Been pondering again whom I should vote for around here. It's been a two horse race for a long, long time apart from in the early 2000s when it was a 1 horse race. I'd previously come to the conclusion that it had to be SNP because my priority was to throw the useless sack of shit Duguid and the Tories in general out.
I still can't imagine that anyone else is the main challenger but last night's result was so bad for the SNP I'm wondering.
Last election: Con 50% SNP 40% LD 5% Lab 4%
Thoughts?
Have a look at my earlier post with the [edit!] Prof Curtice discussion and the Blair Foundation report links.
Sorry, I can't find it, mind highlighting it to me?
"A mother-of-three has been left fearing for her children's safety after a violent XL Bully-type dog got into her garden and killed the family's beloved pet cat – in violent scenes caught on CCTV.
Nima Begum, 40, was in her house when she heard a commotion outside and saw a man wrestling with the powerful animal.
He kept shouting 'Your cat is fine', even though his pet's jaws were covered in blood.
Ms Begum rushed outside and found her terrified cat Kiwi cowering in a tree, which she managed to get down with the help of a passer-by. But the tabby died before she could get her to a vet."
This is driving me nuts. How much longer is the government going to wait? Get a fucking move on. Just order immediate muzzling NOW. The whole country wants it. Only 10% oppose
While they dither the attacks will continue and soon enough we will be faced with an utterly hideous video of a tiny child being eaten alive
Muzzle these fuckers. Give the owners a slapping
Put it down as another useless intervention by our PM.
The Tories can go fuck themselves. Everything they do is performative. Nothing ever actually happens. Apart from cancelling HS2
If there is an issue with muzzling these dogs then get on TV and explain the problem. What is it?? In the last three days a man has been killed and a toddler nearly lost a leg
Still not as many deaths as the motor car so espoused by Mr Sunak. His refusal to go to 20mph zones and his ban of LTNs is going to kill many more people.
Not that that is any excuse for the dogs. The argument may be that the existing laws are sufficient in principle - dangerous dogs out of control in public and so on. Though we need a clear statement one way or another, as you say. And if they are sufficient, why do we still have the DDA on the statute book banning some breeds?
But the thing is, after the next inevitable and horrifying video of someone being mauled to death, the government will suddenly discover that it CAN do something immediately. In response to the public outcry. Meaning their immobility now is pitiful complacency or incompetence or thanks to some disgraceful lobbying by the RSPCA
I hope I’m wrong and this video never arrives
Quite so, on both points. Though it's not just the RSPCA, I am sure. There is a real threat to more politically influential owners' dogs. Remember Malmesbury's - Or at least I think it was him - suggestion that only the more working class breeds got it in the original DDA. not the equally dangerous but more upper class ones.
It wasn't me, but that kind of misses the point.
If you ask medics, the really damaging doc attacks they deal with generally come from a small number of breeds. Think plastic surgery to rebuild arms and faces.
There are other breeds that attack, but the bulk of the serious injuries....
Quite: the ones with large jaws and heavy musculature. Yet nothing seems to be happening - least of all in the way of announcements. Or if so I missed it. Ms Coffey would ne the one to listen to at the Mancunian conference, it being DEFRA's job. But all I can find on a quick check is this about gun control:
The reason the Dangerous Dogs act is Evul, Wrung and Stuuupid isn't the act itself. It is the concern that it grants the government carte blanche to ban type of dogs for attacking people.
So everyone with a dog is afraid they will come for Fido.
The result is a very vocal lobby of "don't ban any dogs" types. While they may be a minority, they are very active. See the recent petitions. This is a political red light - vocal, active minorities translate into voters.
It seems that the majority want a ban, but are not especially fired up over it. But a very fired up minority oppose a ban.
Been pondering again whom I should vote for around here. It's been a two horse race for a long, long time apart from in the early 2000s when it was a 1 horse race. I'd previously come to the conclusion that it had to be SNP because my priority was to throw the useless sack of shit Duguid and the Tories in general out.
I still can't imagine that anyone else is the main challenger but last night's result was so bad for the SNP I'm wondering.
Last election: Con 50% SNP 40% LD 5% Lab 4%
Thoughts?
I don't know what your attitude to the indy question is, but if it were me (I'm normally a Lib Dem voter) then notwithstanding my distaste for the nationalists I would consider the fact they are likely to lose seats overall to Labour, while the Tories are deserving of a thorough whipping, hold my nose and vote SNP.
I'm open to it. This country needs fundamental constitutional reform, in my view. The reason I'm open to independence is that I don't see it happening within the UK. The thing that puts me off is the upheaval it would undoubtedly cause.
I wouldn't be holding my nose voting for SNP, Lib Dem, or Labour. They've all got their attractions for me. So the main question for me next time is tactical rather than ideological.
A private psychiatrist charges £360 per hour. Let's say they see 4 people per day. That's £1440.
Or £7200 per week. Maybe £345,000 per year.
Now I know there are various costs they will need to pay. Rental space, a (shared?) secretary, insurance. But even so, that seems like an awful lot of money. I wonder what the costs would be in similar countries.
You have them working every week day of the year except bank holidays.
Also, they might see at most four people a day, but perhaps not always be fully booked on every day of the week.
I have never liked Mission Statements but the apparent slogan for the Labour conference is a classic : “Let's get Britain's future back”. Completely meaningless drivel
They would normally focus group these things but I agree it’s drivel .
Don’t agree. Means ‘hope’ to me. At the moment the ‘future’ is endless chaos.
A private psychiatrist charges £360 per hour. Let's say they see 4 people per day. That's £1440.
Or £7200 per week. Maybe £345,000 per year.
Now I know there are various costs they will need to pay. Rental space, a (shared?) secretary, insurance. But even so, that seems like an awful lot of money. I wonder what the costs would be in similar countries.
You have them working every week day of the year except bank holidays.
Also, they might see at most four people a day, but perhaps not always be fully booked on every day of the week.
They could be good enough to be worth the money?
There is a lot of demand for private psychiatrists. And a constricted supply...
Been pondering again whom I should vote for around here. It's been a two horse race for a long, long time apart from in the early 2000s when it was a 1 horse race. I'd previously come to the conclusion that it had to be SNP because my priority was to throw the useless sack of shit Duguid and the Tories in general out.
I still can't imagine that anyone else is the main challenger but last night's result was so bad for the SNP I'm wondering.
Last election: Con 50% SNP 40% LD 5% Lab 4%
Thoughts?
Have a look at my earlier post with the [edit!] Prof Curtice discussion and the Blair Foundation report links.
Sorry, I can't find it, mind highlighting it to me?
Been pondering again whom I should vote for around here. It's been a two horse race for a long, long time apart from in the early 2000s when it was a 1 horse race. I'd previously come to the conclusion that it had to be SNP because my priority was to throw the useless sack of shit Duguid and the Tories in general out.
I still can't imagine that anyone else is the main challenger but last night's result was so bad for the SNP I'm wondering.
Last election: Con 50% SNP 40% LD 5% Lab 4%
Thoughts?
I don't know what your attitude to the indy question is, but if it were me (I'm normally a Lib Dem voter) then notwithstanding my distaste for the nationalists I would consider the fact they are likely to lose seats overall to Labour, while the Tories are deserving of a thorough whipping, hold my nose and vote SNP.
Is there a monster raving loony candidate available?
I expect no 10 is close to full on panic mode after no signs of any post conference bounce . Indeed beneath the headline voter intention on YouGov opinions about Sunak amongst those who said it made a difference , 21 now worse , 10 better .
The Tories are desperate to move the needle but at the moment even if some of the policy announcements were popular, voters just aren’t interested in changing their voter intention .
Have they stopped listening or don’t believe anything that Sunak proposes will see the light of day ?
Once you break someone's trust (and between them, Johnson, Truss and Sunak have pretty comprehensively done that), it's very hard to win it back. Repeating the old incantations more forcefully isn't going to do it.
Conference bounce going well.
Looks like cancelling HS2, smoking, A levels, and bully XL dogs is not hitting the sweet spot.
I think the conference bounce will happen with a bit more of a lag, as the meaning of the announcements this week properly sets in. The downward bounce that is.
It was all so bathetic. These are all niche issues which penny packets of voters care about. Why would Sunak expect them to move the dial?
Been pondering again whom I should vote for around here. It's been a two horse race for a long, long time apart from in the early 2000s when it was a 1 horse race. I'd previously come to the conclusion that it had to be SNP because my priority was to throw the useless sack of shit Duguid and the Tories in general out.
I still can't imagine that anyone else is the main challenger but last night's result was so bad for the SNP I'm wondering.
Last election: Con 50% SNP 40% LD 5% Lab 4%
Thoughts?
The CON vote may fall a bit but SNP will fall more. LAB and LD have no chance though so you (and Rochdale) will almost certainly keep your current MP.
Oh I agree that Duguid is likely to retain his seat. Doesn't stop me trying!
A private psychiatrist charges £360 per hour. Let's say they see 4 people per day. That's £1440.
Or £7200 per week. Maybe £345,000 per year.
Now I know there are various costs they will need to pay. Rental space, a (shared?) secretary, insurance. But even so, that seems like an awful lot of money. I wonder what the costs would be in similar countries.
Anyone paying that needs their head examined.
Well they obviously are given it's market forces. When you consider the state of NHS mental health services it's not encouraging.
"A mother-of-three has been left fearing for her children's safety after a violent XL Bully-type dog got into her garden and killed the family's beloved pet cat – in violent scenes caught on CCTV.
Nima Begum, 40, was in her house when she heard a commotion outside and saw a man wrestling with the powerful animal.
He kept shouting 'Your cat is fine', even though his pet's jaws were covered in blood.
Ms Begum rushed outside and found her terrified cat Kiwi cowering in a tree, which she managed to get down with the help of a passer-by. But the tabby died before she could get her to a vet."
This is driving me nuts. How much longer is the government going to wait? Get a fucking move on. Just order immediate muzzling NOW. The whole country wants it. Only 10% oppose
While they dither the attacks will continue and soon enough we will be faced with an utterly hideous video of a tiny child being eaten alive
Muzzle these fuckers. Give the owners a slapping
Put it down as another useless intervention by our PM.
The Tories can go fuck themselves. Everything they do is performative. Nothing ever actually happens. Apart from cancelling HS2
If there is an issue with muzzling these dogs then get on TV and explain the problem. What is it?? In the last three days a man has been killed and a toddler nearly lost a leg
Still not as many deaths as the motor car so espoused by Mr Sunak. His refusal to go to 20mph zones and his ban of LTNs is going to kill many more people.
Not that that is any excuse for the dogs. The argument may be that the existing laws are sufficient in principle - dangerous dogs out of control in public and so on. Though we need a clear statement one way or another, as you say. And if they are sufficient, why do we still have the DDA on the statute book banning some breeds?
But the thing is, after the next inevitable and horrifying video of someone being mauled to death, the government will suddenly discover that it CAN do something immediately. In response to the public outcry. Meaning their immobility now is pitiful complacency or incompetence or thanks to some disgraceful lobbying by the RSPCA
I hope I’m wrong and this video never arrives
Quite so, on both points. Though it's not just the RSPCA, I am sure. There is a real threat to more politically influential owners' dogs. Remember Malmesbury's - Or at least I think it was him - suggestion that only the more working class breeds got it in the original DDA. not the equally dangerous but more upper class ones.
It wasn't me, but that kind of misses the point.
If you ask medics, the really damaging doc attacks they deal with generally come from a small number of breeds. Think plastic surgery to rebuild arms and faces.
There are other breeds that attack, but the bulk of the serious injuries....
Quite: the ones with large jaws and heavy musculature. Yet nothing seems to be happening - least of all in the way of announcements. Or if so I missed it. Ms Coffey would ne the one to listen to at the Mancunian conference, it being DEFRA's job. But all I can find on a quick check is this about gun control:
The reason the Dangerous Dogs act is Evul, Wrung and Stuuupid isn't the act itself. It is the concern that it grants the government carte blanche to ban type of dogs for attacking people.
So everyone with a dog is afraid they will come for Fido.
The result is a very vocal lobby of "don't ban any dogs" types. While they may be a minority, they are very active. See the recent petitions. This is a political red light - vocal, active minorities translate into voters.
It seems that the majority want a ban, but are not especially fired up over it. But a very fired up minority oppose a ban.
There may well be something in that.
The most dangerous breed in terms of total bites is the Labrador. Of course this is absurd in one sense as there are so many - but by the same token, there must be a lot of Lanrador owners fearful that their Rover gets the needle if something ever goes wrong.
The alternative is to look even harder at the dog's training - which is even more frightening.
Around 1% of the electorate have signed the "XL bully [...] loves children and people in general" petition and
Been pondering again whom I should vote for around here. It's been a two horse race for a long, long time apart from in the early 2000s when it was a 1 horse race. I'd previously come to the conclusion that it had to be SNP because my priority was to throw the useless sack of shit Duguid and the Tories in general out.
I still can't imagine that anyone else is the main challenger but last night's result was so bad for the SNP I'm wondering.
Last election: Con 50% SNP 40% LD 5% Lab 4%
Thoughts?
I don't know what your attitude to the indy question is, but if it were me (I'm normally a Lib Dem voter) then notwithstanding my distaste for the nationalists I would consider the fact they are likely to lose seats overall to Labour, while the Tories are deserving of a thorough whipping, hold my nose and vote SNP.
Is there a monster raving loony candidate available?
Been pondering again whom I should vote for around here. It's been a two horse race for a long, long time apart from in the early 2000s when it was a 1 horse race. I'd previously come to the conclusion that it had to be SNP because my priority was to throw the useless sack of shit Duguid and the Tories in general out.
I still can't imagine that anyone else is the main challenger but last night's result was so bad for the SNP I'm wondering.
Last election: Con 50% SNP 40% LD 5% Lab 4%
Thoughts?
I don't know what your attitude to the indy question is, but if it were me (I'm normally a Lib Dem voter) then notwithstanding my distaste for the nationalists I would consider the fact they are likely to lose seats overall to Labour, while the Tories are deserving of a thorough whipping, hold my nose and vote SNP.
Is there a monster raving loony candidate available?
Voting for the best-placed candidate to defeat the SNP seems the obvious choice, North of the Border.
Been pondering again whom I should vote for around here. It's been a two horse race for a long, long time apart from in the early 2000s when it was a 1 horse race. I'd previously come to the conclusion that it had to be SNP because my priority was to throw the useless sack of shit Duguid and the Tories in general out.
I still can't imagine that anyone else is the main challenger but last night's result was so bad for the SNP I'm wondering.
Last election: Con 50% SNP 40% LD 5% Lab 4%
Thoughts?
The CON vote may fall a bit but SNP will fall more. LAB and LD have no chance though so you (and Rochdale) will almost certainly keep your current MP.
Oh I agree that Duguid is likely to retain his seat. Doesn't stop me trying!
An independent is a possibility, but I've just looked through past results for this constituency and there hasn't been one for 40 years which is unusual.
Been pondering again whom I should vote for around here. It's been a two horse race for a long, long time apart from in the early 2000s when it was a 1 horse race. I'd previously come to the conclusion that it had to be SNP because my priority was to throw the useless sack of shit Duguid and the Tories in general out.
I still can't imagine that anyone else is the main challenger but last night's result was so bad for the SNP I'm wondering.
Last election: Con 50% SNP 40% LD 5% Lab 4%
Thoughts?
Have a look at my earlier post with the [edit!] Prof Curtice discussion and the Blair Foundation report links.
Sorry, I can't find it, mind highlighting it to me?
Been pondering again whom I should vote for around here. It's been a two horse race for a long, long time apart from in the early 2000s when it was a 1 horse race. I'd previously come to the conclusion that it had to be SNP because my priority was to throw the useless sack of shit Duguid and the Tories in general out.
I still can't imagine that anyone else is the main challenger but last night's result was so bad for the SNP I'm wondering.
Last election: Con 50% SNP 40% LD 5% Lab 4%
Thoughts?
I don't know what your attitude to the indy question is, but if it were me (I'm normally a Lib Dem voter) then notwithstanding my distaste for the nationalists I would consider the fact they are likely to lose seats overall to Labour, while the Tories are deserving of a thorough whipping, hold my nose and vote SNP.
I'm open to it. This country needs fundamental constitutional reform, in my view. The reason I'm open to independence is that I don't see it happening within the UK. The thing that puts me off is the upheaval it would undoubtedly cause.
I wouldn't be holding my nose voting for SNP, Lib Dem, or Labour. They've all got their attractions for me. So the main question for me next time is tactical rather than ideological.
Surely a lot of that Tory vote must be tactical unionist voting. So a reasonable amount of tactical unwind likely I'd have thought, to the detriment of CON, but accompanied by the wider drop in SNP fortunes. Could be close.
"A mother-of-three has been left fearing for her children's safety after a violent XL Bully-type dog got into her garden and killed the family's beloved pet cat – in violent scenes caught on CCTV.
Nima Begum, 40, was in her house when she heard a commotion outside and saw a man wrestling with the powerful animal.
He kept shouting 'Your cat is fine', even though his pet's jaws were covered in blood.
Ms Begum rushed outside and found her terrified cat Kiwi cowering in a tree, which she managed to get down with the help of a passer-by. But the tabby died before she could get her to a vet."
This is driving me nuts. How much longer is the government going to wait? Get a fucking move on. Just order immediate muzzling NOW. The whole country wants it. Only 10% oppose
While they dither the attacks will continue and soon enough we will be faced with an utterly hideous video of a tiny child being eaten alive
Muzzle these fuckers. Give the owners a slapping
Put it down as another useless intervention by our PM.
The Tories can go fuck themselves. Everything they do is performative. Nothing ever actually happens. Apart from cancelling HS2
If there is an issue with muzzling these dogs then get on TV and explain the problem. What is it?? In the last three days a man has been killed and a toddler nearly lost a leg
Still not as many deaths as the motor car so espoused by Mr Sunak. His refusal to go to 20mph zones and his ban of LTNs is going to kill many more people.
Not that that is any excuse for the dogs. The argument may be that the existing laws are sufficient in principle - dangerous dogs out of control in public and so on. Though we need a clear statement one way or another, as you say. And if they are sufficient, why do we still have the DDA on the statute book banning some breeds?
But the thing is, after the next inevitable and horrifying video of someone being mauled to death, the government will suddenly discover that it CAN do something immediately. In response to the public outcry. Meaning their immobility now is pitiful complacency or incompetence or thanks to some disgraceful lobbying by the RSPCA
I hope I’m wrong and this video never arrives
Quite so, on both points. Though it's not just the RSPCA, I am sure. There is a real threat to more politically influential owners' dogs. Remember Malmesbury's - Or at least I think it was him - suggestion that only the more working class breeds got it in the original DDA. not the equally dangerous but more upper class ones.
It wasn't me, but that kind of misses the point.
If you ask medics, the really damaging doc attacks they deal with generally come from a small number of breeds. Think plastic surgery to rebuild arms and faces.
There are other breeds that attack, but the bulk of the serious injuries....
Quite: the ones with large jaws and heavy musculature. Yet nothing seems to be happening - least of all in the way of announcements. Or if so I missed it. Ms Coffey would ne the one to listen to at the Mancunian conference, it being DEFRA's job. But all I can find on a quick check is this about gun control:
The reason the Dangerous Dogs act is Evul, Wrung and Stuuupid isn't the act itself. It is the concern that it grants the government carte blanche to ban type of dogs for attacking people.
So everyone with a dog is afraid they will come for Fido.
The result is a very vocal lobby of "don't ban any dogs" types. While they may be a minority, they are very active. See the recent petitions. This is a political red light - vocal, active minorities translate into voters.
It seems that the majority want a ban, but are not especially fired up over it. But a very fired up minority oppose a ban.
There may well be something in that.
The most dangerous breed in terms of total bites is the Labrador. Of course this is absurd in one sense as there are so many - but by the same token, there must be a lot of Lanrador owners fearful that their Rover gets the needle if something ever goes wrong.
