similar kind of public hysteria to that which we are now witnessing.)
Small dogs have become much more popular. They are not always suitable for walking in public areas. They are highly vulnerable. Apart from being occasionally trodden on, they are also apt to be mistaken for prey by bigger breeds.
We have also seen a big influx in 'rescues', particularly from overseas. A dog that has had to learn to cut it on the Streets of Bucharest is not likely to be socialised in a way that will allow it to get on with the Pomeranians of Primrose Hill, for example. 'The best of intentions' and all that. You see the problem?
I actually thing the emphasis the law places on 'control' is sound, as it allows for flexibility, requires the owner to take responsibility for assessing the level of control necessary in the circumstances, and does not place unnecessary restrictions on good owners of perfectly well-behaved pooches. It also obviates the need for categorical banning of certain breeds. Clearly you have to exercise considerably more control of your Doberman than you would a Chihuahua, as J Jessop's illustrative post earlier indicated, though in my experience small dogs can often be the source of a lot of trouble even if they don't often tear anyone limb from limb. And if an owner of such a tiny creature lets it lose in the local park and a passing Greyhound mistakes it for a rabbit, I know where my sympathies would lie.
Maybe we need to replace the 1961 Act with something more sensitive to the changes in dog ownership since then, but please...not by Ms Braverman! Even if it is the Home Office's remit (which I doubt) I think I'd prefer to entrust her successor with the task, whoever that may be,
What a load of pointless twaddle
The great advantage of an immediate ban is that it will terrify the scrotes that own these hideous dogs, and they will be too scared to walk them in case they get seen and nicked and the dog killed = the dogs disappearing from public life NOW
That means children can play freely again, mums can walk in parks, other dog owners can relax, and kids won’t have their faces ripped off, starting tomorrow
Sigh... Why do you resort to such hyperbole?
I agree that dogs bred for fighting should be banned right away. I cannot for the life of me think why this government, which usually seems only to ready to jump on any popular bandwagon, hasn't done so already.
I also think the rules and controls around dog ownership should be reviewed and strengthened.
But let's not pretend any of this is the difference between kids being able to play freely or not.
But it really IS
I’ve been following the Daily Mirror campaign and one of their big lines is that the government elite don’t care because they don’t live on council estates where these dogs are very common, and where they subtly terrorise mums and kids
I am sure they are right. This is a class issue, posh people don’t have to walk past these dogs every day, terrified that they or their dog or their baby will be bitten or worse
It really is. I had never come across this issue before my daughter joined a girls' football team - as a result of which I have been spending a lot more time on, and with people who live on, council estates. These dogs are worryingly common and a major source of anxiety for people who live close to them. Weirdly though you never see these dogs outside the estates. Their owners never appear to walk them in the pleasant parks in the more middle class parts of town.
Indeed. So many posh liberals lack the empathy - or basic brains? - to work this out. Remarkable
In my case, I confess it was sheer ignorance. I never really went to council estates. I didn't realise how common these dogs were.
My auntie kept a Rhodesian Ridgebacks. These were (to me) massive dogs, and felt aggressive even when running around. But they lived on a farm, and had a couple of acres to run around. There were also always at least two on the farm. They were as soppy as anything, and the only time they caused me any hard was when one knocked me over whilst I was on one leg pulling on my workboots. They were lovely.
A South London friend kept greyhaunds on a high floor of a tower block. The greyhounds - usually seen as soppy dogs - were mad. Because they only got exercised once a day.
It is the dogs; but it is also the owner.
RRs are wonderful dogs.
Surprised at what you say about the greyhounds. They need remarkably little exercise, and are typically gentle creatures.
Perhaps I didn't say that correctly. They were gentle, but they wanted to be out and about. They were living in a tower block in South London, and did not get regular, good exercise.
My auntie's Rhodesian Ridgeback's are the only ones I have known, and I agree. They were wonderful.
Myself and a friend got attacked by a Doberman once in a pub, and it put me off large dogs for life. My friend had to have stitches in his nose. It was the landlord's dog...
Sorry to hear about your experience with the Doberman. There is nothing wrong with the breed but your experience does help to highlight the shortcomings of simplistic attitudes towards dog control. A lead is not a lot of help with an out of control Doberman. The animal is simply too strong. There is an argument for saying a dog of that type should not generally be in a public space - and a pub is nothing if not public - at all unless the owner can clearly demonstrate his/her control of the animal through normal means. That clearly did not apply in your example.
I assume some formal action and compensation followed?
It was a Peak District pub. You turned left into either the bar or lounge (I forget which). My friend entered ahead of me, turning right. The landlord had just taken his doberman for a walk, and had sat down to talk to a customer. The dog was lying in the doorway.
My friend turns right, and (we think) hit the Doberman's nose with his knee. The next thing I know, my friend is falling backwards with his hands over his nose, blood everywhere. I push past. and ask the barmaid for some napkins (I knew nothing about the dog, and thought my friend had walked into the door). We get taken to a local A&E. They found part of the dog's tooth in my friend's cartilage. I got slashed by it when I went past, and at the hospital they treated my arm.
It turned out the dog had previously attacked a barmaid's young daughter. The landlord move soon afterwards; the dog ended up at a scrapyard.
It was horrifying for a young (and underage...) lad. The landlord turned up to the hospital with a couple of pints (God knows how he got them there without spilling). He said the dog had suffered; it had lost a tooth. The one they found part of in my friend's nose...
Hence I'm uneasy around big dogs. Sue me.
OK, it was a long time ago but even then you could have sued the landlord to buggery. He was bang out of order, and obviously a brainless dog owner.
Omn the hound front, this is an interesting piece - with real experts involved.
Yeah, but no matter how badly behaved, a chihuahua is never going to be as dangerous as a mastiff.
Obviously, but that touches on a point overlooked in this debate by those not familiar with dog ownership in this country.
Things have changed a lot since the 1961 Dangerous Dogs Act was introduced (in a bit of a panic as I recall, in response to a similar kind of public hysteria to that which we are now witnessing.)
Small dogs have become much more popular. They are not always suitable for walking in public areas. They are highly vulnerable. Apart from being occasionally trodden on, they are also apt to be mistaken for prey by bigger breeds.
We have also seen a big influx in 'rescues', particularly from overseas. A dog that has had to learn to cut it on the Streets of Bucharest is not likely to be socialised in a way that will allow it to get on with the Pomeranians of Primrose Hill, for example. 'The best of intentions' and all that. You see the problem?
I actually thing the emphasis the law places on 'control' is sound, as it allows for flexibility, requires the owner to take responsibility for assessing the level of control necessary in the circumstances, and does not place unnecessary restrictions on good owners of perfectly well-behaved pooches. It also obviates the need for categorical banning of certain breeds. Clearly you have to exercise considerably more control of your Doberman than you would a Chihuahua, as J Jessop's illustrative post earlier indicated, though in my experience small dogs can often be the source of a lot of trouble even if they don't often tear anyone limb from limb. And if an owner of such a tiny creature lets it lose in the local park and a passing Greyhound mistakes it for a rabbit, I know where my sympathies would lie.