The alternative is to look even harder at the dog's training - which is even more frightening.
Around 1% of the electorate have signed the "XL bully [...] loves children and people in general" petition and
Been pondering again whom I should vote for around here. It's been a two horse race for a long, long time apart from in the early 2000s when it was a 1 horse race. I'd previously come to the conclusion that it had to be SNP because my priority was to throw the useless sack of shit Duguid and the Tories in general out.
I still can't imagine that anyone else is the main challenger but last night's result was so bad for the SNP I'm wondering.
Last election: Con 50% SNP 40% LD 5% Lab 4%
Thoughts?
Move house.
Alternatively just vote with your conscience, for the party who policies you rate best, and accept your vote will not swing a seat. Tories are going to be out next time regardless of your vote (or mine - safest of safe Tory seats).
That's what I did last time. I voted Lib Dem because "Bollocks to Brexit" was exactly what I wanted said. But what I want this time is for the Tories to get in the bin. That's my ideology for now.
Been pondering again whom I should vote for around here. It's been a two horse race for a long, long time apart from in the early 2000s when it was a 1 horse race. I'd previously come to the conclusion that it had to be SNP because my priority was to throw the useless sack of shit Duguid and the Tories in general out.
I still can't imagine that anyone else is the main challenger but last night's result was so bad for the SNP I'm wondering.
Last election: Con 50% SNP 40% LD 5% Lab 4%
Thoughts?
The CON vote may fall a bit but SNP will fall more. LAB and LD have no chance though so you (and Rochdale) will almost certainly keep your current MP.
Oh I agree that Duguid is likely to retain his seat. Doesn't stop me trying!
An independent is a possibility, but I've just looked through past results for this constituency and there hasn't been one for 40 years which is unusual.
"A mother-of-three has been left fearing for her children's safety after a violent XL Bully-type dog got into her garden and killed the family's beloved pet cat – in violent scenes caught on CCTV.
Nima Begum, 40, was in her house when she heard a commotion outside and saw a man wrestling with the powerful animal.
He kept shouting 'Your cat is fine', even though his pet's jaws were covered in blood.
Ms Begum rushed outside and found her terrified cat Kiwi cowering in a tree, which she managed to get down with the help of a passer-by. But the tabby died before she could get her to a vet."
This is driving me nuts. How much longer is the government going to wait? Get a fucking move on. Just order immediate muzzling NOW. The whole country wants it. Only 10% oppose
While they dither the attacks will continue and soon enough we will be faced with an utterly hideous video of a tiny child being eaten alive
Muzzle these fuckers. Give the owners a slapping
Put it down as another useless intervention by our PM.
The Tories can go fuck themselves. Everything they do is performative. Nothing ever actually happens. Apart from cancelling HS2
If there is an issue with muzzling these dogs then get on TV and explain the problem. What is it?? In the last three days a man has been killed and a toddler nearly lost a leg
Still not as many deaths as the motor car so espoused by Mr Sunak. His refusal to go to 20mph zones and his ban of LTNs is going to kill many more people.
Not that that is any excuse for the dogs. The argument may be that the existing laws are sufficient in principle - dangerous dogs out of control in public and so on. Though we need a clear statement one way or another, as you say. And if they are sufficient, why do we still have the DDA on the statute book banning some breeds?
But the thing is, after the next inevitable and horrifying video of someone being mauled to death, the government will suddenly discover that it CAN do something immediately. In response to the public outcry. Meaning their immobility now is pitiful complacency or incompetence or thanks to some disgraceful lobbying by the RSPCA
I hope I’m wrong and this video never arrives
Quite so, on both points. Though it's not just the RSPCA, I am sure. There is a real threat to more politically influential owners' dogs. Remember Malmesbury's - Or at least I think it was him - suggestion that only the more working class breeds got it in the original DDA. not the equally dangerous but more upper class ones.
It wasn't me, but that kind of misses the point.
If you ask medics, the really damaging doc attacks they deal with generally come from a small number of breeds. Think plastic surgery to rebuild arms and faces.
There are other breeds that attack, but the bulk of the serious injuries....
Quite: the ones with large jaws and heavy musculature. Yet nothing seems to be happening - least of all in the way of announcements. Or if so I missed it. Ms Coffey would ne the one to listen to at the Mancunian conference, it being DEFRA's job. But all I can find on a quick check is this about gun control:
The reason the Dangerous Dogs act is Evul, Wrung and Stuuupid isn't the act itself. It is the concern that it grants the government carte blanche to ban type of dogs for attacking people.
So everyone with a dog is afraid they will come for Fido.
The result is a very vocal lobby of "don't ban any dogs" types. While they may be a minority, they are very active. See the recent petitions. This is a political red light - vocal, active minorities translate into voters.
It seems that the majority want a ban, but are not especially fired up over it. But a very fired up minority oppose a ban.
There may well be something in that.
The most dangerous breed in terms of total bites is the Labrador. Of course this is absurd in one sense as there are so many - but by the same token, there must be a lot of Lanrador owners fearful that their Rover gets the needle if something ever goes wrong.
The alternative is to look even harder at the dog's training - which is even more frightening.
Around 1% of the electorate have signed the "XL bully [...] loves children and people in general" petition and
After all the talk the other day about how crap American cheese is, seems the closest to "traditional" Italian Parmesan is probably found in Wisconsin.
"A mother-of-three has been left fearing for her children's safety after a violent XL Bully-type dog got into her garden and killed the family's beloved pet cat – in violent scenes caught on CCTV.
Nima Begum, 40, was in her house when she heard a commotion outside and saw a man wrestling with the powerful animal.
He kept shouting 'Your cat is fine', even though his pet's jaws were covered in blood.
Ms Begum rushed outside and found her terrified cat Kiwi cowering in a tree, which she managed to get down with the help of a passer-by. But the tabby died before she could get her to a vet."
This is driving me nuts. How much longer is the government going to wait? Get a fucking move on. Just order immediate muzzling NOW. The whole country wants it. Only 10% oppose
While they dither the attacks will continue and soon enough we will be faced with an utterly hideous video of a tiny child being eaten alive
Muzzle these fuckers. Give the owners a slapping
Put it down as another useless intervention by our PM.
The Tories can go fuck themselves. Everything they do is performative. Nothing ever actually happens. Apart from cancelling HS2
If there is an issue with muzzling these dogs then get on TV and explain the problem. What is it?? In the last three days a man has been killed and a toddler nearly lost a leg
Still not as many deaths as the motor car so espoused by Mr Sunak. His refusal to go to 20mph zones and his ban of LTNs is going to kill many more people.
Not that that is any excuse for the dogs. The argument may be that the existing laws are sufficient in principle - dangerous dogs out of control in public and so on. Though we need a clear statement one way or another, as you say. And if they are sufficient, why do we still have the DDA on the statute book banning some breeds?
But the thing is, after the next inevitable and horrifying video of someone being mauled to death, the government will suddenly discover that it CAN do something immediately. In response to the public outcry. Meaning their immobility now is pitiful complacency or incompetence or thanks to some disgraceful lobbying by the RSPCA
I hope I’m wrong and this video never arrives
Quite so, on both points. Though it's not just the RSPCA, I am sure. There is a real threat to more politically influential owners' dogs. Remember Malmesbury's - Or at least I think it was him - suggestion that only the more working class breeds got it in the original DDA. not the equally dangerous but more upper class ones.
It wasn't me, but that kind of misses the point.
If you ask medics, the really damaging doc attacks they deal with generally come from a small number of breeds. Think plastic surgery to rebuild arms and faces.
There are other breeds that attack, but the bulk of the serious injuries....
Quite: the ones with large jaws and heavy musculature. Yet nothing seems to be happening - least of all in the way of announcements. Or if so I missed it. Ms Coffey would ne the one to listen to at the Mancunian conference, it being DEFRA's job. But all I can find on a quick check is this about gun control:
The reason the Dangerous Dogs act is Evul, Wrung and Stuuupid isn't the act itself. It is the concern that it grants the government carte blanche to ban type of dogs for attacking people.
So everyone with a dog is afraid they will come for Fido.
The result is a very vocal lobby of "don't ban any dogs" types. While they may be a minority, they are very active. See the recent petitions. This is a political red light - vocal, active minorities translate into voters.
It seems that the majority want a ban, but are not especially fired up over it. But a very fired up minority oppose a ban.
There may well be something in that.
The most dangerous breed in terms of total bites is the Labrador. Of course this is absurd in one sense as there are so many - but by the same token, there must be a lot of Lanrador owners fearful that their Rover gets the needle if something ever goes wrong.
The alternative is to look even harder at the dog's training - which is even more frightening.
Around 1% of the electorate have signed the "XL bully [...] loves children and people in general" petition and
Wiping out the Jack Russell Terrier should be the priority, here.
Chap I knew used to bring his into the pub where we both drank. Nice little bitch. Wouldn’t hurt a fly. Except the greyhound belonging to one of the other regulars. Always reacted badly to that.
Been pondering again whom I should vote for around here. It's been a two horse race for a long, long time apart from in the early 2000s when it was a 1 horse race. I'd previously come to the conclusion that it had to be SNP because my priority was to throw the useless sack of shit Duguid and the Tories in general out.
I still can't imagine that anyone else is the main challenger but last night's result was so bad for the SNP I'm wondering.
Last election: Con 50% SNP 40% LD 5% Lab 4%
Thoughts?
Move house.
Alternatively just vote with your conscience, for the party who policies you rate best, and accept your vote will not swing a seat. Tories are going to be out next time regardless of your vote (or mine - safest of safe Tory seats).
That's what I did last time. I voted Lib Dem because "Bollocks to Brexit" was exactly what I wanted said. But what I want this time is for the Tories to get in the bin. That's my ideology for now.
Government bought £1.5m house on HS2 line less than 24 hours before Rishi Sunak cancelled it EXCLUSIVE Government has failed to tell HS2 manager to stop buying properties under compulsory purchase orders despite cancellation of northern leg of the line between Birmingham and Manchester https://inews.co.uk/news/government-bought-house-hs2-line-rishi-sunak-cancelled-2667199
David Parsley @DavidParsley50 · 25m 🚨EXCLUSIVE: HS2 evictees to be told they can buy back their old homes, but at a higher price.
🔴Those who sold properties along the axed northern leg of HS2 may have to pay hundreds of thousands more to return home.
This "Tory" Government is really doing it's best to salt the earth and ensure HS2 is killed stone dead.
Got to say they definitely are not Conservative...
It is hard to see which voters salting the earth is designed to attract. It just makes the government look nasty and vindictive, and this on a policy it championed right up to last week.
"A mother-of-three has been left fearing for her children's safety after a violent XL Bully-type dog got into her garden and killed the family's beloved pet cat – in violent scenes caught on CCTV.
Nima Begum, 40, was in her house when she heard a commotion outside and saw a man wrestling with the powerful animal.
He kept shouting 'Your cat is fine', even though his pet's jaws were covered in blood.
Ms Begum rushed outside and found her terrified cat Kiwi cowering in a tree, which she managed to get down with the help of a passer-by. But the tabby died before she could get her to a vet."
This is driving me nuts. How much longer is the government going to wait? Get a fucking move on. Just order immediate muzzling NOW. The whole country wants it. Only 10% oppose
While they dither the attacks will continue and soon enough we will be faced with an utterly hideous video of a tiny child being eaten alive
Muzzle these fuckers. Give the owners a slapping
Put it down as another useless intervention by our PM.
The Tories can go fuck themselves. Everything they do is performative. Nothing ever actually happens. Apart from cancelling HS2
If there is an issue with muzzling these dogs then get on TV and explain the problem. What is it?? In the last three days a man has been killed and a toddler nearly lost a leg
Still not as many deaths as the motor car so espoused by Mr Sunak. His refusal to go to 20mph zones and his ban of LTNs is going to kill many more people.
Not that that is any excuse for the dogs. The argument may be that the existing laws are sufficient in principle - dangerous dogs out of control in public and so on. Though we need a clear statement one way or another, as you say. And if they are sufficient, why do we still have the DDA on the statute book banning some breeds?
But the thing is, after the next inevitable and horrifying video of someone being mauled to death, the government will suddenly discover that it CAN do something immediately. In response to the public outcry. Meaning their immobility now is pitiful complacency or incompetence or thanks to some disgraceful lobbying by the RSPCA
I hope I’m wrong and this video never arrives
Quite so, on both points. Though it's not just the RSPCA, I am sure. There is a real threat to more politically influential owners' dogs. Remember Malmesbury's - Or at least I think it was him - suggestion that only the more working class breeds got it in the original DDA. not the equally dangerous but more upper class ones.
It wasn't me, but that kind of misses the point.
If you ask medics, the really damaging doc attacks they deal with generally come from a small number of breeds. Think plastic surgery to rebuild arms and faces.
There are other breeds that attack, but the bulk of the serious injuries....
Quite: the ones with large jaws and heavy musculature. Yet nothing seems to be happening - least of all in the way of announcements. Or if so I missed it. Ms Coffey would ne the one to listen to at the Mancunian conference, it being DEFRA's job. But all I can find on a quick check is this about gun control:
The reason the Dangerous Dogs act is Evul, Wrung and Stuuupid isn't the act itself. It is the concern that it grants the government carte blanche to ban type of dogs for attacking people.
So everyone with a dog is afraid they will come for Fido.
The result is a very vocal lobby of "don't ban any dogs" types. While they may be a minority, they are very active. See the recent petitions. This is a political red light - vocal, active minorities translate into voters.
It seems that the majority want a ban, but are not especially fired up over it. But a very fired up minority oppose a ban.
There may well be something in that.
The most dangerous breed in terms of total bites is the Labrador. Of course this is absurd in one sense as there are so many - but by the same token, there must be a lot of Lanrador owners fearful that their Rover gets the needle if something ever goes wrong.
The alternative is to look even harder at the dog's training - which is even more frightening.
Around 1% of the electorate have signed the "XL bully [...] loves children and people in general" petition and
The XL Bully? Do people not think there's a clue in the name?
I am not sure what I think about this. I'm currently living with my in-laws and their poorly-socialized Springer Spaniel, who I could unfortunately easily see biting someone in the wrong circumstances. It's not just the breed that can make a dog dangerous, but how well (or not) it's been trained.
I think this might be an example where an expansion of access to civil law would bring about improvements. If it was easier for people to sue the owners of dogs for the damage they cause, and the courts would hold people liable for the damage caused by their pets, then I think that would encourage dog owners to better train their dogs, keep them under better control when in public, choose more placid pets and provide remedy when these steps fail.
I don't think it's possible to draw a binary distinction between dog breeds that are safe and dog breeds that are unsafe, and so there will always be cases that can't be dealt with by banning a subset of dogs.
Government bought £1.5m house on HS2 line less than 24 hours before Rishi Sunak cancelled it EXCLUSIVE Government has failed to tell HS2 manager to stop buying properties under compulsory purchase orders despite cancellation of northern leg of the line between Birmingham and Manchester https://inews.co.uk/news/government-bought-house-hs2-line-rishi-sunak-cancelled-2667199
Sums up this government perfectly. You could run an ad campaign on this alone. It really made me laugh!
"A mother-of-three has been left fearing for her children's safety after a violent XL Bully-type dog got into her garden and killed the family's beloved pet cat – in violent scenes caught on CCTV.
Nima Begum, 40, was in her house when she heard a commotion outside and saw a man wrestling with the powerful animal.
He kept shouting 'Your cat is fine', even though his pet's jaws were covered in blood.
Ms Begum rushed outside and found her terrified cat Kiwi cowering in a tree, which she managed to get down with the help of a passer-by. But the tabby died before she could get her to a vet."
This is driving me nuts. How much longer is the government going to wait? Get a fucking move on. Just order immediate muzzling NOW. The whole country wants it. Only 10% oppose
While they dither the attacks will continue and soon enough we will be faced with an utterly hideous video of a tiny child being eaten alive
Muzzle these fuckers. Give the owners a slapping
Put it down as another useless intervention by our PM.
The Tories can go fuck themselves. Everything they do is performative. Nothing ever actually happens. Apart from cancelling HS2
If there is an issue with muzzling these dogs then get on TV and explain the problem. What is it?? In the last three days a man has been killed and a toddler nearly lost a leg
Still not as many deaths as the motor car so espoused by Mr Sunak. His refusal to go to 20mph zones and his ban of LTNs is going to kill many more people.
Not that that is any excuse for the dogs. The argument may be that the existing laws are sufficient in principle - dangerous dogs out of control in public and so on. Though we need a clear statement one way or another, as you say. And if they are sufficient, why do we still have the DDA on the statute book banning some breeds?
But the thing is, after the next inevitable and horrifying video of someone being mauled to death, the government will suddenly discover that it CAN do something immediately. In response to the public outcry. Meaning their immobility now is pitiful complacency or incompetence or thanks to some disgraceful lobbying by the RSPCA
I hope I’m wrong and this video never arrives
Quite so, on both points. Though it's not just the RSPCA, I am sure. There is a real threat to more politically influential owners' dogs. Remember Malmesbury's - Or at least I think it was him - suggestion that only the more working class breeds got it in the original DDA. not the equally dangerous but more upper class ones.
It wasn't me, but that kind of misses the point.
If you ask medics, the really damaging doc attacks they deal with generally come from a small number of breeds. Think plastic surgery to rebuild arms and faces.
There are other breeds that attack, but the bulk of the serious injuries....
Quite: the ones with large jaws and heavy musculature. Yet nothing seems to be happening - least of all in the way of announcements. Or if so I missed it. Ms Coffey would ne the one to listen to at the Mancunian conference, it being DEFRA's job. But all I can find on a quick check is this about gun control:
The reason the Dangerous Dogs act is Evul, Wrung and Stuuupid isn't the act itself. It is the concern that it grants the government carte blanche to ban type of dogs for attacking people.
So everyone with a dog is afraid they will come for Fido.
The result is a very vocal lobby of "don't ban any dogs" types. While they may be a minority, they are very active. See the recent petitions. This is a political red light - vocal, active minorities translate into voters.
It seems that the majority want a ban, but are not especially fired up over it. But a very fired up minority oppose a ban.
There may well be something in that.
The most dangerous breed in terms of total bites is the Labrador. Of course this is absurd in one sense as there are so many - but by the same token, there must be a lot of Lanrador owners fearful that their Rover gets the needle if something ever goes wrong.
The alternative is to look even harder at the dog's training - which is even more frightening.
Around 1% of the electorate have signed the "XL bully [...] loves children and people in general" petition and
The XL Bully? Do people not think there's a clue in the name?
I am not sure what I think about this. I'm currently living with my in-laws and their poorly-socialized Springer Spaniel, who I could unfortunately easily see biting someone in the wrong circumstances. It's not just the breed that can make a dog dangerous, but how well (or not) it's been trained.
I think this might be an example where an expansion of access to civil law would bring about improvements. If it was easier for people to sue the owners of dogs for the damage they cause, and the courts would hold people liable for the damage caused by their pets, then I think that would encourage dog owners to better train their dogs, keep them under better control when in public, choose more placid pets and provide remedy when these steps fail.
I don't think it's possible to draw a binary distinction between dog breeds that are safe and dog breeds that are unsafe, and so there will always be cases that can't be dealt with by banning a subset of dogs.
Quite so. Also, it would encourage the taking out of insurance (if not already provided). The RSPCA-recommended insurers won't insure certain breeds, which helps.
"Employers added 336,000 jobs in September, almost double what had been predicted, confirming the overall strength of an economy that is facing challenges." NY Times
"A mother-of-three has been left fearing for her children's safety after a violent XL Bully-type dog got into her garden and killed the family's beloved pet cat – in violent scenes caught on CCTV.
Nima Begum, 40, was in her house when she heard a commotion outside and saw a man wrestling with the powerful animal.
He kept shouting 'Your cat is fine', even though his pet's jaws were covered in blood.
Ms Begum rushed outside and found her terrified cat Kiwi cowering in a tree, which she managed to get down with the help of a passer-by. But the tabby died before she could get her to a vet."
This is driving me nuts. How much longer is the government going to wait? Get a fucking move on. Just order immediate muzzling NOW. The whole country wants it. Only 10% oppose
While they dither the attacks will continue and soon enough we will be faced with an utterly hideous video of a tiny child being eaten alive
Muzzle these fuckers. Give the owners a slapping
Put it down as another useless intervention by our PM.
The Tories can go fuck themselves. Everything they do is performative. Nothing ever actually happens. Apart from cancelling HS2
If there is an issue with muzzling these dogs then get on TV and explain the problem. What is it?? In the last three days a man has been killed and a toddler nearly lost a leg
Still not as many deaths as the motor car so espoused by Mr Sunak. His refusal to go to 20mph zones and his ban of LTNs is going to kill many more people.
Not that that is any excuse for the dogs. The argument may be that the existing laws are sufficient in principle - dangerous dogs out of control in public and so on. Though we need a clear statement one way or another, as you say. And if they are sufficient, why do we still have the DDA on the statute book banning some breeds?
But the thing is, after the next inevitable and horrifying video of someone being mauled to death, the government will suddenly discover that it CAN do something immediately. In response to the public outcry. Meaning their immobility now is pitiful complacency or incompetence or thanks to some disgraceful lobbying by the RSPCA
I hope I’m wrong and this video never arrives
Quite so, on both points. Though it's not just the RSPCA, I am sure. There is a real threat to more politically influential owners' dogs. Remember Malmesbury's - Or at least I think it was him - suggestion that only the more working class breeds got it in the original DDA. not the equally dangerous but more upper class ones.
It wasn't me, but that kind of misses the point.
If you ask medics, the really damaging doc attacks they deal with generally come from a small number of breeds. Think plastic surgery to rebuild arms and faces.
There are other breeds that attack, but the bulk of the serious injuries....
Quite: the ones with large jaws and heavy musculature. Yet nothing seems to be happening - least of all in the way of announcements. Or if so I missed it. Ms Coffey would ne the one to listen to at the Mancunian conference, it being DEFRA's job. But all I can find on a quick check is this about gun control:
The reason the Dangerous Dogs act is Evul, Wrung and Stuuupid isn't the act itself. It is the concern that it grants the government carte blanche to ban type of dogs for attacking people.
So everyone with a dog is afraid they will come for Fido.
The result is a very vocal lobby of "don't ban any dogs" types. While they may be a minority, they are very active. See the recent petitions. This is a political red light - vocal, active minorities translate into voters.
It seems that the majority want a ban, but are not especially fired up over it. But a very fired up minority oppose a ban.
There may well be something in that.
The most dangerous breed in terms of total bites is the Labrador. Of course this is absurd in one sense as there are so many - but by the same token, there must be a lot of Lanrador owners fearful that their Rover gets the needle if something ever goes wrong.
The alternative is to look even harder at the dog's training - which is even more frightening.
Around 1% of the electorate have signed the "XL bully [...] loves children and people in general" petition and
The XL Bully? Do people not think there's a clue in the name?
I am not sure what I think about this. I'm currently living with my in-laws and their poorly-socialized Springer Spaniel, who I could unfortunately easily see biting someone in the wrong circumstances. It's not just the breed that can make a dog dangerous, but how well (or not) it's been trained.
I think this might be an example where an expansion of access to civil law would bring about improvements. If it was easier for people to sue the owners of dogs for the damage they cause, and the courts would hold people liable for the damage caused by their pets, then I think that would encourage dog owners to better train their dogs, keep them under better control when in public, choose more placid pets and provide remedy when these steps fail.
I don't think it's possible to draw a binary distinction between dog breeds that are safe and dog breeds that are unsafe, and so there will always be cases that can't be dealt with by banning a subset of dogs.
To avoid accusations of dog racism, why not adopt something like a 3 strikes and you're out policy. Any breed that is involved in 3 attacks leading to serious injury of someone other than the adult owner (and excluding sepsis from bites) is automatically banned. After 2 such attacks, compulsory muzzling outside the home.
"Employers added 336,000 jobs in September, almost double what had been predicted, confirming the overall strength of an economy that is facing challenges." NY Times
Give it 6 months for the revision before making any definite conclusion....its seems this number they have to kept massively revising more than the GDP revisions here.
A soothsayer moment, with due recognition of some hubris here, but genuinely a prediction:
A few years from now people will look back on 2016 - 2024 as a dark time. You don’t need me to list them but just about everything that could go wrong, has. It has been a nightmare. A miserable period.
It’s not that I expect Starmer’s Labour to deliver utopia. It’s just that, by circumstance and luck, this country will settle down once more.
Beyond everything else, this will be the Conservative Party’s hardest task: to recast themselves as a party of aspiration, hope, enjoyment, and happiness.
I am expecting the Labour Party to be in power for 15 years, or more. Many of us will no longer be alive the next time a Conservative Party is elected to power in this country.
If we still have FPTP.
For all its box office appeal I've come to the conclusion that ditching FPTP for PR is the single biggest positive political change we could make. This Tory Party has wreaked such damage on the country over the last few years and there's no way it could have happened with a proportional system.
Bravo. I can finally praise you Kinabalu. I agree and this will allow the rise of overt anti immigrant parties like the old bnp.
Is that a serious post? Seems a very unattractive aspiration even for the Tory ultras on here
David Parsley @DavidParsley50 · 25m 🚨EXCLUSIVE: HS2 evictees to be told they can buy back their old homes, but at a higher price.
🔴Those who sold properties along the axed northern leg of HS2 may have to pay hundreds of thousands more to return home.
Can’t see their votes going Tory next time.
We really do owe Liz an apology, Rishi has out-Trussed Truss. At this rate I expect Rishi to rehabilitate the image of Gordon Brown around the spring of 2024.
"A mother-of-three has been left fearing for her children's safety after a violent XL Bully-type dog got into her garden and killed the family's beloved pet cat – in violent scenes caught on CCTV.
Nima Begum, 40, was in her house when she heard a commotion outside and saw a man wrestling with the powerful animal.
He kept shouting 'Your cat is fine', even though his pet's jaws were covered in blood.
Ms Begum rushed outside and found her terrified cat Kiwi cowering in a tree, which she managed to get down with the help of a passer-by. But the tabby died before she could get her to a vet."
This is driving me nuts. How much longer is the government going to wait? Get a fucking move on. Just order immediate muzzling NOW. The whole country wants it. Only 10% oppose
While they dither the attacks will continue and soon enough we will be faced with an utterly hideous video of a tiny child being eaten alive
Muzzle these fuckers. Give the owners a slapping
Put it down as another useless intervention by our PM.
The Tories can go fuck themselves. Everything they do is performative. Nothing ever actually happens. Apart from cancelling HS2
If there is an issue with muzzling these dogs then get on TV and explain the problem. What is it?? In the last three days a man has been killed and a toddler nearly lost a leg
Still not as many deaths as the motor car so espoused by Mr Sunak. His refusal to go to 20mph zones and his ban of LTNs is going to kill many more people.
Not that that is any excuse for the dogs. The argument may be that the existing laws are sufficient in principle - dangerous dogs out of control in public and so on. Though we need a clear statement one way or another, as you say. And if they are sufficient, why do we still have the DDA on the statute book banning some breeds?
But the thing is, after the next inevitable and horrifying video of someone being mauled to death, the government will suddenly discover that it CAN do something immediately. In response to the public outcry. Meaning their immobility now is pitiful complacency or incompetence or thanks to some disgraceful lobbying by the RSPCA
I hope I’m wrong and this video never arrives
Quite so, on both points. Though it's not just the RSPCA, I am sure. There is a real threat to more politically influential owners' dogs. Remember Malmesbury's - Or at least I think it was him - suggestion that only the more working class breeds got it in the original DDA. not the equally dangerous but more upper class ones.
It wasn't me, but that kind of misses the point.
If you ask medics, the really damaging doc attacks they deal with generally come from a small number of breeds. Think plastic surgery to rebuild arms and faces.
There are other breeds that attack, but the bulk of the serious injuries....
Quite: the ones with large jaws and heavy musculature. Yet nothing seems to be happening - least of all in the way of announcements. Or if so I missed it. Ms Coffey would ne the one to listen to at the Mancunian conference, it being DEFRA's job. But all I can find on a quick check is this about gun control:
The reason the Dangerous Dogs act is Evul, Wrung and Stuuupid isn't the act itself. It is the concern that it grants the government carte blanche to ban type of dogs for attacking people.
So everyone with a dog is afraid they will come for Fido.
The result is a very vocal lobby of "don't ban any dogs" types. While they may be a minority, they are very active. See the recent petitions. This is a political red light - vocal, active minorities translate into voters.
It seems that the majority want a ban, but are not especially fired up over it. But a very fired up minority oppose a ban.
There may well be something in that.
The most dangerous breed in terms of total bites is the Labrador. Of course this is absurd in one sense as there are so many - but by the same token, there must be a lot of Lanrador owners fearful that their Rover gets the needle if something ever goes wrong.
The alternative is to look even harder at the dog's training - which is even more frightening.
Around 1% of the electorate have signed the "XL bully [...] loves children and people in general" petition and
The XL Bully? Do people not think there's a clue in the name?
I am not sure what I think about this. I'm currently living with my in-laws and their poorly-socialized Springer Spaniel, who I could unfortunately easily see biting someone in the wrong circumstances. It's not just the breed that can make a dog dangerous, but how well (or not) it's been trained.
I think this might be an example where an expansion of access to civil law would bring about improvements. If it was easier for people to sue the owners of dogs for the damage they cause, and the courts would hold people liable for the damage caused by their pets, then I think that would encourage dog owners to better train their dogs, keep them under better control when in public, choose more placid pets and provide remedy when these steps fail.
I don't think it's possible to draw a binary distinction between dog breeds that are safe and dog breeds that are unsafe, and so there will always be cases that can't be dealt with by banning a subset of dogs.
To avoid accusations of dog racism, why not adopt something like a 3 strikes and you're out policy. Any breed that is involved in 3 attacks leading to serious injury of someone other than the adult owner (and excluding sepsis from bites) is automatically banned. After 2 such attacks, compulsory muzzling outside the home.
Doesn't that tend towards having every breed of dog banned, eventually?
David Parsley @DavidParsley50 · 25m 🚨EXCLUSIVE: HS2 evictees to be told they can buy back their old homes, but at a higher price.
🔴Those who sold properties along the axed northern leg of HS2 may have to pay hundreds of thousands more to return home.
This "Tory" Government is really doing it's best to salt the earth and ensure HS2 is killed stone dead.
Got to say they definitely are not Conservative...
It is hard to see which voters salting the earth is designed to attract. It just makes the government look nasty and vindictive, and this on a policy it championed right up to last week.
Simplest answer is that the government's actions are nasty and vindictive. And that is revealing something about their character. High office does that (the revealing, not necessarily the nasty/vindictive).
A private psychiatrist charges £360 per hour. Let's say they see 4 people per day. That's £1440.
Or £7200 per week. Maybe £345,000 per year.
Now I know there are various costs they will need to pay. Rental space, a (shared?) secretary, insurance. But even so, that seems like an awful lot of money. I wonder what the costs would be in similar countries.
An element of it being a Veblen good/service, where the demand might actually be higher the higher the price. How do you know your psychiatrist is any use? A lot of people are skeptical, and we have little ways of differentiating the good and bad so price might be a way of them highlighting perceived quality.
Or maybe they only want to work part time and set their rate accordingly.
I think that the HS2 announcement and list of possible local alternatives is going to be like one of those Budget statements - it looks good at first glance but when you start investing the detail it falls apart.
I think that the HS2 announcement and list of possible local alternatives is going to be like one of those Budget statements - it looks good at first glance but when you start investing the detail it falls apart.
David Parsley @DavidParsley50 · 25m 🚨EXCLUSIVE: HS2 evictees to be told they can buy back their old homes, but at a higher price.
🔴Those who sold properties along the axed northern leg of HS2 may have to pay hundreds of thousands more to return home.
This "Tory" Government is really doing it's best to salt the earth and ensure HS2 is killed stone dead.
Got to say they definitely are not Conservative...
It is hard to see which voters salting the earth is designed to attract. It just makes the government look nasty and vindictive, and this on a policy it championed right up to last week.
Simplest answer is that the government's actions are nasty and vindictive. And that is revealing something about their character. High office does that (the revealing, not necessarily the nasty/vindictive).
It is also a mistake in the terms of the policy reversal itself. The idea was to create a massive wedge with Labour who would be forced to say they will build it. Now Starmer does says - 'can't be done, because they've sold all the land back'.
"A mother-of-three has been left fearing for her children's safety after a violent XL Bully-type dog got into her garden and killed the family's beloved pet cat – in violent scenes caught on CCTV.
Nima Begum, 40, was in her house when she heard a commotion outside and saw a man wrestling with the powerful animal.
He kept shouting 'Your cat is fine', even though his pet's jaws were covered in blood.
Ms Begum rushed outside and found her terrified cat Kiwi cowering in a tree, which she managed to get down with the help of a passer-by. But the tabby died before she could get her to a vet."
This is driving me nuts. How much longer is the government going to wait? Get a fucking move on. Just order immediate muzzling NOW. The whole country wants it. Only 10% oppose
While they dither the attacks will continue and soon enough we will be faced with an utterly hideous video of a tiny child being eaten alive
Muzzle these fuckers. Give the owners a slapping
Put it down as another useless intervention by our PM.
The Tories can go fuck themselves. Everything they do is performative. Nothing ever actually happens. Apart from cancelling HS2
If there is an issue with muzzling these dogs then get on TV and explain the problem. What is it?? In the last three days a man has been killed and a toddler nearly lost a leg
Still not as many deaths as the motor car so espoused by Mr Sunak. His refusal to go to 20mph zones and his ban of LTNs is going to kill many more people.
Not that that is any excuse for the dogs. The argument may be that the existing laws are sufficient in principle - dangerous dogs out of control in public and so on. Though we need a clear statement one way or another, as you say. And if they are sufficient, why do we still have the DDA on the statute book banning some breeds?
But the thing is, after the next inevitable and horrifying video of someone being mauled to death, the government will suddenly discover that it CAN do something immediately. In response to the public outcry. Meaning their immobility now is pitiful complacency or incompetence or thanks to some disgraceful lobbying by the RSPCA
I hope I’m wrong and this video never arrives
Quite so, on both points. Though it's not just the RSPCA, I am sure. There is a real threat to more politically influential owners' dogs. Remember Malmesbury's - Or at least I think it was him - suggestion that only the more working class breeds got it in the original DDA. not the equally dangerous but more upper class ones.
It wasn't me, but that kind of misses the point.
If you ask medics, the really damaging doc attacks they deal with generally come from a small number of breeds. Think plastic surgery to rebuild arms and faces.
There are other breeds that attack, but the bulk of the serious injuries....
Quite: the ones with large jaws and heavy musculature. Yet nothing seems to be happening - least of all in the way of announcements. Or if so I missed it. Ms Coffey would ne the one to listen to at the Mancunian conference, it being DEFRA's job. But all I can find on a quick check is this about gun control:
The reason the Dangerous Dogs act is Evul, Wrung and Stuuupid isn't the act itself. It is the concern that it grants the government carte blanche to ban type of dogs for attacking people.
So everyone with a dog is afraid they will come for Fido.
The result is a very vocal lobby of "don't ban any dogs" types. While they may be a minority, they are very active. See the recent petitions. This is a political red light - vocal, active minorities translate into voters.
It seems that the majority want a ban, but are not especially fired up over it. But a very fired up minority oppose a ban.
There may well be something in that.
The most dangerous breed in terms of total bites is the Labrador. Of course this is absurd in one sense as there are so many - but by the same token, there must be a lot of Lanrador owners fearful that their Rover gets the needle if something ever goes wrong.
The alternative is to look even harder at the dog's training - which is even more frightening.
Around 1% of the electorate have signed the "XL bully [...] loves children and people in general" petition and
The XL Bully? Do people not think there's a clue in the name?
I am not sure what I think about this. I'm currently living with my in-laws and their poorly-socialized Springer Spaniel, who I could unfortunately easily see biting someone in the wrong circumstances. It's not just the breed that can make a dog dangerous, but how well (or not) it's been trained.
I think this might be an example where an expansion of access to civil law would bring about improvements. If it was easier for people to sue the owners of dogs for the damage they cause, and the courts would hold people liable for the damage caused by their pets, then I think that would encourage dog owners to better train their dogs, keep them under better control when in public, choose more placid pets and provide remedy when these steps fail.
I don't think it's possible to draw a binary distinction between dog breeds that are safe and dog breeds that are unsafe, and so there will always be cases that can't be dealt with by banning a subset of dogs.
The name can be misleading at times. My dog trainer was quite confused when I asked why the xLBully was struggling with the HLookup function.
I think that the HS2 announcement and list of possible local alternatives is going to be like one of those Budget statements - it looks good at first glance but when you start investing the detail it falls apart.
Did it even look good at first glance?
Not really. Even as Sunak was listing the things he would do instead I was thinking "I'm pretty sure this isn't new."
"A mother-of-three has been left fearing for her children's safety after a violent XL Bully-type dog got into her garden and killed the family's beloved pet cat – in violent scenes caught on CCTV.
Nima Begum, 40, was in her house when she heard a commotion outside and saw a man wrestling with the powerful animal.
He kept shouting 'Your cat is fine', even though his pet's jaws were covered in blood.
Ms Begum rushed outside and found her terrified cat Kiwi cowering in a tree, which she managed to get down with the help of a passer-by. But the tabby died before she could get her to a vet."
This is driving me nuts. How much longer is the government going to wait? Get a fucking move on. Just order immediate muzzling NOW. The whole country wants it. Only 10% oppose
While they dither the attacks will continue and soon enough we will be faced with an utterly hideous video of a tiny child being eaten alive
Muzzle these fuckers. Give the owners a slapping
Put it down as another useless intervention by our PM.
The Tories can go fuck themselves. Everything they do is performative. Nothing ever actually happens. Apart from cancelling HS2
If there is an issue with muzzling these dogs then get on TV and explain the problem. What is it?? In the last three days a man has been killed and a toddler nearly lost a leg
Still not as many deaths as the motor car so espoused by Mr Sunak. His refusal to go to 20mph zones and his ban of LTNs is going to kill many more people.
Not that that is any excuse for the dogs. The argument may be that the existing laws are sufficient in principle - dangerous dogs out of control in public and so on. Though we need a clear statement one way or another, as you say. And if they are sufficient, why do we still have the DDA on the statute book banning some breeds?
But the thing is, after the next inevitable and horrifying video of someone being mauled to death, the government will suddenly discover that it CAN do something immediately. In response to the public outcry. Meaning their immobility now is pitiful complacency or incompetence or thanks to some disgraceful lobbying by the RSPCA
I hope I’m wrong and this video never arrives
Quite so, on both points. Though it's not just the RSPCA, I am sure. There is a real threat to more politically influential owners' dogs. Remember Malmesbury's - Or at least I think it was him - suggestion that only the more working class breeds got it in the original DDA. not the equally dangerous but more upper class ones.
It wasn't me, but that kind of misses the point.
If you ask medics, the really damaging doc attacks they deal with generally come from a small number of breeds. Think plastic surgery to rebuild arms and faces.
There are other breeds that attack, but the bulk of the serious injuries....
Quite: the ones with large jaws and heavy musculature. Yet nothing seems to be happening - least of all in the way of announcements. Or if so I missed it. Ms Coffey would ne the one to listen to at the Mancunian conference, it being DEFRA's job. But all I can find on a quick check is this about gun control:
The reason the Dangerous Dogs act is Evul, Wrung and Stuuupid isn't the act itself. It is the concern that it grants the government carte blanche to ban type of dogs for attacking people.