Maybe we need to replace the 1961 Act with something more sensitive to the changes in dog ownership since then, but please...not by Ms Braverman! Even if it is the Home Office's remit (which I doubt) I think I'd prefer to entrust her successor with the task, whoever that may be,
What a load of pointless twaddle
The great advantage of an immediate ban is that it will terrify the scrotes that own these hideous dogs, and they will be too scared to walk them in case they get seen and nicked and the dog killed = the dogs disappearing from public life NOW
That means children can play freely again, mums can walk in parks, other dog owners can relax, and kids won’t have their faces ripped off, starting tomorrow
Sigh... Why do you resort to such hyperbole?
I agree that dogs bred for fighting should be banned right away. I cannot for the life of me think why this government, which usually seems only to ready to jump on any popular bandwagon, hasn't done so already.
I also think the rules and controls around dog ownership should be reviewed and strengthened.
But let's not pretend any of this is the difference between kids being able to play freely or not.
But it really IS
I’ve been following the Daily Mirror campaign and one of their big lines is that the government elite don’t care because they don’t live on council estates where these dogs are very common, and where they subtly terrorise mums and kids
I am sure they are right. This is a class issue, posh people don’t have to walk past these dogs every day, terrified that they or their dog or their baby will be bitten or worse
It really is. I had never come across this issue before my daughter joined a girls' football team - as a result of which I have been spending a lot more time on, and with people who live on, council estates. These dogs are worryingly common and a major source of anxiety for people who live close to them. Weirdly though you never see these dogs outside the estates. Their owners never appear to walk them in the pleasant parks in the more middle class parts of town.
Indeed. So many posh liberals lack the empathy - or basic brains? - to work this out. Remarkable
In my case, I confess it was sheer ignorance. I never really went to council estates. I didn't realise how common these dogs were.
Is it a city thing? I live in what in a poor estate in a small town and don't think I've come across one.
What do people think the Labour VI lead, & Betfair price for Labour overall majority would be now had Boris never faced a vote of confidence last year, the mass resignations didn’t happen, & he was still PM?
Did the resignations not happen because Boris had a character implant and apologised early on or because his opponents were too frit and didn't pull the trigger?
The former the Tories probably 8-10 behind. The latter 20-25 behind.
What happens with the Privileges Committee report? Is that just not happening, or is it now an investigation into the PM, rather than a gone yesterday, definitely gone tomorrow, backbencher?
The second would be messy, in a grimly fascinating way.
Let’s say it happened the second way, and whatever the result was, he is still PM now
Would the Tories be 20 points behind in the polls & 10/1 for a majority?
He would have done other things, and the end days might still have come over something else. He would still have been Boris.
But, let's say he was still blustering his way through an inevitable procession of scandal still. I think 15-20 points might still be approaching, but perhaps there would be some residual mystique around him as a campaigner, so maybe not the 10/1.
The difficulty is the whole "lying in the House of Commons" thing. It may be a Small Thing felling a Great Man, but I don't see how you unhappen the report or its conclusion.
And a report like that landing while Boris is PM... Do the Conservatives try to whip their MPs into a token punishment? Or do they dump him then?
I don't see how either ends well, or even better than the situation now. To return to something I've been saying about Boris for ages. On first encounter, most people think he's great. They continue thinking he's great until they experience him doing something awful, usually to them. That happens to everyone eventually, and it's nearly always a one-way process.
On that basis, by now he'd be doing roughly as badly in the polls as Sunak is now; maybe sightly better or slightly worse. But still with some (slightly shabby) mystique.
The Truss/Kwarteng budget wouldn’t have happened, interest rates wouldn’t necessary have risen as high as they have - I don’t think Sunak’s Tories would be doing as badly in the polls without that debacle
I think probably 8-10 points behind in the polls, with NOM fav on Betfair.
My auntie kept a Rhodesian Ridgebacks. These were (to me) massive dogs, and felt aggressive even when running around. But they lived on a farm, and had a couple of acres to run around. There were also always at least two on the farm. They were as soppy as anything, and the only time they caused me any hard was when one knocked me over whilst I was on one leg pulling on my workboots. They were lovely.
A South London friend kept greyhaunds on a high floor of a tower block. The greyhounds - usually seen as soppy dogs - were mad. Because they only got exercised once a day.
It is the dogs; but it is also the owner.
RRs are wonderful dogs.
Surprised at what you say about the greyhounds. They need remarkably little exercise, and are typically gentle creatures.
Perhaps I didn't say that correctly. They were gentle, but they wanted to be out and about. They were living in a tower block in South London, and did not get regular, good exercise.
My auntie's Rhodesian Ridgeback's are the only ones I have known, and I agree. They were wonderful.
Myself and a friend got attacked by a Doberman once in a pub, and it put me off large dogs for life. My friend had to have stitches in his nose. It was the landlord's dog...
Sorry to hear about your experience with the Doberman. There is nothing wrong with the breed but your experience does help to highlight the shortcomings of simplistic attitudes towards dog control. A lead is not a lot of help with an out of control Doberman. The animal is simply too strong. There is an argument for saying a dog of that type should not generally be in a public space - and a pub is nothing if not public - at all unless the owner can clearly demonstrate his/her control of the animal through normal means. That clearly did not apply in your example.
I assume some formal action and compensation followed?
It was a Peak District pub. You turned left into either the bar or lounge (I forget which). My friend entered ahead of me, turning right. The landlord had just taken his doberman for a walk, and had sat down to talk to a customer. The dog was lying in the doorway.
My friend turns right, and (we think) hit the Doberman's nose with his knee. The next thing I know, my friend is falling backwards with his hands over his nose, blood everywhere. I push past. and ask the barmaid for some napkins (I knew nothing about the dog, and thought my friend had walked into the door). We get taken to a local A&E. They found part of the dog's tooth in my friend's cartilage. I got slashed by it when I went past, and at the hospital they treated my arm.
It turned out the dog had previously attacked a barmaid's young daughter. The landlord move soon afterwards; the dog ended up at a scrapyard.
It was horrifying for a young (and underage...) lad. The landlord turned up to the hospital with a couple of pints (God knows how he got them there without spilling). He said the dog had suffered; it had lost a tooth. The one they found part of in my friend's nose...
Hence I'm uneasy around big dogs. Sue me.
OK, it was a long time ago but even then you could have sued the landlord to buggery. He was bang out of order, and obviously a brainless dog owner.
Omn the hound front, this is an interesting piece - with real experts involved.
Yeah, but no matter how badly behaved, a chihuahua is never going to be as dangerous as a mastiff.
Obviously, but that touches on a point overlooked in this debate by those not familiar with dog ownership in this country.
Things have changed a lot since the 1961 Dangerous Dogs Act was introduced (in a bit of a panic as I recall, in response to a similar kind of public hysteria to that which we are now witnessing.)