So everyone with a dog is afraid they will come for Fido.
The result is a very vocal lobby of "don't ban any dogs" types. While they may be a minority, they are very active. See the recent petitions. This is a political red light - vocal, active minorities translate into voters.
It seems that the majority want a ban, but are not especially fired up over it. But a very fired up minority oppose a ban.
There may well be something in that.
The most dangerous breed in terms of total bites is the Labrador. Of course this is absurd in one sense as there are so many - but by the same token, there must be a lot of Lanrador owners fearful that their Rover gets the needle if something ever goes wrong.
The alternative is to look even harder at the dog's training - which is even more frightening.
Around 1% of the electorate have signed the "XL bully [...] loves children and people in general" petition and
The XL Bully? Do people not think there's a clue in the name?
I am not sure what I think about this. I'm currently living with my in-laws and their poorly-socialized Springer Spaniel, who I could unfortunately easily see biting someone in the wrong circumstances. It's not just the breed that can make a dog dangerous, but how well (or not) it's been trained.
I think this might be an example where an expansion of access to civil law would bring about improvements. If it was easier for people to sue the owners of dogs for the damage they cause, and the courts would hold people liable for the damage caused by their pets, then I think that would encourage dog owners to better train their dogs, keep them under better control when in public, choose more placid pets and provide remedy when these steps fail.
I don't think it's possible to draw a binary distinction between dog breeds that are safe and dog breeds that are unsafe, and so there will always be cases that can't be dealt with by banning a subset of dogs.
The nerf gun we have in the office has an unstable trigger. If you drop it, it can go off. And hit you in the ankle with a foam dart.
A Violet Club nuclear weapon could, if dropped, yield 25kt.
This is why nerf guns are unregulated. And nuclear weapons are.
David Parsley @DavidParsley50 · 25m 🚨EXCLUSIVE: HS2 evictees to be told they can buy back their old homes, but at a higher price.
🔴Those who sold properties along the axed northern leg of HS2 may have to pay hundreds of thousands more to return home.
Can’t see their votes going Tory next time.
We really do owe Liz an apology, Rishi has out-Trussed Truss. At this rate I expect Rishi to rehabilitate the image of Gordon Brown around the spring of 2024.
Speaking of refugees, I see that the US has taken in nearly 500,000 Venezuelan refugees, in the last year or so. Any chance Jeremy Corbyn would be willing to help them out by hosting a couple of families?
(He's been rather fond of the Chavista regime, if I recall correctly, so he might want to learn why so many are leaving that paradise.)
I think that the HS2 announcement and list of possible local alternatives is going to be like one of those Budget statements - it looks good at first glance but when you start investing the detail it falls apart.
Did it even look good at first glance?
Not really. Even as Sunak was listing the things he would do instead I was thinking "I'm pretty sure this isn't new."
Even if they were.
If you are truly serious about upgrading infrastructure, you have to have an overall consistent plan, how train will link to into the buses, to planes, to cars, integration with freight etc etc etc.
Reading out a list of random projects isn't that.
It is also why HS2 was terrible name and all wrong PR focused on a high-speed line.
Rather than this is how we are going to upgrade infrastructure across the country over the next 20 years. We could have done this from 2008 onwards, you could borrow to build while still getting every day spending under control.
Instead all the talk became about this one rail project and mythical airport / upgrade to existing airports (all separate to the new rail project).
I think that the HS2 announcement and list of possible local alternatives is going to be like one of those Budget statements - it looks good at first glance but when you start investing the detail it falls apart.
Did it even look good at first glance?
Not really. Even as Sunak was listing the things he would do instead I was thinking "I'm pretty sure this isn't new."
Even if they were.
If you are truly serious about upgrading infrastructure, you have to have an overall consistent plan, how train will link to into the buses, to planes, to cars, integration with freight etc etc etc.
Reading out a list of random projects isn't that.
It is also why HS2 was terrible name and all wrong PR focused on a high-speed line.
Rather than this is how we are going to upgrade infrastructure across the country. We could have done this from 2008 onwards, you could borrow to build while still getting every day spending under control.
I remember being berated at a public meeting in Oxford, for asking why the bus station wasn’t put next to the railway station. As opposed the Said School of Land Mines.
If you are truly serious about upgrading infrastructure, you have to have an overall consistent plan, how train will link to into the buses, to planes, to cars, integration with freight etc etc etc.
Reading out a list of random projects isn't that.
Exactly it wasn't an alternative plan. It was a bunch of wishes and reannouncements, and the money supposedly saved isn't really being spent either. Put simply it is a con.
The Aussies manage to have a ban on XL Bullies and it works fine. Aussies aren’t regularly mauled to death by them
So it can be done. Do it
I predict - again - that the government will come under irresistible pressure to speed up on this when we encounter the next truly horrible video; probably involving a child
Speaking of refugees, I see that the US has taken in nearly 500,000 Venezuelan refugees, in the last year or so. Any chance Jeremy Corbyn would be willing to help them out by hosting a couple of families?
(He's been rather fond of the Chavista regime, if I recall correctly, so he might want to learn why so many are leaving that paradise.)
I think Corbyn's position would be that the West should drop its crippling sanctions on Venezuela. Which is, without a doubt, a big part of Venezuela's problem.
"A mother-of-three has been left fearing for her children's safety after a violent XL Bully-type dog got into her garden and killed the family's beloved pet cat – in violent scenes caught on CCTV.
Nima Begum, 40, was in her house when she heard a commotion outside and saw a man wrestling with the powerful animal.
He kept shouting 'Your cat is fine', even though his pet's jaws were covered in blood.
Ms Begum rushed outside and found her terrified cat Kiwi cowering in a tree, which she managed to get down with the help of a passer-by. But the tabby died before she could get her to a vet."
This is driving me nuts. How much longer is the government going to wait? Get a fucking move on. Just order immediate muzzling NOW. The whole country wants it. Only 10% oppose
While they dither the attacks will continue and soon enough we will be faced with an utterly hideous video of a tiny child being eaten alive
Muzzle these fuckers. Give the owners a slapping
Put it down as another useless intervention by our PM.
The Tories can go fuck themselves. Everything they do is performative. Nothing ever actually happens. Apart from cancelling HS2
If there is an issue with muzzling these dogs then get on TV and explain the problem. What is it?? In the last three days a man has been killed and a toddler nearly lost a leg
Still not as many deaths as the motor car so espoused by Mr Sunak. His refusal to go to 20mph zones and his ban of LTNs is going to kill many more people.
Not that that is any excuse for the dogs. The argument may be that the existing laws are sufficient in principle - dangerous dogs out of control in public and so on. Though we need a clear statement one way or another, as you say. And if they are sufficient, why do we still have the DDA on the statute book banning some breeds?
But the thing is, after the next inevitable and horrifying video of someone being mauled to death, the government will suddenly discover that it CAN do something immediately. In response to the public outcry. Meaning their immobility now is pitiful complacency or incompetence or thanks to some disgraceful lobbying by the RSPCA
I hope I’m wrong and this video never arrives
Quite so, on both points. Though it's not just the RSPCA, I am sure. There is a real threat to more politically influential owners' dogs. Remember Malmesbury's - Or at least I think it was him - suggestion that only the more working class breeds got it in the original DDA. not the equally dangerous but more upper class ones.
It wasn't me, but that kind of misses the point.
If you ask medics, the really damaging doc attacks they deal with generally come from a small number of breeds. Think plastic surgery to rebuild arms and faces.
There are other breeds that attack, but the bulk of the serious injuries....
Quite: the ones with large jaws and heavy musculature. Yet nothing seems to be happening - least of all in the way of announcements. Or if so I missed it. Ms Coffey would ne the one to listen to at the Mancunian conference, it being DEFRA's job. But all I can find on a quick check is this about gun control:
The reason the Dangerous Dogs act is Evul, Wrung and Stuuupid isn't the act itself. It is the concern that it grants the government carte blanche to ban type of dogs for attacking people.
So everyone with a dog is afraid they will come for Fido.
The result is a very vocal lobby of "don't ban any dogs" types. While they may be a minority, they are very active. See the recent petitions. This is a political red light - vocal, active minorities translate into voters.
It seems that the majority want a ban, but are not especially fired up over it. But a very fired up minority oppose a ban.
There may well be something in that.
The most dangerous breed in terms of total bites is the Labrador. Of course this is absurd in one sense as there are so many - but by the same token, there must be a lot of Lanrador owners fearful that their Rover gets the needle if something ever goes wrong.
The alternative is to look even harder at the dog's training - which is even more frightening.
Around 1% of the electorate have signed the "XL bully [...] loves children and people in general" petition and
The XL Bully? Do people not think there's a clue in the name?
I am not sure what I think about this. I'm currently living with my in-laws and their poorly-socialized Springer Spaniel, who I could unfortunately easily see biting someone in the wrong circumstances. It's not just the breed that can make a dog dangerous, but how well (or not) it's been trained.
I think this might be an example where an expansion of access to civil law would bring about improvements. If it was easier for people to sue the owners of dogs for the damage they cause, and the courts would hold people liable for the damage caused by their pets, then I think that would encourage dog owners to better train their dogs, keep them under better control when in public, choose more placid pets and provide remedy when these steps fail.
I don't think it's possible to draw a binary distinction between dog breeds that are safe and dog breeds that are unsafe, and so there will always be cases that can't be dealt with by banning a subset of dogs.
The nerf gun we have in the office has an unstable trigger. If you drop it, it can go off. And hit you in the ankle with a foam dart.
A Violet Club nuclear weapon could, if dropped, yield 25kt.
This is why nerf guns are unregulated. And nuclear weapons are.
It's pretty easy to draw a distinction between a nerf fun and a nuclear weapon. Is it so easy to draw distinctions between different dog breeds?
A private psychiatrist charges £360 per hour. Let's say they see 4 people per day. That's £1440.
Or £7200 per week. Maybe £345,000 per year.
Now I know there are various costs they will need to pay. Rental space, a (shared?) secretary, insurance. But even so, that seems like an awful lot of money. I wonder what the costs would be in similar countries.
An element of it being a Veblen good/service, where the demand might actually be higher the higher the price. How do you know your psychiatrist is any use? A lot of people are skeptical, and we have little ways of differentiating the good and bad so price might be a way of them highlighting perceived quality.
Or maybe they only want to work part time and set their rate accordingly.
From my economics study days I was never persuaded by the existence of Veblen goods: that the demand curve for a Veblen good is upward sloping.
For example, demand for a Louis Vuitton £1000 handbag would rise if the price changed to £2000? Surely not. I think the usual supply and demand rules apply.
A private psychiatrist charges £360 per hour. Let's say they see 4 people per day. That's £1440.
Or £7200 per week. Maybe £345,000 per year.
Now I know there are various costs they will need to pay. Rental space, a (shared?) secretary, insurance. But even so, that seems like an awful lot of money. I wonder what the costs would be in similar countries.
We're talking doctors, so the base rate must be what the NHS pays, which is either side of £100k a year for a full timer at consultant level. Multiply by three to cover the other costs and taxes... That's not untypical for that sort of business, is it?
I mean, it's expensive, but doctors are expensive. Probably the most expensive professionals most of us come into contact with on a regular basis. And psychiatry is one of those things that needs a lot of hours.
"A mother-of-three has been left fearing for her children's safety after a violent XL Bully-type dog got into her garden and killed the family's beloved pet cat – in violent scenes caught on CCTV.
Nima Begum, 40, was in her house when she heard a commotion outside and saw a man wrestling with the powerful animal.
He kept shouting 'Your cat is fine', even though his pet's jaws were covered in blood.
Ms Begum rushed outside and found her terrified cat Kiwi cowering in a tree, which she managed to get down with the help of a passer-by. But the tabby died before she could get her to a vet."
This is driving me nuts. How much longer is the government going to wait? Get a fucking move on. Just order immediate muzzling NOW. The whole country wants it. Only 10% oppose
While they dither the attacks will continue and soon enough we will be faced with an utterly hideous video of a tiny child being eaten alive
Muzzle these fuckers. Give the owners a slapping
Put it down as another useless intervention by our PM.
The Tories can go fuck themselves. Everything they do is performative. Nothing ever actually happens. Apart from cancelling HS2
If there is an issue with muzzling these dogs then get on TV and explain the problem. What is it?? In the last three days a man has been killed and a toddler nearly lost a leg
Still not as many deaths as the motor car so espoused by Mr Sunak. His refusal to go to 20mph zones and his ban of LTNs is going to kill many more people.
Not that that is any excuse for the dogs. The argument may be that the existing laws are sufficient in principle - dangerous dogs out of control in public and so on. Though we need a clear statement one way or another, as you say. And if they are sufficient, why do we still have the DDA on the statute book banning some breeds?
But the thing is, after the next inevitable and horrifying video of someone being mauled to death, the government will suddenly discover that it CAN do something immediately. In response to the public outcry. Meaning their immobility now is pitiful complacency or incompetence or thanks to some disgraceful lobbying by the RSPCA
I hope I’m wrong and this video never arrives
Quite so, on both points. Though it's not just the RSPCA, I am sure. There is a real threat to more politically influential owners' dogs. Remember Malmesbury's - Or at least I think it was him - suggestion that only the more working class breeds got it in the original DDA. not the equally dangerous but more upper class ones.
It wasn't me, but that kind of misses the point.
If you ask medics, the really damaging doc attacks they deal with generally come from a small number of breeds. Think plastic surgery to rebuild arms and faces.
There are other breeds that attack, but the bulk of the serious injuries....
Quite: the ones with large jaws and heavy musculature. Yet nothing seems to be happening - least of all in the way of announcements. Or if so I missed it. Ms Coffey would ne the one to listen to at the Mancunian conference, it being DEFRA's job. But all I can find on a quick check is this about gun control:
The reason the Dangerous Dogs act is Evul, Wrung and Stuuupid isn't the act itself. It is the concern that it grants the government carte blanche to ban type of dogs for attacking people.
So everyone with a dog is afraid they will come for Fido.
The result is a very vocal lobby of "don't ban any dogs" types. While they may be a minority, they are very active. See the recent petitions. This is a political red light - vocal, active minorities translate into voters.
It seems that the majority want a ban, but are not especially fired up over it. But a very fired up minority oppose a ban.
There may well be something in that.
The most dangerous breed in terms of total bites is the Labrador. Of course this is absurd in one sense as there are so many - but by the same token, there must be a lot of Lanrador owners fearful that their Rover gets the needle if something ever goes wrong.
The alternative is to look even harder at the dog's training - which is even more frightening.
Around 1% of the electorate have signed the "XL bully [...] loves children and people in general" petition and
The XL Bully? Do people not think there's a clue in the name?
I am not sure what I think about this. I'm currently living with my in-laws and their poorly-socialized Springer Spaniel, who I could unfortunately easily see biting someone in the wrong circumstances. It's not just the breed that can make a dog dangerous, but how well (or not) it's been trained.
I think this might be an example where an expansion of access to civil law would bring about improvements. If it was easier for people to sue the owners of dogs for the damage they cause, and the courts would hold people liable for the damage caused by their pets, then I think that would encourage dog owners to better train their dogs, keep them under better control when in public, choose more placid pets and provide remedy when these steps fail.
I don't think it's possible to draw a binary distinction between dog breeds that are safe and dog breeds that are unsafe, and so there will always be cases that can't be dealt with by banning a subset of dogs.
To avoid accusations of dog racism, why not adopt something like a 3 strikes and you're out policy. Any breed that is involved in 3 attacks leading to serious injury of someone other than the adult owner (and excluding sepsis from bites) is automatically banned. After 2 such attacks, compulsory muzzling outside the home.
Doesn't that tend towards having every breed of dog banned, eventually?
"A mother-of-three has been left fearing for her children's safety after a violent XL Bully-type dog got into her garden and killed the family's beloved pet cat – in violent scenes caught on CCTV.
Nima Begum, 40, was in her house when she heard a commotion outside and saw a man wrestling with the powerful animal.
He kept shouting 'Your cat is fine', even though his pet's jaws were covered in blood.
Ms Begum rushed outside and found her terrified cat Kiwi cowering in a tree, which she managed to get down with the help of a passer-by. But the tabby died before she could get her to a vet."
This is driving me nuts. How much longer is the government going to wait? Get a fucking move on. Just order immediate muzzling NOW. The whole country wants it. Only 10% oppose
While they dither the attacks will continue and soon enough we will be faced with an utterly hideous video of a tiny child being eaten alive
Muzzle these fuckers. Give the owners a slapping
Put it down as another useless intervention by our PM.
The Tories can go fuck themselves. Everything they do is performative. Nothing ever actually happens. Apart from cancelling HS2
If there is an issue with muzzling these dogs then get on TV and explain the problem. What is it?? In the last three days a man has been killed and a toddler nearly lost a leg
Still not as many deaths as the motor car so espoused by Mr Sunak. His refusal to go to 20mph zones and his ban of LTNs is going to kill many more people.
Not that that is any excuse for the dogs. The argument may be that the existing laws are sufficient in principle - dangerous dogs out of control in public and so on. Though we need a clear statement one way or another, as you say. And if they are sufficient, why do we still have the DDA on the statute book banning some breeds?
But the thing is, after the next inevitable and horrifying video of someone being mauled to death, the government will suddenly discover that it CAN do something immediately. In response to the public outcry. Meaning their immobility now is pitiful complacency or incompetence or thanks to some disgraceful lobbying by the RSPCA
I hope I’m wrong and this video never arrives
Quite so, on both points. Though it's not just the RSPCA, I am sure. There is a real threat to more politically influential owners' dogs. Remember Malmesbury's - Or at least I think it was him - suggestion that only the more working class breeds got it in the original DDA. not the equally dangerous but more upper class ones.
It wasn't me, but that kind of misses the point.
If you ask medics, the really damaging doc attacks they deal with generally come from a small number of breeds. Think plastic surgery to rebuild arms and faces.
There are other breeds that attack, but the bulk of the serious injuries....
Quite: the ones with large jaws and heavy musculature. Yet nothing seems to be happening - least of all in the way of announcements. Or if so I missed it. Ms Coffey would ne the one to listen to at the Mancunian conference, it being DEFRA's job. But all I can find on a quick check is this about gun control:
The reason the Dangerous Dogs act is Evul, Wrung and Stuuupid isn't the act itself. It is the concern that it grants the government carte blanche to ban type of dogs for attacking people.
So everyone with a dog is afraid they will come for Fido.
The result is a very vocal lobby of "don't ban any dogs" types. While they may be a minority, they are very active. See the recent petitions. This is a political red light - vocal, active minorities translate into voters.
It seems that the majority want a ban, but are not especially fired up over it. But a very fired up minority oppose a ban.
There may well be something in that.
The most dangerous breed in terms of total bites is the Labrador. Of course this is absurd in one sense as there are so many - but by the same token, there must be a lot of Lanrador owners fearful that their Rover gets the needle if something ever goes wrong.
The alternative is to look even harder at the dog's training - which is even more frightening.
Around 1% of the electorate have signed the "XL bully [...] loves children and people in general" petition and
The XL Bully? Do people not think there's a clue in the name?
I am not sure what I think about this. I'm currently living with my in-laws and their poorly-socialized Springer Spaniel, who I could unfortunately easily see biting someone in the wrong circumstances. It's not just the breed that can make a dog dangerous, but how well (or not) it's been trained.
I think this might be an example where an expansion of access to civil law would bring about improvements. If it was easier for people to sue the owners of dogs for the damage they cause, and the courts would hold people liable for the damage caused by their pets, then I think that would encourage dog owners to better train their dogs, keep them under better control when in public, choose more placid pets and provide remedy when these steps fail.
I don't think it's possible to draw a binary distinction between dog breeds that are safe and dog breeds that are unsafe, and so there will always be cases that can't be dealt with by banning a subset of dogs.
The nerf gun we have in the office has an unstable trigger. If you drop it, it can go off. And hit you in the ankle with a foam dart.
A Violet Club nuclear weapon could, if dropped, yield 25kt.
This is why nerf guns are unregulated. And nuclear weapons are.
It's pretty easy to draw a distinction between a nerf fun and a nuclear weapon. Is it so easy to draw distinctions between different dog breeds?
"A mother-of-three has been left fearing for her children's safety after a violent XL Bully-type dog got into her garden and killed the family's beloved pet cat – in violent scenes caught on CCTV.
Nima Begum, 40, was in her house when she heard a commotion outside and saw a man wrestling with the powerful animal.
He kept shouting 'Your cat is fine', even though his pet's jaws were covered in blood.
Ms Begum rushed outside and found her terrified cat Kiwi cowering in a tree, which she managed to get down with the help of a passer-by. But the tabby died before she could get her to a vet."
This is driving me nuts. How much longer is the government going to wait? Get a fucking move on. Just order immediate muzzling NOW. The whole country wants it. Only 10% oppose
While they dither the attacks will continue and soon enough we will be faced with an utterly hideous video of a tiny child being eaten alive
Muzzle these fuckers. Give the owners a slapping
Put it down as another useless intervention by our PM.
The Tories can go fuck themselves. Everything they do is performative. Nothing ever actually happens. Apart from cancelling HS2
If there is an issue with muzzling these dogs then get on TV and explain the problem. What is it?? In the last three days a man has been killed and a toddler nearly lost a leg
Still not as many deaths as the motor car so espoused by Mr Sunak. His refusal to go to 20mph zones and his ban of LTNs is going to kill many more people.
Not that that is any excuse for the dogs. The argument may be that the existing laws are sufficient in principle - dangerous dogs out of control in public and so on. Though we need a clear statement one way or another, as you say. And if they are sufficient, why do we still have the DDA on the statute book banning some breeds?
But the thing is, after the next inevitable and horrifying video of someone being mauled to death, the government will suddenly discover that it CAN do something immediately. In response to the public outcry. Meaning their immobility now is pitiful complacency or incompetence or thanks to some disgraceful lobbying by the RSPCA
I hope I’m wrong and this video never arrives
Quite so, on both points. Though it's not just the RSPCA, I am sure. There is a real threat to more politically influential owners' dogs. Remember Malmesbury's - Or at least I think it was him - suggestion that only the more working class breeds got it in the original DDA. not the equally dangerous but more upper class ones.
It wasn't me, but that kind of misses the point.
If you ask medics, the really damaging doc attacks they deal with generally come from a small number of breeds. Think plastic surgery to rebuild arms and faces.
There are other breeds that attack, but the bulk of the serious injuries....
Quite: the ones with large jaws and heavy musculature. Yet nothing seems to be happening - least of all in the way of announcements. Or if so I missed it. Ms Coffey would ne the one to listen to at the Mancunian conference, it being DEFRA's job. But all I can find on a quick check is this about gun control:
The reason the Dangerous Dogs act is Evul, Wrung and Stuuupid isn't the act itself. It is the concern that it grants the government carte blanche to ban type of dogs for attacking people.
So everyone with a dog is afraid they will come for Fido.
The result is a very vocal lobby of "don't ban any dogs" types. While they may be a minority, they are very active. See the recent petitions. This is a political red light - vocal, active minorities translate into voters.
It seems that the majority want a ban, but are not especially fired up over it. But a very fired up minority oppose a ban.
There may well be something in that.
The most dangerous breed in terms of total bites is the Labrador. Of course this is absurd in one sense as there are so many - but by the same token, there must be a lot of Lanrador owners fearful that their Rover gets the needle if something ever goes wrong.
The alternative is to look even harder at the dog's training - which is even more frightening.
Around 1% of the electorate have signed the "XL bully [...] loves children and people in general" petition and
The XL Bully? Do people not think there's a clue in the name?
I am not sure what I think about this. I'm currently living with my in-laws and their poorly-socialized Springer Spaniel, who I could unfortunately easily see biting someone in the wrong circumstances. It's not just the breed that can make a dog dangerous, but how well (or not) it's been trained.
I think this might be an example where an expansion of access to civil law would bring about improvements. If it was easier for people to sue the owners of dogs for the damage they cause, and the courts would hold people liable for the damage caused by their pets, then I think that would encourage dog owners to better train their dogs, keep them under better control when in public, choose more placid pets and provide remedy when these steps fail.
I don't think it's possible to draw a binary distinction between dog breeds that are safe and dog breeds that are unsafe, and so there will always be cases that can't be dealt with by banning a subset of dogs.
To avoid accusations of dog racism, why not adopt something like a 3 strikes and you're out policy. Any breed that is involved in 3 attacks leading to serious injury of someone other than the adult owner (and excluding sepsis from bites) is automatically banned. After 2 such attacks, compulsory muzzling outside the home.
Doesn't that tend towards having every breed of dog banned, eventually?
Miaow, I couldn't purrsibly comment.
Imagine if cat-owners were charged for the wildlife destruction their cats are responsible for?
"A mother-of-three has been left fearing for her children's safety after a violent XL Bully-type dog got into her garden and killed the family's beloved pet cat – in violent scenes caught on CCTV.
Nima Begum, 40, was in her house when she heard a commotion outside and saw a man wrestling with the powerful animal.
He kept shouting 'Your cat is fine', even though his pet's jaws were covered in blood.
Ms Begum rushed outside and found her terrified cat Kiwi cowering in a tree, which she managed to get down with the help of a passer-by. But the tabby died before she could get her to a vet."
This is driving me nuts. How much longer is the government going to wait? Get a fucking move on. Just order immediate muzzling NOW. The whole country wants it. Only 10% oppose
While they dither the attacks will continue and soon enough we will be faced with an utterly hideous video of a tiny child being eaten alive
Muzzle these fuckers. Give the owners a slapping
Put it down as another useless intervention by our PM.
The Tories can go fuck themselves. Everything they do is performative. Nothing ever actually happens. Apart from cancelling HS2
If there is an issue with muzzling these dogs then get on TV and explain the problem. What is it?? In the last three days a man has been killed and a toddler nearly lost a leg
Still not as many deaths as the motor car so espoused by Mr Sunak. His refusal to go to 20mph zones and his ban of LTNs is going to kill many more people.
Not that that is any excuse for the dogs. The argument may be that the existing laws are sufficient in principle - dangerous dogs out of control in public and so on. Though we need a clear statement one way or another, as you say. And if they are sufficient, why do we still have the DDA on the statute book banning some breeds?
But the thing is, after the next inevitable and horrifying video of someone being mauled to death, the government will suddenly discover that it CAN do something immediately. In response to the public outcry. Meaning their immobility now is pitiful complacency or incompetence or thanks to some disgraceful lobbying by the RSPCA
I hope I’m wrong and this video never arrives
Quite so, on both points. Though it's not just the RSPCA, I am sure. There is a real threat to more politically influential owners' dogs. Remember Malmesbury's - Or at least I think it was him - suggestion that only the more working class breeds got it in the original DDA. not the equally dangerous but more upper class ones.
It wasn't me, but that kind of misses the point.
If you ask medics, the really damaging doc attacks they deal with generally come from a small number of breeds. Think plastic surgery to rebuild arms and faces.
There are other breeds that attack, but the bulk of the serious injuries....
Quite: the ones with large jaws and heavy musculature. Yet nothing seems to be happening - least of all in the way of announcements. Or if so I missed it. Ms Coffey would ne the one to listen to at the Mancunian conference, it being DEFRA's job. But all I can find on a quick check is this about gun control:
The reason the Dangerous Dogs act is Evul, Wrung and Stuuupid isn't the act itself. It is the concern that it grants the government carte blanche to ban type of dogs for attacking people.
So everyone with a dog is afraid they will come for Fido.
The result is a very vocal lobby of "don't ban any dogs" types. While they may be a minority, they are very active. See the recent petitions. This is a political red light - vocal, active minorities translate into voters.
It seems that the majority want a ban, but are not especially fired up over it. But a very fired up minority oppose a ban.
There may well be something in that.
The most dangerous breed in terms of total bites is the Labrador. Of course this is absurd in one sense as there are so many - but by the same token, there must be a lot of Lanrador owners fearful that their Rover gets the needle if something ever goes wrong.
The alternative is to look even harder at the dog's training - which is even more frightening.
Around 1% of the electorate have signed the "XL bully [...] loves children and people in general" petition and
The XL Bully? Do people not think there's a clue in the name?
I am not sure what I think about this. I'm currently living with my in-laws and their poorly-socialized Springer Spaniel, who I could unfortunately easily see biting someone in the wrong circumstances. It's not just the breed that can make a dog dangerous, but how well (or not) it's been trained.
I think this might be an example where an expansion of access to civil law would bring about improvements. If it was easier for people to sue the owners of dogs for the damage they cause, and the courts would hold people liable for the damage caused by their pets, then I think that would encourage dog owners to better train their dogs, keep them under better control when in public, choose more placid pets and provide remedy when these steps fail.
I don't think it's possible to draw a binary distinction between dog breeds that are safe and dog breeds that are unsafe, and so there will always be cases that can't be dealt with by banning a subset of dogs.
The nerf gun we have in the office has an unstable trigger. If you drop it, it can go off. And hit you in the ankle with a foam dart.
A Violet Club nuclear weapon could, if dropped, yield 25kt.
This is why nerf guns are unregulated. And nuclear weapons are.
It's pretty easy to draw a distinction between a nerf fun and a nuclear weapon. Is it so easy to draw distinctions between different dog breeds?
I was talking to someone today whose husband does dog sitting for up to 8 mutts at a time. I asked her does he do XL Bullies and she said no definitely not, "we don't dogsit any of those sorts of breeds, it would be too risky".
"A mother-of-three has been left fearing for her children's safety after a violent XL Bully-type dog got into her garden and killed the family's beloved pet cat – in violent scenes caught on CCTV.
Nima Begum, 40, was in her house when she heard a commotion outside and saw a man wrestling with the powerful animal.
He kept shouting 'Your cat is fine', even though his pet's jaws were covered in blood.
Ms Begum rushed outside and found her terrified cat Kiwi cowering in a tree, which she managed to get down with the help of a passer-by. But the tabby died before she could get her to a vet."
This is driving me nuts. How much longer is the government going to wait? Get a fucking move on. Just order immediate muzzling NOW. The whole country wants it. Only 10% oppose
While they dither the attacks will continue and soon enough we will be faced with an utterly hideous video of a tiny child being eaten alive
Muzzle these fuckers. Give the owners a slapping
Put it down as another useless intervention by our PM.
The Tories can go fuck themselves. Everything they do is performative. Nothing ever actually happens. Apart from cancelling HS2
If there is an issue with muzzling these dogs then get on TV and explain the problem. What is it?? In the last three days a man has been killed and a toddler nearly lost a leg
Still not as many deaths as the motor car so espoused by Mr Sunak. His refusal to go to 20mph zones and his ban of LTNs is going to kill many more people.
Not that that is any excuse for the dogs. The argument may be that the existing laws are sufficient in principle - dangerous dogs out of control in public and so on. Though we need a clear statement one way or another, as you say. And if they are sufficient, why do we still have the DDA on the statute book banning some breeds?
But the thing is, after the next inevitable and horrifying video of someone being mauled to death, the government will suddenly discover that it CAN do something immediately. In response to the public outcry. Meaning their immobility now is pitiful complacency or incompetence or thanks to some disgraceful lobbying by the RSPCA
I hope I’m wrong and this video never arrives
Quite so, on both points. Though it's not just the RSPCA, I am sure. There is a real threat to more politically influential owners' dogs. Remember Malmesbury's - Or at least I think it was him - suggestion that only the more working class breeds got it in the original DDA. not the equally dangerous but more upper class ones.
It wasn't me, but that kind of misses the point.
If you ask medics, the really damaging doc attacks they deal with generally come from a small number of breeds. Think plastic surgery to rebuild arms and faces.
There are other breeds that attack, but the bulk of the serious injuries....
Quite: the ones with large jaws and heavy musculature. Yet nothing seems to be happening - least of all in the way of announcements. Or if so I missed it. Ms Coffey would ne the one to listen to at the Mancunian conference, it being DEFRA's job. But all I can find on a quick check is this about gun control:
The reason the Dangerous Dogs act is Evul, Wrung and Stuuupid isn't the act itself. It is the concern that it grants the government carte blanche to ban type of dogs for attacking people.
So everyone with a dog is afraid they will come for Fido.
The result is a very vocal lobby of "don't ban any dogs" types. While they may be a minority, they are very active. See the recent petitions. This is a political red light - vocal, active minorities translate into voters.
It seems that the majority want a ban, but are not especially fired up over it. But a very fired up minority oppose a ban.
There may well be something in that.
The most dangerous breed in terms of total bites is the Labrador. Of course this is absurd in one sense as there are so many - but by the same token, there must be a lot of Lanrador owners fearful that their Rover gets the needle if something ever goes wrong.
The alternative is to look even harder at the dog's training - which is even more frightening.
Around 1% of the electorate have signed the "XL bully [...] loves children and people in general" petition and
The XL Bully? Do people not think there's a clue in the name?
I am not sure what I think about this. I'm currently living with my in-laws and their poorly-socialized Springer Spaniel, who I could unfortunately easily see biting someone in the wrong circumstances. It's not just the breed that can make a dog dangerous, but how well (or not) it's been trained.
I think this might be an example where an expansion of access to civil law would bring about improvements. If it was easier for people to sue the owners of dogs for the damage they cause, and the courts would hold people liable for the damage caused by their pets, then I think that would encourage dog owners to better train their dogs, keep them under better control when in public, choose more placid pets and provide remedy when these steps fail.
I don't think it's possible to draw a binary distinction between dog breeds that are safe and dog breeds that are unsafe, and so there will always be cases that can't be dealt with by banning a subset of dogs.
The nerf gun we have in the office has an unstable trigger. If you drop it, it can go off. And hit you in the ankle with a foam dart.
A Violet Club nuclear weapon could, if dropped, yield 25kt.
This is why nerf guns are unregulated. And nuclear weapons are.
It's pretty easy to draw a distinction between a nerf fun and a nuclear weapon. Is it so easy to draw distinctions between different dog breeds?
Injury rates per attack show a pretty stark effect.
Consider this - the domestic cat. They attack people on occasion. Stuff happens. Why do we regulate owning leopards? They are actually quite similar in temperament to a domestic cat.
I think that the HS2 announcement and list of possible local alternatives is going to be like one of those Budget statements - it looks good at first glance but when you start investing the detail it falls apart.
Did it even look good at first glance?
Not really. Even as Sunak was listing the things he would do instead I was thinking "I'm pretty sure this isn't new."
Even if they were.
If you are truly serious about upgrading infrastructure, you have to have an overall consistent plan, how train will link to into the buses, to planes, to cars, integration with freight etc etc etc.
Reading out a list of random projects isn't that.
It is also why HS2 was terrible name and all wrong PR focused on a high-speed line.
Rather than this is how we are going to upgrade infrastructure across the country. We could have done this from 2008 onwards, you could borrow to build while still getting every day spending under control.
I remember being berated at a public meeting in Oxford, for asking why the bus station wasn’t put next to the railway station. As opposed the Said School of Land Mines.
As any fule kno, the bus station was where it was so you could walk straight into the Welsh Pony and get into the draught cider straight from the wood (or the draught milk if you were a rower).
Of course, IKB didn't have the foresight to build the railway station there. One of his less well known lapses). But tbf if he had been allowed to continue the line of the original railway northwards that would have been tickety-boo (had a friend who lived on the remains of the line, one of the interesting little quirks of that side of Oxford).
"Psychiatrist" and "Psychologist" are defined terms. The former has a MD, can prescribe, and interprets things in terms of chemical imbalances in the body. The latter has a degree in psychology and interprets things according to various theories.
"Counsellor" and "Therapist" are not-so-defined terms. They are just civilians who like to listen and have a couple of comfy seats.
A private psychiatrist charges £360 per hour. Let's say they see 4 people per day. That's £1440.
Or £7200 per week. Maybe £345,000 per year.
Now I know there are various costs they will need to pay. Rental space, a (shared?) secretary, insurance. But even so, that seems like an awful lot of money. I wonder what the costs would be in similar countries.
An element of it being a Veblen good/service, where the demand might actually be higher the higher the price. How do you know your psychiatrist is any use? A lot of people are skeptical, and we have little ways of differentiating the good and bad so price might be a way of them highlighting perceived quality.
Or maybe they only want to work part time and set their rate accordingly.
From my economics study days I was never persuaded by the existence of Veblen goods: that the demand curve for a Veblen good is upward sloping.
For example, demand for a Louis Vuitton £1000 handbag would rise if the price changed to £2000? Surely not. I think the usual supply and demand rules apply.
If they were priced at cost plus margin, you would never have heard of Louis Vuitton......
"A mother-of-three has been left fearing for her children's safety after a violent XL Bully-type dog got into her garden and killed the family's beloved pet cat – in violent scenes caught on CCTV.
Nima Begum, 40, was in her house when she heard a commotion outside and saw a man wrestling with the powerful animal.
He kept shouting 'Your cat is fine', even though his pet's jaws were covered in blood.
Ms Begum rushed outside and found her terrified cat Kiwi cowering in a tree, which she managed to get down with the help of a passer-by. But the tabby died before she could get her to a vet."
This is driving me nuts. How much longer is the government going to wait? Get a fucking move on. Just order immediate muzzling NOW. The whole country wants it. Only 10% oppose
While they dither the attacks will continue and soon enough we will be faced with an utterly hideous video of a tiny child being eaten alive
Muzzle these fuckers. Give the owners a slapping
Put it down as another useless intervention by our PM.
The Tories can go fuck themselves. Everything they do is performative. Nothing ever actually happens. Apart from cancelling HS2
If there is an issue with muzzling these dogs then get on TV and explain the problem. What is it?? In the last three days a man has been killed and a toddler nearly lost a leg
Still not as many deaths as the motor car so espoused by Mr Sunak. His refusal to go to 20mph zones and his ban of LTNs is going to kill many more people.
Not that that is any excuse for the dogs. The argument may be that the existing laws are sufficient in principle - dangerous dogs out of control in public and so on. Though we need a clear statement one way or another, as you say. And if they are sufficient, why do we still have the DDA on the statute book banning some breeds?
But the thing is, after the next inevitable and horrifying video of someone being mauled to death, the government will suddenly discover that it CAN do something immediately. In response to the public outcry. Meaning their immobility now is pitiful complacency or incompetence or thanks to some disgraceful lobbying by the RSPCA
I hope I’m wrong and this video never arrives
Quite so, on both points. Though it's not just the RSPCA, I am sure. There is a real threat to more politically influential owners' dogs. Remember Malmesbury's - Or at least I think it was him - suggestion that only the more working class breeds got it in the original DDA. not the equally dangerous but more upper class ones.
It wasn't me, but that kind of misses the point.
If you ask medics, the really damaging doc attacks they deal with generally come from a small number of breeds. Think plastic surgery to rebuild arms and faces.
There are other breeds that attack, but the bulk of the serious injuries....
Quite: the ones with large jaws and heavy musculature. Yet nothing seems to be happening - least of all in the way of announcements. Or if so I missed it. Ms Coffey would ne the one to listen to at the Mancunian conference, it being DEFRA's job. But all I can find on a quick check is this about gun control:
The reason the Dangerous Dogs act is Evul, Wrung and Stuuupid isn't the act itself. It is the concern that it grants the government carte blanche to ban type of dogs for attacking people.
So everyone with a dog is afraid they will come for Fido.
The result is a very vocal lobby of "don't ban any dogs" types. While they may be a minority, they are very active. See the recent petitions. This is a political red light - vocal, active minorities translate into voters.
It seems that the majority want a ban, but are not especially fired up over it. But a very fired up minority oppose a ban.