Small dogs have become much more popular. They are not always suitable for walking in public areas. They are highly vulnerable. Apart from being occasionally trodden on, they are also apt to be mistaken for prey by bigger breeds.
We have also seen a big influx in 'rescues', particularly from overseas. A dog that has had to learn to cut it on the Streets of Bucharest is not likely to be socialised in a way that will allow it to get on with the Pomeranians of Primrose Hill, for example. 'The best of intentions' and all that. You see the problem?
I actually thing the emphasis the law places on 'control' is sound, as it allows for flexibility, requires the owner to take responsibility for assessing the level of control necessary in the circumstances, and does not place unnecessary restrictions on good owners of perfectly well-behaved pooches. It also obviates the need for categorical banning of certain breeds. Clearly you have to exercise considerably more control of your Doberman than you would a Chihuahua, as J Jessop's illustrative post earlier indicated, though in my experience small dogs can often be the source of a lot of trouble even if they don't often tear anyone limb from limb. And if an owner of such a tiny creature lets it lose in the local park and a passing Greyhound mistakes it for a rabbit, I know where my sympathies would lie.
Maybe we need to replace the 1961 Act with something more sensitive to the changes in dog ownership since then, but please...not by Ms Braverman! Even if it is the Home Office's remit (which I doubt) I think I'd prefer to entrust her successor with the task, whoever that may be,
What a load of pointless twaddle
The great advantage of an immediate ban is that it will terrify the scrotes that own these hideous dogs, and they will be too scared to walk them in case they get seen and nicked and the dog killed = the dogs disappearing from public life NOW
That means children can play freely again, mums can walk in parks, other dog owners can relax, and kids won’t have their faces ripped off, starting tomorrow
Sigh... Why do you resort to such hyperbole?
I agree that dogs bred for fighting should be banned right away. I cannot for the life of me think why this government, which usually seems only to ready to jump on any popular bandwagon, hasn't done so already.
I also think the rules and controls around dog ownership should be reviewed and strengthened.
But let's not pretend any of this is the difference between kids being able to play freely or not.
But it really IS
I’ve been following the Daily Mirror campaign and one of their big lines is that the government elite don’t care because they don’t live on council estates where these dogs are very common, and where they subtly terrorise mums and kids
I am sure they are right. This is a class issue, posh people don’t have to walk past these dogs every day, terrified that they or their dog or their baby will be bitten or worse
It really is. I had never come across this issue before my daughter joined a girls' football team - as a result of which I have been spending a lot more time on, and with people who live on, council estates. These dogs are worryingly common and a major source of anxiety for people who live close to them. Weirdly though you never see these dogs outside the estates. Their owners never appear to walk them in the pleasant parks in the more middle class parts of town.
It's almost as if they are not trying to sell their drugs in the pleasant parks. Surely that can't be right?
Well happily yes - though I'm not sure the middle class areas are any less of a market for that. But they can't be working all the time. If I was walking my dog, I'd head for the nicest park in order to have the nicest time. I appreciate there are dozens of points I'm missing here - but the pleasant and dodgy areas are not too far from each other, yet the spillover between them is surprisingly little.
The luxury communist lifestyle will do that for you.
Tbf she does also note in her Twitter blurb that she is a 'kebab aficionado'.
Rory Stewart looking more like Lester Piggott every day.
I find her a laughable character. I assume she has read of Soviet Russia and assumes she will be shopping in the party supermarkets come the revolution, not the ones the ordinary folk use.
I find it hard to take anyone who proclaims to be an actual communist supporter seriously.
My auntie kept a Rhodesian Ridgebacks. These were (to me) massive dogs, and felt aggressive even when running around. But they lived on a farm, and had a couple of acres to run around. There were also always at least two on the farm. They were as soppy as anything, and the only time they caused me any hard was when one knocked me over whilst I was on one leg pulling on my workboots. They were lovely.
A South London friend kept greyhaunds on a high floor of a tower block. The greyhounds - usually seen as soppy dogs - were mad. Because they only got exercised once a day.
It is the dogs; but it is also the owner.
RRs are wonderful dogs.
Surprised at what you say about the greyhounds. They need remarkably little exercise, and are typically gentle creatures.
Perhaps I didn't say that correctly. They were gentle, but they wanted to be out and about. They were living in a tower block in South London, and did not get regular, good exercise.
My auntie's Rhodesian Ridgeback's are the only ones I have known, and I agree. They were wonderful.
Myself and a friend got attacked by a Doberman once in a pub, and it put me off large dogs for life. My friend had to have stitches in his nose. It was the landlord's dog...
Sorry to hear about your experience with the Doberman. There is nothing wrong with the breed but your experience does help to highlight the shortcomings of simplistic attitudes towards dog control. A lead is not a lot of help with an out of control Doberman. The animal is simply too strong. There is an argument for saying a dog of that type should not generally be in a public space - and a pub is nothing if not public - at all unless the owner can clearly demonstrate his/her control of the animal through normal means. That clearly did not apply in your example.
I assume some formal action and compensation followed?
It was a Peak District pub. You turned left into either the bar or lounge (I forget which). My friend entered ahead of me, turning right. The landlord had just taken his doberman for a walk, and had sat down to talk to a customer. The dog was lying in the doorway.
My friend turns right, and (we think) hit the Doberman's nose with his knee. The next thing I know, my friend is falling backwards with his hands over his nose, blood everywhere. I push past. and ask the barmaid for some napkins (I knew nothing about the dog, and thought my friend had walked into the door). We get taken to a local A&E. They found part of the dog's tooth in my friend's cartilage. I got slashed by it when I went past, and at the hospital they treated my arm.
It turned out the dog had previously attacked a barmaid's young daughter. The landlord move soon afterwards; the dog ended up at a scrapyard.
It was horrifying for a young (and underage...) lad. The landlord turned up to the hospital with a couple of pints (God knows how he got them there without spilling). He said the dog had suffered; it had lost a tooth. The one they found part of in my friend's nose...
Hence I'm uneasy around big dogs. Sue me.
OK, it was a long time ago but even then you could have sued the landlord to buggery. He was bang out of order, and obviously a brainless dog owner.
Omn the hound front, this is an interesting piece - with real experts involved.
Yeah, but no matter how badly behaved, a chihuahua is never going to be as dangerous as a mastiff.
Obviously, but that touches on a point overlooked in this debate by those not familiar with dog ownership in this country.
Things have changed a lot since the 1961 Dangerous Dogs Act was introduced (in a bit of a panic as I recall, in response to a similar kind of public hysteria to that which we are now witnessing.)
Small dogs have become much more popular. They are not always suitable for walking in public areas. They are highly vulnerable. Apart from being occasionally trodden on, they are also apt to be mistaken for prey by bigger breeds.
We have also seen a big influx in 'rescues', particularly from overseas. A dog that has had to learn to cut it on the Streets of Bucharest is not likely to be socialised in a way that will allow it to get on with the Pomeranians of Primrose Hill, for example. 'The best of intentions' and all that. You see the problem?