There may well be something in that.
The most dangerous breed in terms of total bites is the Labrador. Of course this is absurd in one sense as there are so many - but by the same token, there must be a lot of Lanrador owners fearful that their Rover gets the needle if something ever goes wrong.
The alternative is to look even harder at the dog's training - which is even more frightening.
Around 1% of the electorate have signed the "XL bully [...] loves children and people in general" petition and
The XL Bully? Do people not think there's a clue in the name?
I am not sure what I think about this. I'm currently living with my in-laws and their poorly-socialized Springer Spaniel, who I could unfortunately easily see biting someone in the wrong circumstances. It's not just the breed that can make a dog dangerous, but how well (or not) it's been trained.
I think this might be an example where an expansion of access to civil law would bring about improvements. If it was easier for people to sue the owners of dogs for the damage they cause, and the courts would hold people liable for the damage caused by their pets, then I think that would encourage dog owners to better train their dogs, keep them under better control when in public, choose more placid pets and provide remedy when these steps fail.
I don't think it's possible to draw a binary distinction between dog breeds that are safe and dog breeds that are unsafe, and so there will always be cases that can't be dealt with by banning a subset of dogs.
To avoid accusations of dog racism, why not adopt something like a 3 strikes and you're out policy. Any breed that is involved in 3 attacks leading to serious injury of someone other than the adult owner (and excluding sepsis from bites) is automatically banned. After 2 such attacks, compulsory muzzling outside the home.
Doesn't that tend towards having every breed of dog banned, eventually?
Miaow, I couldn't purrsibly comment.
Imagine if cat-owners were charged for the wildlife destruction their cats are responsible for?
Not to mention the toxoplasmosis. But that's why cat owners are insane anyway.
"A mother-of-three has been left fearing for her children's safety after a violent XL Bully-type dog got into her garden and killed the family's beloved pet cat – in violent scenes caught on CCTV.
Nima Begum, 40, was in her house when she heard a commotion outside and saw a man wrestling with the powerful animal.
He kept shouting 'Your cat is fine', even though his pet's jaws were covered in blood.
Ms Begum rushed outside and found her terrified cat Kiwi cowering in a tree, which she managed to get down with the help of a passer-by. But the tabby died before she could get her to a vet."
This is driving me nuts. How much longer is the government going to wait? Get a fucking move on. Just order immediate muzzling NOW. The whole country wants it. Only 10% oppose
While they dither the attacks will continue and soon enough we will be faced with an utterly hideous video of a tiny child being eaten alive
Muzzle these fuckers. Give the owners a slapping
Put it down as another useless intervention by our PM.
The Tories can go fuck themselves. Everything they do is performative. Nothing ever actually happens. Apart from cancelling HS2
If there is an issue with muzzling these dogs then get on TV and explain the problem. What is it?? In the last three days a man has been killed and a toddler nearly lost a leg
Still not as many deaths as the motor car so espoused by Mr Sunak. His refusal to go to 20mph zones and his ban of LTNs is going to kill many more people.
Not that that is any excuse for the dogs. The argument may be that the existing laws are sufficient in principle - dangerous dogs out of control in public and so on. Though we need a clear statement one way or another, as you say. And if they are sufficient, why do we still have the DDA on the statute book banning some breeds?
But the thing is, after the next inevitable and horrifying video of someone being mauled to death, the government will suddenly discover that it CAN do something immediately. In response to the public outcry. Meaning their immobility now is pitiful complacency or incompetence or thanks to some disgraceful lobbying by the RSPCA
I hope I’m wrong and this video never arrives
Quite so, on both points. Though it's not just the RSPCA, I am sure. There is a real threat to more politically influential owners' dogs. Remember Malmesbury's - Or at least I think it was him - suggestion that only the more working class breeds got it in the original DDA. not the equally dangerous but more upper class ones.
It wasn't me, but that kind of misses the point.
If you ask medics, the really damaging doc attacks they deal with generally come from a small number of breeds. Think plastic surgery to rebuild arms and faces.
There are other breeds that attack, but the bulk of the serious injuries....
Quite: the ones with large jaws and heavy musculature. Yet nothing seems to be happening - least of all in the way of announcements. Or if so I missed it. Ms Coffey would ne the one to listen to at the Mancunian conference, it being DEFRA's job. But all I can find on a quick check is this about gun control:
The reason the Dangerous Dogs act is Evul, Wrung and Stuuupid isn't the act itself. It is the concern that it grants the government carte blanche to ban type of dogs for attacking people.
So everyone with a dog is afraid they will come for Fido.
The result is a very vocal lobby of "don't ban any dogs" types. While they may be a minority, they are very active. See the recent petitions. This is a political red light - vocal, active minorities translate into voters.
It seems that the majority want a ban, but are not especially fired up over it. But a very fired up minority oppose a ban.
There may well be something in that.
The most dangerous breed in terms of total bites is the Labrador. Of course this is absurd in one sense as there are so many - but by the same token, there must be a lot of Lanrador owners fearful that their Rover gets the needle if something ever goes wrong.
The alternative is to look even harder at the dog's training - which is even more frightening.
Around 1% of the electorate have signed the "XL bully [...] loves children and people in general" petition and
The XL Bully? Do people not think there's a clue in the name?
I am not sure what I think about this. I'm currently living with my in-laws and their poorly-socialized Springer Spaniel, who I could unfortunately easily see biting someone in the wrong circumstances. It's not just the breed that can make a dog dangerous, but how well (or not) it's been trained.
I think this might be an example where an expansion of access to civil law would bring about improvements. If it was easier for people to sue the owners of dogs for the damage they cause, and the courts would hold people liable for the damage caused by their pets, then I think that would encourage dog owners to better train their dogs, keep them under better control when in public, choose more placid pets and provide remedy when these steps fail.
I don't think it's possible to draw a binary distinction between dog breeds that are safe and dog breeds that are unsafe, and so there will always be cases that can't be dealt with by banning a subset of dogs.
To avoid accusations of dog racism, why not adopt something like a 3 strikes and you're out policy. Any breed that is involved in 3 attacks leading to serious injury of someone other than the adult owner (and excluding sepsis from bites) is automatically banned. After 2 such attacks, compulsory muzzling outside the home.
Doesn't that tend towards having every breed of dog banned, eventually?
Miaow, I couldn't purrsibly comment.
Imagine if cat-owners were charged for the wildlife destruction their cats are responsible for?
I have actually been hospitalised by a cat twice in the last few years.
The first one was a Saturday morning, a local cat (we didn't know who owned it) which had been breaking in at night and terrorising our two before usually leaving a shit on the kitchen floor, had got in but couldn't get back out. I grabbed it with the intention of putting it into a basket and taking to the vets to be snipped, assuming it an un-neutered Tom. It bit me deep in the thumb, at which I threw it on the floor. 24 hours later I was in hospital with a septic arm on IV antibiotics, and the cat had only one eye, the throwing on the floor having injured it beyond repair. Turned out the offending cat was a spayed female owned by our nice neighbours up the road.
Second was a couple of months ago on a Sunday night in the early hours. I picked up one of our cats to carry downstairs to the kitchen. I slipped on the steps and fell breaking 4 ribs. Spent 2 nights in hospital.
Cats seem to have it in for me. There is perhaps a karmic element to this after an unfortunate event that took place back in 2007.
"A mother-of-three has been left fearing for her children's safety after a violent XL Bully-type dog got into her garden and killed the family's beloved pet cat – in violent scenes caught on CCTV.
Nima Begum, 40, was in her house when she heard a commotion outside and saw a man wrestling with the powerful animal.
He kept shouting 'Your cat is fine', even though his pet's jaws were covered in blood.
Ms Begum rushed outside and found her terrified cat Kiwi cowering in a tree, which she managed to get down with the help of a passer-by. But the tabby died before she could get her to a vet."
This is driving me nuts. How much longer is the government going to wait? Get a fucking move on. Just order immediate muzzling NOW. The whole country wants it. Only 10% oppose
While they dither the attacks will continue and soon enough we will be faced with an utterly hideous video of a tiny child being eaten alive
Muzzle these fuckers. Give the owners a slapping
Put it down as another useless intervention by our PM.
The Tories can go fuck themselves. Everything they do is performative. Nothing ever actually happens. Apart from cancelling HS2
If there is an issue with muzzling these dogs then get on TV and explain the problem. What is it?? In the last three days a man has been killed and a toddler nearly lost a leg
Still not as many deaths as the motor car so espoused by Mr Sunak. His refusal to go to 20mph zones and his ban of LTNs is going to kill many more people.
Not that that is any excuse for the dogs. The argument may be that the existing laws are sufficient in principle - dangerous dogs out of control in public and so on. Though we need a clear statement one way or another, as you say. And if they are sufficient, why do we still have the DDA on the statute book banning some breeds?
But the thing is, after the next inevitable and horrifying video of someone being mauled to death, the government will suddenly discover that it CAN do something immediately. In response to the public outcry. Meaning their immobility now is pitiful complacency or incompetence or thanks to some disgraceful lobbying by the RSPCA
I hope I’m wrong and this video never arrives
Quite so, on both points. Though it's not just the RSPCA, I am sure. There is a real threat to more politically influential owners' dogs. Remember Malmesbury's - Or at least I think it was him - suggestion that only the more working class breeds got it in the original DDA. not the equally dangerous but more upper class ones.
It wasn't me, but that kind of misses the point.
If you ask medics, the really damaging doc attacks they deal with generally come from a small number of breeds. Think plastic surgery to rebuild arms and faces.
There are other breeds that attack, but the bulk of the serious injuries....
Quite: the ones with large jaws and heavy musculature. Yet nothing seems to be happening - least of all in the way of announcements. Or if so I missed it. Ms Coffey would ne the one to listen to at the Mancunian conference, it being DEFRA's job. But all I can find on a quick check is this about gun control:
The reason the Dangerous Dogs act is Evul, Wrung and Stuuupid isn't the act itself. It is the concern that it grants the government carte blanche to ban type of dogs for attacking people.
So everyone with a dog is afraid they will come for Fido.
The result is a very vocal lobby of "don't ban any dogs" types. While they may be a minority, they are very active. See the recent petitions. This is a political red light - vocal, active minorities translate into voters.
It seems that the majority want a ban, but are not especially fired up over it. But a very fired up minority oppose a ban.
There may well be something in that.
The most dangerous breed in terms of total bites is the Labrador. Of course this is absurd in one sense as there are so many - but by the same token, there must be a lot of Lanrador owners fearful that their Rover gets the needle if something ever goes wrong.
The alternative is to look even harder at the dog's training - which is even more frightening.
Around 1% of the electorate have signed the "XL bully [...] loves children and people in general" petition and
The XL Bully? Do people not think there's a clue in the name?
I am not sure what I think about this. I'm currently living with my in-laws and their poorly-socialized Springer Spaniel, who I could unfortunately easily see biting someone in the wrong circumstances. It's not just the breed that can make a dog dangerous, but how well (or not) it's been trained.
I think this might be an example where an expansion of access to civil law would bring about improvements. If it was easier for people to sue the owners of dogs for the damage they cause, and the courts would hold people liable for the damage caused by their pets, then I think that would encourage dog owners to better train their dogs, keep them under better control when in public, choose more placid pets and provide remedy when these steps fail.
I don't think it's possible to draw a binary distinction between dog breeds that are safe and dog breeds that are unsafe, and so there will always be cases that can't be dealt with by banning a subset of dogs.
The nerf gun we have in the office has an unstable trigger. If you drop it, it can go off. And hit you in the ankle with a foam dart.
A Violet Club nuclear weapon could, if dropped, yield 25kt.
This is why nerf guns are unregulated. And nuclear weapons are.
In some US States, it's illegal to buy Sparklers. Shotguns however, no problem.
"A mother-of-three has been left fearing for her children's safety after a violent XL Bully-type dog got into her garden and killed the family's beloved pet cat – in violent scenes caught on CCTV.
Nima Begum, 40, was in her house when she heard a commotion outside and saw a man wrestling with the powerful animal.
He kept shouting 'Your cat is fine', even though his pet's jaws were covered in blood.
Ms Begum rushed outside and found her terrified cat Kiwi cowering in a tree, which she managed to get down with the help of a passer-by. But the tabby died before she could get her to a vet."
This is driving me nuts. How much longer is the government going to wait? Get a fucking move on. Just order immediate muzzling NOW. The whole country wants it. Only 10% oppose
While they dither the attacks will continue and soon enough we will be faced with an utterly hideous video of a tiny child being eaten alive
Muzzle these fuckers. Give the owners a slapping
Put it down as another useless intervention by our PM.
The Tories can go fuck themselves. Everything they do is performative. Nothing ever actually happens. Apart from cancelling HS2
If there is an issue with muzzling these dogs then get on TV and explain the problem. What is it?? In the last three days a man has been killed and a toddler nearly lost a leg
Still not as many deaths as the motor car so espoused by Mr Sunak. His refusal to go to 20mph zones and his ban of LTNs is going to kill many more people.
Not that that is any excuse for the dogs. The argument may be that the existing laws are sufficient in principle - dangerous dogs out of control in public and so on. Though we need a clear statement one way or another, as you say. And if they are sufficient, why do we still have the DDA on the statute book banning some breeds?
But the thing is, after the next inevitable and horrifying video of someone being mauled to death, the government will suddenly discover that it CAN do something immediately. In response to the public outcry. Meaning their immobility now is pitiful complacency or incompetence or thanks to some disgraceful lobbying by the RSPCA
I hope I’m wrong and this video never arrives
Quite so, on both points. Though it's not just the RSPCA, I am sure. There is a real threat to more politically influential owners' dogs. Remember Malmesbury's - Or at least I think it was him - suggestion that only the more working class breeds got it in the original DDA. not the equally dangerous but more upper class ones.
It wasn't me, but that kind of misses the point.
If you ask medics, the really damaging doc attacks they deal with generally come from a small number of breeds. Think plastic surgery to rebuild arms and faces.
There are other breeds that attack, but the bulk of the serious injuries....
Quite: the ones with large jaws and heavy musculature. Yet nothing seems to be happening - least of all in the way of announcements. Or if so I missed it. Ms Coffey would ne the one to listen to at the Mancunian conference, it being DEFRA's job. But all I can find on a quick check is this about gun control:
The reason the Dangerous Dogs act is Evul, Wrung and Stuuupid isn't the act itself. It is the concern that it grants the government carte blanche to ban type of dogs for attacking people.
So everyone with a dog is afraid they will come for Fido.
The result is a very vocal lobby of "don't ban any dogs" types. While they may be a minority, they are very active. See the recent petitions. This is a political red light - vocal, active minorities translate into voters.
It seems that the majority want a ban, but are not especially fired up over it. But a very fired up minority oppose a ban.
There may well be something in that.
The most dangerous breed in terms of total bites is the Labrador. Of course this is absurd in one sense as there are so many - but by the same token, there must be a lot of Lanrador owners fearful that their Rover gets the needle if something ever goes wrong.
The alternative is to look even harder at the dog's training - which is even more frightening.
Around 1% of the electorate have signed the "XL bully [...] loves children and people in general" petition and
The XL Bully? Do people not think there's a clue in the name?
I am not sure what I think about this. I'm currently living with my in-laws and their poorly-socialized Springer Spaniel, who I could unfortunately easily see biting someone in the wrong circumstances. It's not just the breed that can make a dog dangerous, but how well (or not) it's been trained.
I think this might be an example where an expansion of access to civil law would bring about improvements. If it was easier for people to sue the owners of dogs for the damage they cause, and the courts would hold people liable for the damage caused by their pets, then I think that would encourage dog owners to better train their dogs, keep them under better control when in public, choose more placid pets and provide remedy when these steps fail.
I don't think it's possible to draw a binary distinction between dog breeds that are safe and dog breeds that are unsafe, and so there will always be cases that can't be dealt with by banning a subset of dogs.
The nerf gun we have in the office has an unstable trigger. If you drop it, it can go off. And hit you in the ankle with a foam dart.
A Violet Club nuclear weapon could, if dropped, yield 25kt.
This is why nerf guns are unregulated. And nuclear weapons are.
It's pretty easy to draw a distinction between a nerf fun and a nuclear weapon. Is it so easy to draw distinctions between different dog breeds?
I was under the impression that Rottweilers and Bull Terriers were already banned by the DDA, but they're still responsible for recent attacks.
I guess I'm wondering whether simply banning this single breed is going to be all that effective, as opposed to a more general change in the law that would make it clear that owners were responsible for the actions of their dogs.
"A mother-of-three has been left fearing for her children's safety after a violent XL Bully-type dog got into her garden and killed the family's beloved pet cat – in violent scenes caught on CCTV.
Nima Begum, 40, was in her house when she heard a commotion outside and saw a man wrestling with the powerful animal.
He kept shouting 'Your cat is fine', even though his pet's jaws were covered in blood.
Ms Begum rushed outside and found her terrified cat Kiwi cowering in a tree, which she managed to get down with the help of a passer-by. But the tabby died before she could get her to a vet."
This is driving me nuts. How much longer is the government going to wait? Get a fucking move on. Just order immediate muzzling NOW. The whole country wants it. Only 10% oppose
While they dither the attacks will continue and soon enough we will be faced with an utterly hideous video of a tiny child being eaten alive
Muzzle these fuckers. Give the owners a slapping
Put it down as another useless intervention by our PM.
The Tories can go fuck themselves. Everything they do is performative. Nothing ever actually happens. Apart from cancelling HS2
If there is an issue with muzzling these dogs then get on TV and explain the problem. What is it?? In the last three days a man has been killed and a toddler nearly lost a leg
Still not as many deaths as the motor car so espoused by Mr Sunak. His refusal to go to 20mph zones and his ban of LTNs is going to kill many more people.
Not that that is any excuse for the dogs. The argument may be that the existing laws are sufficient in principle - dangerous dogs out of control in public and so on. Though we need a clear statement one way or another, as you say. And if they are sufficient, why do we still have the DDA on the statute book banning some breeds?
But the thing is, after the next inevitable and horrifying video of someone being mauled to death, the government will suddenly discover that it CAN do something immediately. In response to the public outcry. Meaning their immobility now is pitiful complacency or incompetence or thanks to some disgraceful lobbying by the RSPCA
I hope I’m wrong and this video never arrives
Quite so, on both points. Though it's not just the RSPCA, I am sure. There is a real threat to more politically influential owners' dogs. Remember Malmesbury's - Or at least I think it was him - suggestion that only the more working class breeds got it in the original DDA. not the equally dangerous but more upper class ones.
It wasn't me, but that kind of misses the point.
If you ask medics, the really damaging doc attacks they deal with generally come from a small number of breeds. Think plastic surgery to rebuild arms and faces.
There are other breeds that attack, but the bulk of the serious injuries....
Quite: the ones with large jaws and heavy musculature. Yet nothing seems to be happening - least of all in the way of announcements. Or if so I missed it. Ms Coffey would ne the one to listen to at the Mancunian conference, it being DEFRA's job. But all I can find on a quick check is this about gun control:
The reason the Dangerous Dogs act is Evul, Wrung and Stuuupid isn't the act itself. It is the concern that it grants the government carte blanche to ban type of dogs for attacking people.
So everyone with a dog is afraid they will come for Fido.
The result is a very vocal lobby of "don't ban any dogs" types. While they may be a minority, they are very active. See the recent petitions. This is a political red light - vocal, active minorities translate into voters.
It seems that the majority want a ban, but are not especially fired up over it. But a very fired up minority oppose a ban.
There may well be something in that.
The most dangerous breed in terms of total bites is the Labrador. Of course this is absurd in one sense as there are so many - but by the same token, there must be a lot of Lanrador owners fearful that their Rover gets the needle if something ever goes wrong.
The alternative is to look even harder at the dog's training - which is even more frightening.
Around 1% of the electorate have signed the "XL bully [...] loves children and people in general" petition and
The XL Bully? Do people not think there's a clue in the name?
I am not sure what I think about this. I'm currently living with my in-laws and their poorly-socialized Springer Spaniel, who I could unfortunately easily see biting someone in the wrong circumstances. It's not just the breed that can make a dog dangerous, but how well (or not) it's been trained.
I think this might be an example where an expansion of access to civil law would bring about improvements. If it was easier for people to sue the owners of dogs for the damage they cause, and the courts would hold people liable for the damage caused by their pets, then I think that would encourage dog owners to better train their dogs, keep them under better control when in public, choose more placid pets and provide remedy when these steps fail.
I don't think it's possible to draw a binary distinction between dog breeds that are safe and dog breeds that are unsafe, and so there will always be cases that can't be dealt with by banning a subset of dogs.
The nerf gun we have in the office has an unstable trigger. If you drop it, it can go off. And hit you in the ankle with a foam dart.
A Violet Club nuclear weapon could, if dropped, yield 25kt.
This is why nerf guns are unregulated. And nuclear weapons are.
It's pretty easy to draw a distinction between a nerf fun and a nuclear weapon. Is it so easy to draw distinctions between different dog breeds?
I was under the impression that Rottweilers and Bull Terriers were already banned by the DDA, but they're still responsible for recent attacks.
I guess I'm wondering whether simply banking this single breed is going to be all that effective, as opposed to a more general change in the law that would make it clear that owners were responsible for the actions of their dogs.
It sounds a bit like the problem with synthetic drugs, where for a long time it was about repeatedly banning a specific one just leads to a change in chemical compounds used and rinse and repeat...normally towards ever more unpredictable outcomes.
"A mother-of-three has been left fearing for her children's safety after a violent XL Bully-type dog got into her garden and killed the family's beloved pet cat – in violent scenes caught on CCTV.
Nima Begum, 40, was in her house when she heard a commotion outside and saw a man wrestling with the powerful animal.
He kept shouting 'Your cat is fine', even though his pet's jaws were covered in blood.
Ms Begum rushed outside and found her terrified cat Kiwi cowering in a tree, which she managed to get down with the help of a passer-by. But the tabby died before she could get her to a vet."
This is driving me nuts. How much longer is the government going to wait? Get a fucking move on. Just order immediate muzzling NOW. The whole country wants it. Only 10% oppose
While they dither the attacks will continue and soon enough we will be faced with an utterly hideous video of a tiny child being eaten alive
Muzzle these fuckers. Give the owners a slapping
Has Lee Anderson got one?
I thought he WAS one. Or at least modelled himself on them. Maybe we can muzzle him.
"A mother-of-three has been left fearing for her children's safety after a violent XL Bully-type dog got into her garden and killed the family's beloved pet cat – in violent scenes caught on CCTV.
Nima Begum, 40, was in her house when she heard a commotion outside and saw a man wrestling with the powerful animal.
He kept shouting 'Your cat is fine', even though his pet's jaws were covered in blood.
Ms Begum rushed outside and found her terrified cat Kiwi cowering in a tree, which she managed to get down with the help of a passer-by. But the tabby died before she could get her to a vet."
This is driving me nuts. How much longer is the government going to wait? Get a fucking move on. Just order immediate muzzling NOW. The whole country wants it. Only 10% oppose
While they dither the attacks will continue and soon enough we will be faced with an utterly hideous video of a tiny child being eaten alive
Muzzle these fuckers. Give the owners a slapping
Put it down as another useless intervention by our PM.
The Tories can go fuck themselves. Everything they do is performative. Nothing ever actually happens. Apart from cancelling HS2
If there is an issue with muzzling these dogs then get on TV and explain the problem. What is it?? In the last three days a man has been killed and a toddler nearly lost a leg
Still not as many deaths as the motor car so espoused by Mr Sunak. His refusal to go to 20mph zones and his ban of LTNs is going to kill many more people.
Not that that is any excuse for the dogs. The argument may be that the existing laws are sufficient in principle - dangerous dogs out of control in public and so on. Though we need a clear statement one way or another, as you say. And if they are sufficient, why do we still have the DDA on the statute book banning some breeds?
But the thing is, after the next inevitable and horrifying video of someone being mauled to death, the government will suddenly discover that it CAN do something immediately. In response to the public outcry. Meaning their immobility now is pitiful complacency or incompetence or thanks to some disgraceful lobbying by the RSPCA
I hope I’m wrong and this video never arrives
Quite so, on both points. Though it's not just the RSPCA, I am sure. There is a real threat to more politically influential owners' dogs. Remember Malmesbury's - Or at least I think it was him - suggestion that only the more working class breeds got it in the original DDA. not the equally dangerous but more upper class ones.
It wasn't me, but that kind of misses the point.
If you ask medics, the really damaging doc attacks they deal with generally come from a small number of breeds. Think plastic surgery to rebuild arms and faces.
There are other breeds that attack, but the bulk of the serious injuries....
Quite: the ones with large jaws and heavy musculature. Yet nothing seems to be happening - least of all in the way of announcements. Or if so I missed it. Ms Coffey would ne the one to listen to at the Mancunian conference, it being DEFRA's job. But all I can find on a quick check is this about gun control:
The reason the Dangerous Dogs act is Evul, Wrung and Stuuupid isn't the act itself. It is the concern that it grants the government carte blanche to ban type of dogs for attacking people.
So everyone with a dog is afraid they will come for Fido.
The result is a very vocal lobby of "don't ban any dogs" types. While they may be a minority, they are very active. See the recent petitions. This is a political red light - vocal, active minorities translate into voters.
It seems that the majority want a ban, but are not especially fired up over it. But a very fired up minority oppose a ban.
There may well be something in that.
The most dangerous breed in terms of total bites is the Labrador. Of course this is absurd in one sense as there are so many - but by the same token, there must be a lot of Lanrador owners fearful that their Rover gets the needle if something ever goes wrong.
The alternative is to look even harder at the dog's training - which is even more frightening.
Around 1% of the electorate have signed the "XL bully [...] loves children and people in general" petition and
The XL Bully? Do people not think there's a clue in the name?
I am not sure what I think about this. I'm currently living with my in-laws and their poorly-socialized Springer Spaniel, who I could unfortunately easily see biting someone in the wrong circumstances. It's not just the breed that can make a dog dangerous, but how well (or not) it's been trained.
I think this might be an example where an expansion of access to civil law would bring about improvements. If it was easier for people to sue the owners of dogs for the damage they cause, and the courts would hold people liable for the damage caused by their pets, then I think that would encourage dog owners to better train their dogs, keep them under better control when in public, choose more placid pets and provide remedy when these steps fail.
I don't think it's possible to draw a binary distinction between dog breeds that are safe and dog breeds that are unsafe, and so there will always be cases that can't be dealt with by banning a subset of dogs.
The nerf gun we have in the office has an unstable trigger. If you drop it, it can go off. And hit you in the ankle with a foam dart.
A Violet Club nuclear weapon could, if dropped, yield 25kt.
This is why nerf guns are unregulated. And nuclear weapons are.
It's pretty easy to draw a distinction between a nerf fun and a nuclear weapon. Is it so easy to draw distinctions between different dog breeds?
I was talking to someone today whose husband does dog sitting for up to 8 mutts at a time. I asked her does he do XL Bullies and she said no definitely not, "we don't dogsit any of those sorts of breeds, it would be too risky".
I am not sure someone who dog sits for 8 dogs at a time is someone to trust for their risk assessment.
"A mother-of-three has been left fearing for her children's safety after a violent XL Bully-type dog got into her garden and killed the family's beloved pet cat – in violent scenes caught on CCTV.
Nima Begum, 40, was in her house when she heard a commotion outside and saw a man wrestling with the powerful animal.
He kept shouting 'Your cat is fine', even though his pet's jaws were covered in blood.
Ms Begum rushed outside and found her terrified cat Kiwi cowering in a tree, which she managed to get down with the help of a passer-by. But the tabby died before she could get her to a vet."
This is driving me nuts. How much longer is the government going to wait? Get a fucking move on. Just order immediate muzzling NOW. The whole country wants it. Only 10% oppose
While they dither the attacks will continue and soon enough we will be faced with an utterly hideous video of a tiny child being eaten alive
Muzzle these fuckers. Give the owners a slapping
Put it down as another useless intervention by our PM.
The Tories can go fuck themselves. Everything they do is performative. Nothing ever actually happens. Apart from cancelling HS2
If there is an issue with muzzling these dogs then get on TV and explain the problem. What is it?? In the last three days a man has been killed and a toddler nearly lost a leg
Still not as many deaths as the motor car so espoused by Mr Sunak. His refusal to go to 20mph zones and his ban of LTNs is going to kill many more people.
Not that that is any excuse for the dogs. The argument may be that the existing laws are sufficient in principle - dangerous dogs out of control in public and so on. Though we need a clear statement one way or another, as you say. And if they are sufficient, why do we still have the DDA on the statute book banning some breeds?
But the thing is, after the next inevitable and horrifying video of someone being mauled to death, the government will suddenly discover that it CAN do something immediately. In response to the public outcry. Meaning their immobility now is pitiful complacency or incompetence or thanks to some disgraceful lobbying by the RSPCA
I hope I’m wrong and this video never arrives
Quite so, on both points. Though it's not just the RSPCA, I am sure. There is a real threat to more politically influential owners' dogs. Remember Malmesbury's - Or at least I think it was him - suggestion that only the more working class breeds got it in the original DDA. not the equally dangerous but more upper class ones.
It wasn't me, but that kind of misses the point.
If you ask medics, the really damaging doc attacks they deal with generally come from a small number of breeds. Think plastic surgery to rebuild arms and faces.
There are other breeds that attack, but the bulk of the serious injuries....
Quite: the ones with large jaws and heavy musculature. Yet nothing seems to be happening - least of all in the way of announcements. Or if so I missed it. Ms Coffey would ne the one to listen to at the Mancunian conference, it being DEFRA's job. But all I can find on a quick check is this about gun control:
The reason the Dangerous Dogs act is Evul, Wrung and Stuuupid isn't the act itself. It is the concern that it grants the government carte blanche to ban type of dogs for attacking people.
So everyone with a dog is afraid they will come for Fido.
The result is a very vocal lobby of "don't ban any dogs" types. While they may be a minority, they are very active. See the recent petitions. This is a political red light - vocal, active minorities translate into voters.
It seems that the majority want a ban, but are not especially fired up over it. But a very fired up minority oppose a ban.
There may well be something in that.
The most dangerous breed in terms of total bites is the Labrador. Of course this is absurd in one sense as there are so many - but by the same token, there must be a lot of Lanrador owners fearful that their Rover gets the needle if something ever goes wrong.
The alternative is to look even harder at the dog's training - which is even more frightening.
Around 1% of the electorate have signed the "XL bully [...] loves children and people in general" petition and
The XL Bully? Do people not think there's a clue in the name?
I am not sure what I think about this. I'm currently living with my in-laws and their poorly-socialized Springer Spaniel, who I could unfortunately easily see biting someone in the wrong circumstances. It's not just the breed that can make a dog dangerous, but how well (or not) it's been trained.
I think this might be an example where an expansion of access to civil law would bring about improvements. If it was easier for people to sue the owners of dogs for the damage they cause, and the courts would hold people liable for the damage caused by their pets, then I think that would encourage dog owners to better train their dogs, keep them under better control when in public, choose more placid pets and provide remedy when these steps fail.
I don't think it's possible to draw a binary distinction between dog breeds that are safe and dog breeds that are unsafe, and so there will always be cases that can't be dealt with by banning a subset of dogs.
The nerf gun we have in the office has an unstable trigger. If you drop it, it can go off. And hit you in the ankle with a foam dart.
A Violet Club nuclear weapon could, if dropped, yield 25kt.
This is why nerf guns are unregulated. And nuclear weapons are.
It's pretty easy to draw a distinction between a nerf fun and a nuclear weapon. Is it so easy to draw distinctions between different dog breeds?
Injury rates per attack show a pretty stark effect.
Consider this - the domestic cat. They attack people on occasion. Stuff happens. Why do we regulate owning leopards? They are actually quite similar in temperament to a domestic cat.
I would rather encounter an unleashed leopard in Regent’s Park than an unleashed Bully XL
A leopard is, to an extent, a sensible animal. You get the odd man eater in the wild but most will only attack when hungry, or when it, or its offspring, are seriously threatened. Even then they will do the minimum damage necessary to achieve their objective. Evolution means they have learned to conserve energy
A Bully XL has “been evolved” to be an unpredictable and psychotic animal that will keep attacking beyond all “reason”. Once it starts on you it won’t stop even if severely injured. In one American attack a Bully XL had to be shot THIRTEEN TIMES by cops to get it to stop
And which do we allow people to parade around our streets and parks, where our children play?
"A mother-of-three has been left fearing for her children's safety after a violent XL Bully-type dog got into her garden and killed the family's beloved pet cat – in violent scenes caught on CCTV.
Nima Begum, 40, was in her house when she heard a commotion outside and saw a man wrestling with the powerful animal.
He kept shouting 'Your cat is fine', even though his pet's jaws were covered in blood.
Ms Begum rushed outside and found her terrified cat Kiwi cowering in a tree, which she managed to get down with the help of a passer-by. But the tabby died before she could get her to a vet."
This is driving me nuts. How much longer is the government going to wait? Get a fucking move on. Just order immediate muzzling NOW. The whole country wants it. Only 10% oppose
While they dither the attacks will continue and soon enough we will be faced with an utterly hideous video of a tiny child being eaten alive
Muzzle these fuckers. Give the owners a slapping
Put it down as another useless intervention by our PM.
The Tories can go fuck themselves. Everything they do is performative. Nothing ever actually happens. Apart from cancelling HS2
If there is an issue with muzzling these dogs then get on TV and explain the problem. What is it?? In the last three days a man has been killed and a toddler nearly lost a leg
Still not as many deaths as the motor car so espoused by Mr Sunak. His refusal to go to 20mph zones and his ban of LTNs is going to kill many more people.
Not that that is any excuse for the dogs. The argument may be that the existing laws are sufficient in principle - dangerous dogs out of control in public and so on. Though we need a clear statement one way or another, as you say. And if they are sufficient, why do we still have the DDA on the statute book banning some breeds?
But the thing is, after the next inevitable and horrifying video of someone being mauled to death, the government will suddenly discover that it CAN do something immediately. In response to the public outcry. Meaning their immobility now is pitiful complacency or incompetence or thanks to some disgraceful lobbying by the RSPCA
I hope I’m wrong and this video never arrives
Quite so, on both points. Though it's not just the RSPCA, I am sure. There is a real threat to more politically influential owners' dogs. Remember Malmesbury's - Or at least I think it was him - suggestion that only the more working class breeds got it in the original DDA. not the equally dangerous but more upper class ones.
It wasn't me, but that kind of misses the point.
If you ask medics, the really damaging doc attacks they deal with generally come from a small number of breeds. Think plastic surgery to rebuild arms and faces.
There are other breeds that attack, but the bulk of the serious injuries....
Quite: the ones with large jaws and heavy musculature. Yet nothing seems to be happening - least of all in the way of announcements. Or if so I missed it. Ms Coffey would ne the one to listen to at the Mancunian conference, it being DEFRA's job. But all I can find on a quick check is this about gun control:
The reason the Dangerous Dogs act is Evul, Wrung and Stuuupid isn't the act itself. It is the concern that it grants the government carte blanche to ban type of dogs for attacking people.
So everyone with a dog is afraid they will come for Fido.
The result is a very vocal lobby of "don't ban any dogs" types. While they may be a minority, they are very active. See the recent petitions. This is a political red light - vocal, active minorities translate into voters.
It seems that the majority want a ban, but are not especially fired up over it. But a very fired up minority oppose a ban.
There may well be something in that.
The most dangerous breed in terms of total bites is the Labrador. Of course this is absurd in one sense as there are so many - but by the same token, there must be a lot of Lanrador owners fearful that their Rover gets the needle if something ever goes wrong.
The alternative is to look even harder at the dog's training - which is even more frightening.
Around 1% of the electorate have signed the "XL bully [...] loves children and people in general" petition and
The XL Bully? Do people not think there's a clue in the name?
I am not sure what I think about this. I'm currently living with my in-laws and their poorly-socialized Springer Spaniel, who I could unfortunately easily see biting someone in the wrong circumstances. It's not just the breed that can make a dog dangerous, but how well (or not) it's been trained.
I think this might be an example where an expansion of access to civil law would bring about improvements. If it was easier for people to sue the owners of dogs for the damage they cause, and the courts would hold people liable for the damage caused by their pets, then I think that would encourage dog owners to better train their dogs, keep them under better control when in public, choose more placid pets and provide remedy when these steps fail.
I don't think it's possible to draw a binary distinction between dog breeds that are safe and dog breeds that are unsafe, and so there will always be cases that can't be dealt with by banning a subset of dogs.
The nerf gun we have in the office has an unstable trigger. If you drop it, it can go off. And hit you in the ankle with a foam dart.
A Violet Club nuclear weapon could, if dropped, yield 25kt.
This is why nerf guns are unregulated. And nuclear weapons are.
It's pretty easy to draw a distinction between a nerf fun and a nuclear weapon. Is it so easy to draw distinctions between different dog breeds?
I was under the impression that Rottweilers and Bull Terriers were already banned by the DDA, but they're still responsible for recent attacks.
I guess I'm wondering whether simply banking this single breed is going to be all that effective, as opposed to a more general change in the law that would make it clear that owners were responsible for the actions of their dogs.
In the Fido = Evil stakes, this makes interesting readsing, notably the very Cruftsy Annexe 2,
'[...] The dog should have a good depth from the top of head to bottom of jaw and a straight box-like muzzle. • Its eyes should be small and deep-set, triangular when viewed from the side and elliptical from front. • Its shoulders should be wider than the rib cage at the eighth rib. • Its elbows should be flat with its front legs running parallel to the spine. • Its forelegs should be heavy and solid and nearly twice the thickness of the hind legs just below the hock. • The rib cage should be deep and spring straight out from the spine, it should be elliptical in cross section tapering at the bottom and not ‘barrel’ chested. • It should have a tail that hangs down like an old fashioned ‘pump handle’ to around the hock. [...]'
"A mother-of-three has been left fearing for her children's safety after a violent XL Bully-type dog got into her garden and killed the family's beloved pet cat – in violent scenes caught on CCTV.
Nima Begum, 40, was in her house when she heard a commotion outside and saw a man wrestling with the powerful animal.
He kept shouting 'Your cat is fine', even though his pet's jaws were covered in blood.
Ms Begum rushed outside and found her terrified cat Kiwi cowering in a tree, which she managed to get down with the help of a passer-by. But the tabby died before she could get her to a vet."
This is driving me nuts. How much longer is the government going to wait? Get a fucking move on. Just order immediate muzzling NOW. The whole country wants it. Only 10% oppose
While they dither the attacks will continue and soon enough we will be faced with an utterly hideous video of a tiny child being eaten alive
Muzzle these fuckers. Give the owners a slapping
Put it down as another useless intervention by our PM.
The Tories can go fuck themselves. Everything they do is performative. Nothing ever actually happens. Apart from cancelling HS2
If there is an issue with muzzling these dogs then get on TV and explain the problem. What is it?? In the last three days a man has been killed and a toddler nearly lost a leg
Still not as many deaths as the motor car so espoused by Mr Sunak. His refusal to go to 20mph zones and his ban of LTNs is going to kill many more people.
Not that that is any excuse for the dogs. The argument may be that the existing laws are sufficient in principle - dangerous dogs out of control in public and so on. Though we need a clear statement one way or another, as you say. And if they are sufficient, why do we still have the DDA on the statute book banning some breeds?