I actually thing the emphasis the law places on 'control' is sound, as it allows for flexibility, requires the owner to take responsibility for assessing the level of control necessary in the circumstances, and does not place unnecessary restrictions on good owners of perfectly well-behaved pooches. It also obviates the need for categorical banning of certain breeds. Clearly you have to exercise considerably more control of your Doberman than you would a Chihuahua, as J Jessop's illustrative post earlier indicated, though in my experience small dogs can often be the source of a lot of trouble even if they don't often tear anyone limb from limb. And if an owner of such a tiny creature lets it lose in the local park and a passing Greyhound mistakes it for a rabbit, I know where my sympathies would lie.
Maybe we need to replace the 1961 Act with something more sensitive to the changes in dog ownership since then, but please...not by Ms Braverman! Even if it is the Home Office's remit (which I doubt) I think I'd prefer to entrust her successor with the task, whoever that may be,
What a load of pointless twaddle
The great advantage of an immediate ban is that it will terrify the scrotes that own these hideous dogs, and they will be too scared to walk them in case they get seen and nicked and the dog killed = the dogs disappearing from public life NOW
That means children can play freely again, mums can walk in parks, other dog owners can relax, and kids won’t have their faces ripped off, starting tomorrow
Sigh... Why do you resort to such hyperbole?
I agree that dogs bred for fighting should be banned right away. I cannot for the life of me think why this government, which usually seems only to ready to jump on any popular bandwagon, hasn't done so already.
I also think the rules and controls around dog ownership should be reviewed and strengthened.
But let's not pretend any of this is the difference between kids being able to play freely or not.
But it really IS
I’ve been following the Daily Mirror campaign and one of their big lines is that the government elite don’t care because they don’t live on council estates where these dogs are very common, and where they subtly terrorise mums and kids
I am sure they are right. This is a class issue, posh people don’t have to walk past these dogs every day, terrified that they or their dog or their baby will be bitten or worse
It really is. I had never come across this issue before my daughter joined a girls' football team - as a result of which I have been spending a lot more time on, and with people who live on, council estates. These dogs are worryingly common and a major source of anxiety for people who live close to them. Weirdly though you never see these dogs outside the estates. Their owners never appear to walk them in the pleasant parks in the more middle class parts of town.
Indeed. So many posh liberals lack the empathy - or basic brains? - to work this out. Remarkable
In my case, I confess it was sheer ignorance. I never really went to council estates. I didn't realise how common these dogs were.
Is it a city thing? I live in what in a poor estate in a small town and don't think I've come across one.
Maybe it is. DavidL suggested it is a drug dealer thing, which might explain it.
My auntie kept a Rhodesian Ridgebacks. These were (to me) massive dogs, and felt aggressive even when running around. But they lived on a farm, and had a couple of acres to run around. There were also always at least two on the farm. They were as soppy as anything, and the only time they caused me any hard was when one knocked me over whilst I was on one leg pulling on my workboots. They were lovely.
A South London friend kept greyhaunds on a high floor of a tower block. The greyhounds - usually seen as soppy dogs - were mad. Because they only got exercised once a day.
It is the dogs; but it is also the owner.
RRs are wonderful dogs.
Surprised at what you say about the greyhounds. They need remarkably little exercise, and are typically gentle creatures.
Perhaps I didn't say that correctly. They were gentle, but they wanted to be out and about. They were living in a tower block in South London, and did not get regular, good exercise.
My auntie's Rhodesian Ridgeback's are the only ones I have known, and I agree. They were wonderful.
Myself and a friend got attacked by a Doberman once in a pub, and it put me off large dogs for life. My friend had to have stitches in his nose. It was the landlord's dog...
Sorry to hear about your experience with the Doberman. There is nothing wrong with the breed but your experience does help to highlight the shortcomings of simplistic attitudes towards dog control. A lead is not a lot of help with an out of control Doberman. The animal is simply too strong. There is an argument for saying a dog of that type should not generally be in a public space - and a pub is nothing if not public - at all unless the owner can clearly demonstrate his/her control of the animal through normal means. That clearly did not apply in your example.
I assume some formal action and compensation followed?
It was a Peak District pub. You turned left into either the bar or lounge (I forget which). My friend entered ahead of me, turning right. The landlord had just taken his doberman for a walk, and had sat down to talk to a customer. The dog was lying in the doorway.
My friend turns right, and (we think) hit the Doberman's nose with his knee. The next thing I know, my friend is falling backwards with his hands over his nose, blood everywhere. I push past. and ask the barmaid for some napkins (I knew nothing about the dog, and thought my friend had walked into the door). We get taken to a local A&E. They found part of the dog's tooth in my friend's cartilage. I got slashed by it when I went past, and at the hospital they treated my arm.
It turned out the dog had previously attacked a barmaid's young daughter. The landlord move soon afterwards; the dog ended up at a scrapyard.
It was horrifying for a young (and underage...) lad. The landlord turned up to the hospital with a couple of pints (God knows how he got them there without spilling). He said the dog had suffered; it had lost a tooth. The one they found part of in my friend's nose...
Hence I'm uneasy around big dogs. Sue me.
OK, it was a long time ago but even then you could have sued the landlord to buggery. He was bang out of order, and obviously a brainless dog owner.
Omn the hound front, this is an interesting piece - with real experts involved.
Yeah, but no matter how badly behaved, a chihuahua is never going to be as dangerous as a mastiff.
Obviously, but that touches on a point overlooked in this debate by those not familiar with dog ownership in this country.
Things have changed a lot since the 1961 Dangerous Dogs Act was introduced (in a bit of a panic as I recall, in response to a similar kind of public hysteria to that which we are now witnessing.)
Small dogs have become much more popular. They are not always suitable for walking in public areas. They are highly vulnerable. Apart from being occasionally trodden on, they are also apt to be mistaken for prey by bigger breeds.
We have also seen a big influx in 'rescues', particularly from overseas. A dog that has had to learn to cut it on the Streets of Bucharest is not likely to be socialised in a way that will allow it to get on with the Pomeranians of Primrose Hill, for example. 'The best of intentions' and all that. You see the problem?
I actually thing the emphasis the law places on 'control' is sound, as it allows for flexibility, requires the owner to take responsibility for assessing the level of control necessary in the circumstances, and does not place unnecessary restrictions on good owners of perfectly well-behaved pooches. It also obviates the need for categorical banning of certain breeds. Clearly you have to exercise considerably more control of your Doberman than you would a Chihuahua, as J Jessop's illustrative post earlier indicated, though in my experience small dogs can often be the source of a lot of trouble even if they don't often tear anyone limb from limb. And if an owner of such a tiny creature lets it lose in the local park and a passing Greyhound mistakes it for a rabbit, I know where my sympathies would lie.
Maybe we need to replace the 1961 Act with something more sensitive to the changes in dog ownership since then, but please...not by Ms Braverman! Even if it is the Home Office's remit (which I doubt) I think I'd prefer to entrust her successor with the task, whoever that may be,
What a load of pointless twaddle
The great advantage of an immediate ban is that it will terrify the scrotes that own these hideous dogs, and they will be too scared to walk them in case they get seen and nicked and the dog killed = the dogs disappearing from public life NOW
That means children can play freely again, mums can walk in parks, other dog owners can relax, and kids won’t have their faces ripped off, starting tomorrow
Sigh... Why do you resort to such hyperbole?
I agree that dogs bred for fighting should be banned right away. I cannot for the life of me think why this government, which usually seems only to ready to jump on any popular bandwagon, hasn't done so already.
I also think the rules and controls around dog ownership should be reviewed and strengthened.
But let's not pretend any of this is the difference between kids being able to play freely or not.
But it really IS
I’ve been following the Daily Mirror campaign and one of their big lines is that the government elite don’t care because they don’t live on council estates where these dogs are very common, and where they subtly terrorise mums and kids
I am sure they are right. This is a class issue, posh people don’t have to walk past these dogs every day, terrified that they or their dog or their baby will be bitten or worse
It really is. I had never come across this issue before my daughter joined a girls' football team - as a result of which I have been spending a lot more time on, and with people who live on, council estates. These dogs are worryingly common and a major source of anxiety for people who live close to them. Weirdly though you never see these dogs outside the estates. Their owners never appear to walk them in the pleasant parks in the more middle class parts of town.
It's almost as if they are not trying to sell their drugs in the pleasant parks. Surely that can't be right?
Well happily yes - though I'm not sure the middle class areas are any less of a market for that. But they can't be working all the time. If I was walking my dog, I'd head for the nicest park in order to have the nicest time. I appreciate there are dozens of points I'm missing here - but the pleasant and dodgy areas are not too far from each other, yet the spillover between them is surprisingly little.
The hours and job security of your average drug supplier are horrendous, they make those of the average Tesco/Asda delivery man look good. Even when you are not trying to sell drugs you are a target for other predators who think you might be so you keep your weapon/dog close or use it to protect your stash/flat when you are out.
Which is not a lot of fun for those who have these parasites living amongst them.
Why on earth should British young people care less about something they get no benefit from whatever.
What next? Shall we demand compensation from the Danish royal family for the Vikings atrocities and slaves taken in Britain or for the Barbary Corsairs and Romans?
My auntie kept a Rhodesian Ridgebacks. These were (to me) massive dogs, and felt aggressive even when running around. But they lived on a farm, and had a couple of acres to run around. There were also always at least two on the farm. They were as soppy as anything, and the only time they caused me any hard was when one knocked me over whilst I was on one leg pulling on my workboots. They were lovely.
A South London friend kept greyhaunds on a high floor of a tower block. The greyhounds - usually seen as soppy dogs - were mad. Because they only got exercised once a day.
It is the dogs; but it is also the owner.
RRs are wonderful dogs.
Surprised at what you say about the greyhounds. They need remarkably little exercise, and are typically gentle creatures.
Perhaps I didn't say that correctly. They were gentle, but they wanted to be out and about. They were living in a tower block in South London, and did not get regular, good exercise.
My auntie's Rhodesian Ridgeback's are the only ones I have known, and I agree. They were wonderful.
Myself and a friend got attacked by a Doberman once in a pub, and it put me off large dogs for life. My friend had to have stitches in his nose. It was the landlord's dog...
Sorry to hear about your experience with the Doberman. There is nothing wrong with the breed but your experience does help to highlight the shortcomings of simplistic attitudes towards dog control. A lead is not a lot of help with an out of control Doberman. The animal is simply too strong. There is an argument for saying a dog of that type should not generally be in a public space - and a pub is nothing if not public - at all unless the owner can clearly demonstrate his/her control of the animal through normal means. That clearly did not apply in your example.
I assume some formal action and compensation followed?
It was a Peak District pub. You turned left into either the bar or lounge (I forget which). My friend entered ahead of me, turning right. The landlord had just taken his doberman for a walk, and had sat down to talk to a customer. The dog was lying in the doorway.
My friend turns right, and (we think) hit the Doberman's nose with his knee. The next thing I know, my friend is falling backwards with his hands over his nose, blood everywhere. I push past. and ask the barmaid for some napkins (I knew nothing about the dog, and thought my friend had walked into the door). We get taken to a local A&E. They found part of the dog's tooth in my friend's cartilage. I got slashed by it when I went past, and at the hospital they treated my arm.
It turned out the dog had previously attacked a barmaid's young daughter. The landlord move soon afterwards; the dog ended up at a scrapyard.
It was horrifying for a young (and underage...) lad. The landlord turned up to the hospital with a couple of pints (God knows how he got them there without spilling). He said the dog had suffered; it had lost a tooth. The one they found part of in my friend's nose...
Hence I'm uneasy around big dogs. Sue me.
OK, it was a long time ago but even then you could have sued the landlord to buggery. He was bang out of order, and obviously a brainless dog owner.
Omn the hound front, this is an interesting piece - with real experts involved.
Yeah, but no matter how badly behaved, a chihuahua is never going to be as dangerous as a mastiff.
Obviously, but that touches on a point overlooked in this debate by those not familiar with dog ownership in this country.
Things have changed a lot since the 1961 Dangerous Dogs Act was introduced (in a bit of a panic as I recall, in response to a similar kind of public hysteria to that which we are now witnessing.)
Small dogs have become much more popular. They are not always suitable for walking in public areas. They are highly vulnerable. Apart from being occasionally trodden on, they are also apt to be mistaken for prey by bigger breeds.
We have also seen a big influx in 'rescues', particularly from overseas. A dog that has had to learn to cut it on the Streets of Bucharest is not likely to be socialised in a way that will allow it to get on with the Pomeranians of Primrose Hill, for example. 'The best of intentions' and all that. You see the problem?
I actually thing the emphasis the law places on 'control' is sound, as it allows for flexibility, requires the owner to take responsibility for assessing the level of control necessary in the circumstances, and does not place unnecessary restrictions on good owners of perfectly well-behaved pooches. It also obviates the need for categorical banning of certain breeds. Clearly you have to exercise considerably more control of your Doberman than you would a Chihuahua, as J Jessop's illustrative post earlier indicated, though in my experience small dogs can often be the source of a lot of trouble even if they don't often tear anyone limb from limb. And if an owner of such a tiny creature lets it lose in the local park and a passing Greyhound mistakes it for a rabbit, I know where my sympathies would lie.
Maybe we need to replace the 1961 Act with something more sensitive to the changes in dog ownership since then, but please...not by Ms Braverman! Even if it is the Home Office's remit (which I doubt) I think I'd prefer to entrust her successor with the task, whoever that may be,
What a load of pointless twaddle
The great advantage of an immediate ban is that it will terrify the scrotes that own these hideous dogs, and they will be too scared to walk them in case they get seen and nicked and the dog killed = the dogs disappearing from public life NOW
That means children can play freely again, mums can walk in parks, other dog owners can relax, and kids won’t have their faces ripped off, starting tomorrow
Sigh... Why do you resort to such hyperbole?
I agree that dogs bred for fighting should be banned right away. I cannot for the life of me think why this government, which usually seems only to ready to jump on any popular bandwagon, hasn't done so already.
I also think the rules and controls around dog ownership should be reviewed and strengthened.
But let's not pretend any of this is the difference between kids being able to play freely or not.
But it really IS
I’ve been following the Daily Mirror campaign and one of their big lines is that the government elite don’t care because they don’t live on council estates where these dogs are very common, and where they subtly terrorise mums and kids
I am sure they are right. This is a class issue, posh people don’t have to walk past these dogs every day, terrified that they or their dog or their baby will be bitten or worse
It really is. I had never come across this issue before my daughter joined a girls' football team - as a result of which I have been spending a lot more time on, and with people who live on, council estates. These dogs are worryingly common and a major source of anxiety for people who live close to them. Weirdly though you never see these dogs outside the estates. Their owners never appear to walk them in the pleasant parks in the more middle class parts of town.
Indeed. So many posh liberals lack the empathy - or basic brains? - to work this out. Remarkable
In my case, I confess it was sheer ignorance. I never really went to council estates. I didn't realise how common these dogs were.
Is it a city thing? I live in what in a poor estate in a small town and don't think I've come across one.
Maybe it is. DavidL suggested it is a drug dealer thing, which might explain it.
Oh, there are definitely drug dealers living near me, I guess they just are not the dog type.
Why on earth should British young people care less about something they get no benefit from whatever.
What next? Shall we demand compensation from the Danish royal family for the Vikings atrocities and slaves taken in Britain or for the Barbary Corsairs and Romans?
They shouldn't, but that doesn't mean they won't find it a trendy way to signal virtue - it's definitely picked up steam as an ideas in the last five years.
Why on earth should British young people care less about something they get no benefit from whatever.
What next? Shall we demand compensation from the Danish royal family for the Vikings atrocities and slaves taken in Britain or for the Barbary Corsairs and Romans?
Young people also like hip hop and grime. Doesn't mean the Royal Family have to get involved.
The luxury communist lifestyle will do that for you.
Tbf she does also note in her Twitter blurb that she is a 'kebab aficionado'.
Rory Stewart looking more like Lester Piggott every day.
I find her a laughable character. I assume she has read of Soviet Russia and assumes she will be shopping in the party supermarkets come the revolution, not the ones the ordinary folk use.
I find it hard to take anyone who proclaims to be an actual communist supporter seriously.
My auntie kept a Rhodesian Ridgebacks. These were (to me) massive dogs, and felt aggressive even when running around. But they lived on a farm, and had a couple of acres to run around. There were also always at least two on the farm. They were as soppy as anything, and the only time they caused me any hard was when one knocked me over whilst I was on one leg pulling on my workboots. They were lovely.
A South London friend kept greyhaunds on a high floor of a tower block. The greyhounds - usually seen as soppy dogs - were mad. Because they only got exercised once a day.
It is the dogs; but it is also the owner.
RRs are wonderful dogs.
Surprised at what you say about the greyhounds. They need remarkably little exercise, and are typically gentle creatures.
Perhaps I didn't say that correctly. They were gentle, but they wanted to be out and about. They were living in a tower block in South London, and did not get regular, good exercise.
My auntie's Rhodesian Ridgeback's are the only ones I have known, and I agree. They were wonderful.
Myself and a friend got attacked by a Doberman once in a pub, and it put me off large dogs for life. My friend had to have stitches in his nose. It was the landlord's dog...
Sorry to hear about your experience with the Doberman. There is nothing wrong with the breed but your experience does help to highlight the shortcomings of simplistic attitudes towards dog control. A lead is not a lot of help with an out of control Doberman. The animal is simply too strong. There is an argument for saying a dog of that type should not generally be in a public space - and a pub is nothing if not public - at all unless the owner can clearly demonstrate his/her control of the animal through normal means. That clearly did not apply in your example.
I assume some formal action and compensation followed?
It was a Peak District pub. You turned left into either the bar or lounge (I forget which). My friend entered ahead of me, turning right. The landlord had just taken his doberman for a walk, and had sat down to talk to a customer. The dog was lying in the doorway.
My friend turns right, and (we think) hit the Doberman's nose with his knee. The next thing I know, my friend is falling backwards with his hands over his nose, blood everywhere. I push past. and ask the barmaid for some napkins (I knew nothing about the dog, and thought my friend had walked into the door). We get taken to a local A&E. They found part of the dog's tooth in my friend's cartilage. I got slashed by it when I went past, and at the hospital they treated my arm.
It turned out the dog had previously attacked a barmaid's young daughter. The landlord move soon afterwards; the dog ended up at a scrapyard.
It was horrifying for a young (and underage...) lad. The landlord turned up to the hospital with a couple of pints (God knows how he got them there without spilling). He said the dog had suffered; it had lost a tooth. The one they found part of in my friend's nose...
Hence I'm uneasy around big dogs. Sue me.
OK, it was a long time ago but even then you could have sued the landlord to buggery. He was bang out of order, and obviously a brainless dog owner.
Omn the hound front, this is an interesting piece - with real experts involved.
Yeah, but no matter how badly behaved, a chihuahua is never going to be as dangerous as a mastiff.
Obviously, but that touches on a point overlooked in this debate by those not familiar with dog ownership in this country.
Things have changed a lot since the 1961 Dangerous Dogs Act was introduced (in a bit of a panic as I recall, in response to a similar kind of public hysteria to that which we are now witnessing.)
Small dogs have become much more popular. They are not always suitable for walking in public areas. They are highly vulnerable. Apart from being occasionally trodden on, they are also apt to be mistaken for prey by bigger breeds.
We have also seen a big influx in 'rescues', particularly from overseas. A dog that has had to learn to cut it on the Streets of Bucharest is not likely to be socialised in a way that will allow it to get on with the Pomeranians of Primrose Hill, for example. 'The best of intentions' and all that. You see the problem?
I actually thing the emphasis the law places on 'control' is sound, as it allows for flexibility, requires the owner to take responsibility for assessing the level of control necessary in the circumstances, and does not place unnecessary restrictions on good owners of perfectly well-behaved pooches. It also obviates the need for categorical banning of certain breeds. Clearly you have to exercise considerably more control of your Doberman than you would a Chihuahua, as J Jessop's illustrative post earlier indicated, though in my experience small dogs can often be the source of a lot of trouble even if they don't often tear anyone limb from limb. And if an owner of such a tiny creature lets it lose in the local park and a passing Greyhound mistakes it for a rabbit, I know where my sympathies would lie.
Maybe we need to replace the 1961 Act with something more sensitive to the changes in dog ownership since then, but please...not by Ms Braverman! Even if it is the Home Office's remit (which I doubt) I think I'd prefer to entrust her successor with the task, whoever that may be,
What a load of pointless twaddle
The great advantage of an immediate ban is that it will terrify the scrotes that own these hideous dogs, and they will be too scared to walk them in case they get seen and nicked and the dog killed = the dogs disappearing from public life NOW
That means children can play freely again, mums can walk in parks, other dog owners can relax, and kids won’t have their faces ripped off, starting tomorrow
Sigh... Why do you resort to such hyperbole?
I agree that dogs bred for fighting should be banned right away. I cannot for the life of me think why this government, which usually seems only to ready to jump on any popular bandwagon, hasn't done so already.
I also think the rules and controls around dog ownership should be reviewed and strengthened.
But let's not pretend any of this is the difference between kids being able to play freely or not.
But it really IS
I’ve been following the Daily Mirror campaign and one of their big lines is that the government elite don’t care because they don’t live on council estates where these dogs are very common, and where they subtly terrorise mums and kids
I am sure they are right. This is a class issue, posh people don’t have to walk past these dogs every day, terrified that they or their dog or their baby will be bitten or worse
It really is. I had never come across this issue before my daughter joined a girls' football team - as a result of which I have been spending a lot more time on, and with people who live on, council estates. These dogs are worryingly common and a major source of anxiety for people who live close to them. Weirdly though you never see these dogs outside the estates. Their owners never appear to walk them in the pleasant parks in the more middle class parts of town.
Indeed. So many posh liberals lack the empathy - or basic brains? - to work this out. Remarkable
In my case, I confess it was sheer ignorance. I never really went to council estates. I didn't realise how common these dogs were.
Is it a city thing? I live in what in a poor estate in a small town and don't think I've come across one.
Is it only Scottish people speak Old English then?!
More of us are exposed to different native modes of speaking, so we might have a slight advantage. Scots and Gaelic are separate languages from English, so a few of us are primed to think beyond modern English even if we haven't learned any foreign languages.
Plus there is all the Burns/Scots poetry that we learn at school. That definitely gave me the hint here.
Is it only Scottish people speak Old English then?!
Lowlander Scots, please. Germanic/Anglic.
Oh, fair enough, I was just amused that the only three answers were from you, Farooq and DavidL. Made me half wonder if it's on the curriculum up there.
I love the sound of OE, but wouldn't have a clue.
On the subject of languages: my daughter and I are currently having a bash at Italian on duolingo. The more I learn of foreign languages, the easier English seems. Granted our spelling is all over the place, but we don't have six different verb endings, different words for the, etc. Is there any respect apart from spelling in which English grammar is more complicated than foreign languages?
Comments
And I fear we kind of brought it on ourselves. It's very nice having a newspaper shaped object that you don't have to pay for. But that makes it liable to be a poop like as the emojis in the weather forecast, and the plaything of a rich weirdo whose priorities aren't necessarily those of the rest of us.
On the other hand, we can grab it without paying for it or having to wait for someone to leave their copy on the train somewhere like Guildford (my father) or Chadwell Heath (me).
Yes, Berlin. Well done everyone who got it
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/sep/11/banning-some-dog-breeds-in-the-uk-wont-stop-attacks-on-humans
From the landlord's perspective, it was a natural thing. The pub's open but quiet, take the dog for a walk. Come back in, see a regular, and sit down with them for a chat. Don't realise your dog is in the doorway...
However it’s declined most at the upper-medium level. Basic brasserie food remains better than its British or German or Dutch equivalent. Haute haute cuisine is similar in most places but the continent of Europe has fallen a bit behind overall. But food at the tier between bib gourmand and the first star is definitely staid.
Would the Tories be 20 points behind in the polls & 10/1 for a majority?
I imagine the alleged spy is being leaked now as part of a get tough on China policy linked to the G20 meeting and Sunak's meeting with the Chinese FM. So a political move rather than a crime prevention one.
Clearly China does have spies in the UK and maybe the policy advisor really is one such, but it feels random to me. Being right on the actual spy matters it seems to me if you broadcast their name, as the Sunday Times did. I have no reason to believe this guy is a spy, but then I don't know anything about it beyond the fact the police attested him on suspicion and released him six months ago. I get the impression the Sunday Times doesn't know much more than I do.
It all looked nice, but nothing special
I confess apart from the puzzles, which keep me entertained on the tube journey home, I don't really read it. I glance at the first couple of pages - the pandemic and the fall of his friend Boris Johnson has really hit home. The advertising revenue has returned to a degree but the paper is an emaciated version of its pre-pandemic self.
The paper is trying to be more even-handed these days having been very pro-Boris and isn't keen on Sunak, Khan or Hall.
Corbyn wouldn't accept that he tacitly condoned anti-Semitism when he was leader. If he could agree that on his watch some very unpleasant people indulged in racist bullying I daresay there might have been a way back. Instead there is talk of him unseating Khan and Starmer.
He was never a big figure in Labour politics. He was always just and awkward footnote. Then he delivered Boris Johnson an 80 seat majority, that was his legacy.
And for anecdotal purposes, every single meal I ate in the Welsh Marches was significantly better than the meal I just ate here, in Nasbinals, Lozere
Now this is just one meal, and I will therefore reserve judgement. But I get the sense the tourist board sent me here coz it is the best place to eat in town. Certainly it is proud of its food - photos of chefs in the menu etc - and has a lot of custom. But: meh
We shall see as the week unfolds
I have only once seen a truly dangerous attack by a dog on a human and I had a lump taken out of my hand when I intervened. It was a 7 month old border collie. We had been trying to foster it after it had been cruelly treated by the previous owner. We had to give up. It was beyond our capabilities.
It was a nasty experience but at least it was possible for me to restrain the animal. That wouldn't be possible with some breeds, which is why some governmental control over certain breeds and their owners is appropriate.
But yes, the article is right. It's largely nurture, not nature, and restricting certain breeds is fraught with difficulty and has to be done carefully and thoughtfully.
Though small dogs are still dangerous to small children, of course!
Once the ban is in place, we can talk about finessing it, I suggest we copy the highly effective Australian law which bans all dogs that look like fighting dogs
That will deter anyone from buying or owning such dogs, as you are highly likely to see it seized and killed, and your money wasted
Problem solved
(A genuine question, as I've no idea how it's done, and it seems like an important question.)
They allowed comments on the Zoe Williams article where she says this, and the comments were overwhelmingly negative, ie “ban these evil fuckers now”
Polls BEFORE the Brum attack showed that this a ban is hugely popular. And of course any day now there will be another video, then another…
(TBH I'd rather have killer drivers in prison than the owners of dangerous dogs !)
We aren't taking any lessons from Rochdale! If you like we can gift you Mr Anderson.
Discovered yesterday that we have a wonderful Polish mini-supermarket with a deli counter with *umpteen* varieties of salami, and heaven knows what else - all the labels in Polish.
Things have changed a lot since the 1961 Dangerous Dogs Act was introduced (in a bit of a panic as I recall, in response to a similar kind of public hysteria to that which we are now witnessing.)
Small dogs have become much more popular. They are not always suitable for walking in public areas. They are highly vulnerable. Apart from being occasionally trodden on, they are also apt to be mistaken for prey by bigger breeds.
We have also seen a big influx in 'rescues', particularly from overseas. A dog that has had to learn to cut it on the Streets of Bucharest is not likely to be socialised in a way that will allow it to get on with the Pomeranians of Primrose Hill, for example. 'The best of intentions' and all that. You see the problem?
I actually thing the emphasis the law places on 'control' is sound, as it allows for flexibility, requires the owner to take responsibility for assessing the level of control necessary in the circumstances, and does not place unnecessary restrictions on good owners of perfectly well-behaved pooches. It also obviates the need for categorical banning of certain breeds. Clearly you have to exercise considerably more control of your Doberman than you would a Chihuahua, as J Jessop's illustrative post earlier indicated, though in my experience small dogs can often be the source of a lot of trouble even if they don't often tear anyone limb from limb. And if an owner of such a tiny creature lets it lose in the local park and a passing Greyhound mistakes it for a rabbit, I know where my sympathies would lie.
Maybe we need to replace the 1961 Act with something more sensitive to the changes in dog ownership since then, but please...not by Ms Braverman! Even if it is the Home Office's remit (which I doubt) I think I'd prefer to entrust her successor with the task, whoever that may be,
A couple of years ago, I was out walking my pup (weighs 6kg, a Portuguese Podengo) when up bounded a Neapolitan Mastiff puppy, probably weighing 50 kg. It only wanted to play with my dog, as evident by its body language, but it was owned as a first dog by a family with a couple of kids under 5. The owner clearly wasn't in control, and with the size of the dog couldn't physically restrain it. Crazy choice for a first dog with small children.
I remember before it went freesheet they tried giving away all kinds of crap if you bought a copy - books you didn't want to read, umbrellas that would fall apart the first time you used them, you name it.
When the approach is "Buy this paper so you can read something else" or "Buy this paper to keep the rain off" then you know that you have got a product not worth the money.
https://x.com/dannyroscoe7/status/1701155468637347858?s=61&t=GGp3Vs1t1kTWDiyA-odnZg
“Oh, let’s not ban them, let’s take two years to think about some complex licensing system which will never work because I own dogs and I don’t want a ban thanks it’s the other owners blah blah”
BAN THEM
I think I can change his mind!
Ash Sarkar
@AyoCaesar
🚨NEW🚨
Rory Stewart slams Keir Starmer for trying to “micromanage” the Labour Party, calls the expulsion of Jeremy Corbyn “mad” and “disgusting”.
https://x.com/realbearsmith/status/1700836884321022378
Friendly reminder that pitbull slander is one small step away from alt-right racism.
"This group is only x% of the population but does y% of the violence" is quite literally neonazi talking point.
The great advantage of an immediate ban is that it will terrify the scrotes that own these hideous dogs, and they will be too scared to walk them in case they get seen and nicked and the dog killed = the dogs disappearing from public life NOW
That means children can play freely again, mums can walk in parks, other dog owners can relax, and kids won’t have their faces ripped off, starting tomorrow
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/66779639
But, let's say he was still blustering his way through an inevitable procession of scandal still. I think 15-20 points might still be approaching, but perhaps there would be some residual mystique around him as a campaigner, so maybe not the 10/1.
Leon as a right-wing anti version of Zoe Williams.
Hmmm.
I agree that dogs bred for fighting should be banned right away. I cannot for the life of me think why this government, which usually seems only to ready to jump on any popular bandwagon, hasn't done so already. (Oh, wait, got it: total f*cking ineptitude.)
I also think the rules and controls around dog ownership should be reviewed and strengthened.
But let's not pretend any of this is the difference between kids being able to play freely or not.
Paul Pogba: Juventus midfielder provisionally suspended for anti-doping offence
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66780283
I’ve been following the Daily Mirror campaign and one of their big lines is that the government elite don’t care because they don’t live on council estates where these dogs are very common, and where they subtly terrorise mums and kids
I am sure they are right. This is a class issue, posh people don’t have to walk past these dogs every day, terrified that they or their dog or their baby will be bitten or worse
And a report like that landing while Boris is PM... Do the Conservatives try to whip their MPs into a token punishment? Or do they dump him then?
I don't see how either ends well, or even better than the situation now. To return to something I've been saying about Boris for ages. On first encounter, most people think he's great. They continue thinking he's great until they experience him doing something awful, usually to them. That happens to everyone eventually, and it's nearly always a one-way process.
On that basis, by now he'd be doing roughly as badly in the polls as Sunak is now; maybe sightly better or slightly worse. But still with some (slightly shabby) mystique.
She's, basically, a psycho.
Fortunately, she's also lost almost all her teeth and is increasingly blind. This leads to her regularly attacking postboxes because they... well, I don't know exactly how they offended her. But she will snarl at them and then leap and sink her tooth into them. (And then sheepishly pretend it didn't happen when the postbox doesn't fight back and she got a mouthful of paint.)
(Edit to add: she's a chihuahua. In case you were wondering.)
Rory Stewart looking more like Lester Piggott every day.
Weirdly though you never see these dogs outside the estates. Their owners never appear to walk them in the pleasant parks in the more middle class parts of town.
But when the so-called breed, the Bully XL, appears to be a new mishmash of different pre-existing breeds, a sort of standardised mongrel, you're going to get allsorts as a result.
It hasn't had many scores of generations of breeding to a Kennel Club UK specification. The KCUK don't even recognise it.
This imay well be a problem legally. I hope not, but we will have to see.
Now if we go on empirical characters like massive jaws, and forget the rest ...
The Truss/Kwarteng budget wouldn’t have happened, interest rates wouldn’t necessary have risen as high as they have - I don’t think Sunak’s Tories would be doing as badly in the polls without that debacle
I think probably 8-10 points behind in the polls, with NOM fav on Betfair.
But they can't be working all the time. If I was walking my dog, I'd head for the nicest park in order to have the nicest time. I appreciate there are dozens of points I'm missing here - but the pleasant and dodgy areas are not too far from each other, yet the spillover between them is surprisingly little.
Can anyone help with "hwæt stǣres sċeal iċ singan"?
Which is not a lot of fun for those who have these parasites living amongst them.
What next? Shall we demand compensation from the Danish royal family for the Vikings atrocities and slaves taken in Britain or for the Barbary Corsairs and Romans?
Quick check - item 10 here. https://quizlet.com/237847201/caedmonmaldon-grammar-flash-cards/
And stǣres is story. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bright's_Anglo-Saxon_Reader/Glossary
https://ozofe.com/donall-dempsey/hwaet-sceal-ic-singan-sing-me-frumsceaft-what-shall-i-sing-sing-me-creation/
I love the sound of OE, but wouldn't have a clue.
On the subject of languages: my daughter and I are currently having a bash at Italian on duolingo. The more I learn of foreign languages, the easier English seems. Granted our spelling is all over the place, but we don't have six different verb endings, different words for the, etc. Is there any respect apart from spelling in which English grammar is more complicated than foreign languages?
https://x.com/thechiefnerd/status/1700991249849917943