But the thing is, after the next inevitable and horrifying video of someone being mauled to death, the government will suddenly discover that it CAN do something immediately. In response to the public outcry. Meaning their immobility now is pitiful complacency or incompetence or thanks to some disgraceful lobbying by the RSPCA
I hope I’m wrong and this video never arrives
Quite so, on both points. Though it's not just the RSPCA, I am sure. There is a real threat to more politically influential owners' dogs. Remember Malmesbury's - Or at least I think it was him - suggestion that only the more working class breeds got it in the original DDA. not the equally dangerous but more upper class ones.
It wasn't me, but that kind of misses the point.
If you ask medics, the really damaging doc attacks they deal with generally come from a small number of breeds. Think plastic surgery to rebuild arms and faces.
There are other breeds that attack, but the bulk of the serious injuries....
Quite: the ones with large jaws and heavy musculature. Yet nothing seems to be happening - least of all in the way of announcements. Or if so I missed it. Ms Coffey would ne the one to listen to at the Mancunian conference, it being DEFRA's job. But all I can find on a quick check is this about gun control:
The reason the Dangerous Dogs act is Evul, Wrung and Stuuupid isn't the act itself. It is the concern that it grants the government carte blanche to ban type of dogs for attacking people.
So everyone with a dog is afraid they will come for Fido.
The result is a very vocal lobby of "don't ban any dogs" types. While they may be a minority, they are very active. See the recent petitions. This is a political red light - vocal, active minorities translate into voters.
It seems that the majority want a ban, but are not especially fired up over it. But a very fired up minority oppose a ban.
There may well be something in that.
The most dangerous breed in terms of total bites is the Labrador. Of course this is absurd in one sense as there are so many - but by the same token, there must be a lot of Lanrador owners fearful that their Rover gets the needle if something ever goes wrong.
The alternative is to look even harder at the dog's training - which is even more frightening.
Around 1% of the electorate have signed the "XL bully [...] loves children and people in general" petition and
The XL Bully? Do people not think there's a clue in the name?
I am not sure what I think about this. I'm currently living with my in-laws and their poorly-socialized Springer Spaniel, who I could unfortunately easily see biting someone in the wrong circumstances. It's not just the breed that can make a dog dangerous, but how well (or not) it's been trained.
I think this might be an example where an expansion of access to civil law would bring about improvements. If it was easier for people to sue the owners of dogs for the damage they cause, and the courts would hold people liable for the damage caused by their pets, then I think that would encourage dog owners to better train their dogs, keep them under better control when in public, choose more placid pets and provide remedy when these steps fail.
I don't think it's possible to draw a binary distinction between dog breeds that are safe and dog breeds that are unsafe, and so there will always be cases that can't be dealt with by banning a subset of dogs.
The nerf gun we have in the office has an unstable trigger. If you drop it, it can go off. And hit you in the ankle with a foam dart.
A Violet Club nuclear weapon could, if dropped, yield 25kt.
This is why nerf guns are unregulated. And nuclear weapons are.
In some US States, it's illegal to buy Sparklers. Shotguns however, no problem.
Firework regulations in many states are extremely tight, so often you have to go to an Indian Reservation to buy your bangers / rockets, but you can own a real firearm.....
"A mother-of-three has been left fearing for her children's safety after a violent XL Bully-type dog got into her garden and killed the family's beloved pet cat – in violent scenes caught on CCTV.
Nima Begum, 40, was in her house when she heard a commotion outside and saw a man wrestling with the powerful animal.
He kept shouting 'Your cat is fine', even though his pet's jaws were covered in blood.
Ms Begum rushed outside and found her terrified cat Kiwi cowering in a tree, which she managed to get down with the help of a passer-by. But the tabby died before she could get her to a vet."
This is driving me nuts. How much longer is the government going to wait? Get a fucking move on. Just order immediate muzzling NOW. The whole country wants it. Only 10% oppose
While they dither the attacks will continue and soon enough we will be faced with an utterly hideous video of a tiny child being eaten alive
Muzzle these fuckers. Give the owners a slapping
Put it down as another useless intervention by our PM.
The Tories can go fuck themselves. Everything they do is performative. Nothing ever actually happens. Apart from cancelling HS2
If there is an issue with muzzling these dogs then get on TV and explain the problem. What is it?? In the last three days a man has been killed and a toddler nearly lost a leg
Still not as many deaths as the motor car so espoused by Mr Sunak. His refusal to go to 20mph zones and his ban of LTNs is going to kill many more people.
Not that that is any excuse for the dogs. The argument may be that the existing laws are sufficient in principle - dangerous dogs out of control in public and so on. Though we need a clear statement one way or another, as you say. And if they are sufficient, why do we still have the DDA on the statute book banning some breeds?
But the thing is, after the next inevitable and horrifying video of someone being mauled to death, the government will suddenly discover that it CAN do something immediately. In response to the public outcry. Meaning their immobility now is pitiful complacency or incompetence or thanks to some disgraceful lobbying by the RSPCA
I hope I’m wrong and this video never arrives
Quite so, on both points. Though it's not just the RSPCA, I am sure. There is a real threat to more politically influential owners' dogs. Remember Malmesbury's - Or at least I think it was him - suggestion that only the more working class breeds got it in the original DDA. not the equally dangerous but more upper class ones.
It wasn't me, but that kind of misses the point.
If you ask medics, the really damaging doc attacks they deal with generally come from a small number of breeds. Think plastic surgery to rebuild arms and faces.
There are other breeds that attack, but the bulk of the serious injuries....
Quite: the ones with large jaws and heavy musculature. Yet nothing seems to be happening - least of all in the way of announcements. Or if so I missed it. Ms Coffey would ne the one to listen to at the Mancunian conference, it being DEFRA's job. But all I can find on a quick check is this about gun control:
The reason the Dangerous Dogs act is Evul, Wrung and Stuuupid isn't the act itself. It is the concern that it grants the government carte blanche to ban type of dogs for attacking people.
So everyone with a dog is afraid they will come for Fido.
The result is a very vocal lobby of "don't ban any dogs" types. While they may be a minority, they are very active. See the recent petitions. This is a political red light - vocal, active minorities translate into voters.
It seems that the majority want a ban, but are not especially fired up over it. But a very fired up minority oppose a ban.
There may well be something in that.
The most dangerous breed in terms of total bites is the Labrador. Of course this is absurd in one sense as there are so many - but by the same token, there must be a lot of Lanrador owners fearful that their Rover gets the needle if something ever goes wrong.
The alternative is to look even harder at the dog's training - which is even more frightening.
Around 1% of the electorate have signed the "XL bully [...] loves children and people in general" petition and
The XL Bully? Do people not think there's a clue in the name?
I am not sure what I think about this. I'm currently living with my in-laws and their poorly-socialized Springer Spaniel, who I could unfortunately easily see biting someone in the wrong circumstances. It's not just the breed that can make a dog dangerous, but how well (or not) it's been trained.
I think this might be an example where an expansion of access to civil law would bring about improvements. If it was easier for people to sue the owners of dogs for the damage they cause, and the courts would hold people liable for the damage caused by their pets, then I think that would encourage dog owners to better train their dogs, keep them under better control when in public, choose more placid pets and provide remedy when these steps fail.
I don't think it's possible to draw a binary distinction between dog breeds that are safe and dog breeds that are unsafe, and so there will always be cases that can't be dealt with by banning a subset of dogs.
To avoid accusations of dog racism, why not adopt something like a 3 strikes and you're out policy. Any breed that is involved in 3 attacks leading to serious injury of someone other than the adult owner (and excluding sepsis from bites) is automatically banned. After 2 such attacks, compulsory muzzling outside the home.
Doesn't that tend towards having every breed of dog banned, eventually?
Miaow, I couldn't purrsibly comment.
Imagine if cat-owners were charged for the wildlife destruction their cats are responsible for?
Not a cat owner but is it not just all the circle of life?
"A mother-of-three has been left fearing for her children's safety after a violent XL Bully-type dog got into her garden and killed the family's beloved pet cat – in violent scenes caught on CCTV.
Nima Begum, 40, was in her house when she heard a commotion outside and saw a man wrestling with the powerful animal.
He kept shouting 'Your cat is fine', even though his pet's jaws were covered in blood.
Ms Begum rushed outside and found her terrified cat Kiwi cowering in a tree, which she managed to get down with the help of a passer-by. But the tabby died before she could get her to a vet."
This is driving me nuts. How much longer is the government going to wait? Get a fucking move on. Just order immediate muzzling NOW. The whole country wants it. Only 10% oppose
While they dither the attacks will continue and soon enough we will be faced with an utterly hideous video of a tiny child being eaten alive
Muzzle these fuckers. Give the owners a slapping
Put it down as another useless intervention by our PM.
The Tories can go fuck themselves. Everything they do is performative. Nothing ever actually happens. Apart from cancelling HS2
If there is an issue with muzzling these dogs then get on TV and explain the problem. What is it?? In the last three days a man has been killed and a toddler nearly lost a leg
Still not as many deaths as the motor car so espoused by Mr Sunak. His refusal to go to 20mph zones and his ban of LTNs is going to kill many more people.
Not that that is any excuse for the dogs. The argument may be that the existing laws are sufficient in principle - dangerous dogs out of control in public and so on. Though we need a clear statement one way or another, as you say. And if they are sufficient, why do we still have the DDA on the statute book banning some breeds?
But the thing is, after the next inevitable and horrifying video of someone being mauled to death, the government will suddenly discover that it CAN do something immediately. In response to the public outcry. Meaning their immobility now is pitiful complacency or incompetence or thanks to some disgraceful lobbying by the RSPCA
I hope I’m wrong and this video never arrives
Quite so, on both points. Though it's not just the RSPCA, I am sure. There is a real threat to more politically influential owners' dogs. Remember Malmesbury's - Or at least I think it was him - suggestion that only the more working class breeds got it in the original DDA. not the equally dangerous but more upper class ones.
It wasn't me, but that kind of misses the point.
If you ask medics, the really damaging doc attacks they deal with generally come from a small number of breeds. Think plastic surgery to rebuild arms and faces.
There are other breeds that attack, but the bulk of the serious injuries....
Quite: the ones with large jaws and heavy musculature. Yet nothing seems to be happening - least of all in the way of announcements. Or if so I missed it. Ms Coffey would ne the one to listen to at the Mancunian conference, it being DEFRA's job. But all I can find on a quick check is this about gun control:
The reason the Dangerous Dogs act is Evul, Wrung and Stuuupid isn't the act itself. It is the concern that it grants the government carte blanche to ban type of dogs for attacking people.
So everyone with a dog is afraid they will come for Fido.
The result is a very vocal lobby of "don't ban any dogs" types. While they may be a minority, they are very active. See the recent petitions. This is a political red light - vocal, active minorities translate into voters.
It seems that the majority want a ban, but are not especially fired up over it. But a very fired up minority oppose a ban.
There may well be something in that.
The most dangerous breed in terms of total bites is the Labrador. Of course this is absurd in one sense as there are so many - but by the same token, there must be a lot of Lanrador owners fearful that their Rover gets the needle if something ever goes wrong.
The alternative is to look even harder at the dog's training - which is even more frightening.
Around 1% of the electorate have signed the "XL bully [...] loves children and people in general" petition and
The XL Bully? Do people not think there's a clue in the name?
I am not sure what I think about this. I'm currently living with my in-laws and their poorly-socialized Springer Spaniel, who I could unfortunately easily see biting someone in the wrong circumstances. It's not just the breed that can make a dog dangerous, but how well (or not) it's been trained.
I think this might be an example where an expansion of access to civil law would bring about improvements. If it was easier for people to sue the owners of dogs for the damage they cause, and the courts would hold people liable for the damage caused by their pets, then I think that would encourage dog owners to better train their dogs, keep them under better control when in public, choose more placid pets and provide remedy when these steps fail.
I don't think it's possible to draw a binary distinction between dog breeds that are safe and dog breeds that are unsafe, and so there will always be cases that can't be dealt with by banning a subset of dogs.
To avoid accusations of dog racism, why not adopt something like a 3 strikes and you're out policy. Any breed that is involved in 3 attacks leading to serious injury of someone other than the adult owner (and excluding sepsis from bites) is automatically banned. After 2 such attacks, compulsory muzzling outside the home.
Doesn't that tend towards having every breed of dog banned, eventually?
Miaow, I couldn't purrsibly comment.
Imagine if cat-owners were charged for the wildlife destruction their cats are responsible for?
I have actually been hospitalised by a cat twice in the last few years.
The first one was a Saturday morning, a local cat (we didn't know who owned it) which had been breaking in at night and terrorising our two before usually leaving a shit on the kitchen floor, had got in but couldn't get back out. I grabbed it with the intention of putting it into a basket and taking tot he vets to be snipped, assuming it an un-neutered Tom. It bit me deep in the thumb, at which I threw it on the floor. 24 hours later I was in hospital with a septic arm on IV antibiotics, and the cat had only one eye, the throwing on the floor having injured it beyond repair.
Second was a couple of months ago, and Sunday night and I picked up one of our cats to carry downstairs. I slipped on the steps and fell breaking 4 ribs. I spent 2 nights in hospital.
Cats have it in for me. There is perhaps a karmic element to this after an unfortunate series of events that took place back in 2007.
There's a whimsical weekly newspaper column in the Guardian for that sort of content if you were willing to flesh it out a bit. Wowsers.
"A mother-of-three has been left fearing for her children's safety after a violent XL Bully-type dog got into her garden and killed the family's beloved pet cat – in violent scenes caught on CCTV.
Nima Begum, 40, was in her house when she heard a commotion outside and saw a man wrestling with the powerful animal.
He kept shouting 'Your cat is fine', even though his pet's jaws were covered in blood.
Ms Begum rushed outside and found her terrified cat Kiwi cowering in a tree, which she managed to get down with the help of a passer-by. But the tabby died before she could get her to a vet."
This is driving me nuts. How much longer is the government going to wait? Get a fucking move on. Just order immediate muzzling NOW. The whole country wants it. Only 10% oppose
While they dither the attacks will continue and soon enough we will be faced with an utterly hideous video of a tiny child being eaten alive
Muzzle these fuckers. Give the owners a slapping
Put it down as another useless intervention by our PM.
The Tories can go fuck themselves. Everything they do is performative. Nothing ever actually happens. Apart from cancelling HS2
If there is an issue with muzzling these dogs then get on TV and explain the problem. What is it?? In the last three days a man has been killed and a toddler nearly lost a leg
Still not as many deaths as the motor car so espoused by Mr Sunak. His refusal to go to 20mph zones and his ban of LTNs is going to kill many more people.
Not that that is any excuse for the dogs. The argument may be that the existing laws are sufficient in principle - dangerous dogs out of control in public and so on. Though we need a clear statement one way or another, as you say. And if they are sufficient, why do we still have the DDA on the statute book banning some breeds?
But the thing is, after the next inevitable and horrifying video of someone being mauled to death, the government will suddenly discover that it CAN do something immediately. In response to the public outcry. Meaning their immobility now is pitiful complacency or incompetence or thanks to some disgraceful lobbying by the RSPCA
I hope I’m wrong and this video never arrives
Quite so, on both points. Though it's not just the RSPCA, I am sure. There is a real threat to more politically influential owners' dogs. Remember Malmesbury's - Or at least I think it was him - suggestion that only the more working class breeds got it in the original DDA. not the equally dangerous but more upper class ones.
It wasn't me, but that kind of misses the point.
If you ask medics, the really damaging doc attacks they deal with generally come from a small number of breeds. Think plastic surgery to rebuild arms and faces.
There are other breeds that attack, but the bulk of the serious injuries....
Quite: the ones with large jaws and heavy musculature. Yet nothing seems to be happening - least of all in the way of announcements. Or if so I missed it. Ms Coffey would ne the one to listen to at the Mancunian conference, it being DEFRA's job. But all I can find on a quick check is this about gun control:
The reason the Dangerous Dogs act is Evul, Wrung and Stuuupid isn't the act itself. It is the concern that it grants the government carte blanche to ban type of dogs for attacking people.
So everyone with a dog is afraid they will come for Fido.
The result is a very vocal lobby of "don't ban any dogs" types. While they may be a minority, they are very active. See the recent petitions. This is a political red light - vocal, active minorities translate into voters.
It seems that the majority want a ban, but are not especially fired up over it. But a very fired up minority oppose a ban.
There may well be something in that.
The most dangerous breed in terms of total bites is the Labrador. Of course this is absurd in one sense as there are so many - but by the same token, there must be a lot of Lanrador owners fearful that their Rover gets the needle if something ever goes wrong.
The alternative is to look even harder at the dog's training - which is even more frightening.
Around 1% of the electorate have signed the "XL bully [...] loves children and people in general" petition and
The XL Bully? Do people not think there's a clue in the name?
I am not sure what I think about this. I'm currently living with my in-laws and their poorly-socialized Springer Spaniel, who I could unfortunately easily see biting someone in the wrong circumstances. It's not just the breed that can make a dog dangerous, but how well (or not) it's been trained.
I think this might be an example where an expansion of access to civil law would bring about improvements. If it was easier for people to sue the owners of dogs for the damage they cause, and the courts would hold people liable for the damage caused by their pets, then I think that would encourage dog owners to better train their dogs, keep them under better control when in public, choose more placid pets and provide remedy when these steps fail.
I don't think it's possible to draw a binary distinction between dog breeds that are safe and dog breeds that are unsafe, and so there will always be cases that can't be dealt with by banning a subset of dogs.
The nerf gun we have in the office has an unstable trigger. If you drop it, it can go off. And hit you in the ankle with a foam dart.
A Violet Club nuclear weapon could, if dropped, yield 25kt.
This is why nerf guns are unregulated. And nuclear weapons are.
It's pretty easy to draw a distinction between a nerf fun and a nuclear weapon. Is it so easy to draw distinctions between different dog breeds?
I was under the impression that Rottweilers and Bull Terriers were already banned by the DDA, but they're still responsible for recent attacks.
I guess I'm wondering whether simply banking this single breed is going to be all that effective, as opposed to a more general change in the law that would make it clear that owners were responsible for the actions of their dogs.
It sounds a bit like the problem with synthetic drugs, where for a long time it was about repeatedly banning a specific one just leads to a change in chemical compounds used and rinse and repeat...normally towards ever more unpredictable outcomes.
That is part of the issue with finding a longterm solution, as they just breed new permutations of mutt. Which, of course, is precisely why Bully XLs\ don't violate the DDA.
"A mother-of-three has been left fearing for her children's safety after a violent XL Bully-type dog got into her garden and killed the family's beloved pet cat – in violent scenes caught on CCTV.
Nima Begum, 40, was in her house when she heard a commotion outside and saw a man wrestling with the powerful animal.
He kept shouting 'Your cat is fine', even though his pet's jaws were covered in blood.
Ms Begum rushed outside and found her terrified cat Kiwi cowering in a tree, which she managed to get down with the help of a passer-by. But the tabby died before she could get her to a vet."
This is driving me nuts. How much longer is the government going to wait? Get a fucking move on. Just order immediate muzzling NOW. The whole country wants it. Only 10% oppose
While they dither the attacks will continue and soon enough we will be faced with an utterly hideous video of a tiny child being eaten alive
Muzzle these fuckers. Give the owners a slapping
Put it down as another useless intervention by our PM.
The Tories can go fuck themselves. Everything they do is performative. Nothing ever actually happens. Apart from cancelling HS2
If there is an issue with muzzling these dogs then get on TV and explain the problem. What is it?? In the last three days a man has been killed and a toddler nearly lost a leg
Still not as many deaths as the motor car so espoused by Mr Sunak. His refusal to go to 20mph zones and his ban of LTNs is going to kill many more people.
Not that that is any excuse for the dogs. The argument may be that the existing laws are sufficient in principle - dangerous dogs out of control in public and so on. Though we need a clear statement one way or another, as you say. And if they are sufficient, why do we still have the DDA on the statute book banning some breeds?
But the thing is, after the next inevitable and horrifying video of someone being mauled to death, the government will suddenly discover that it CAN do something immediately. In response to the public outcry. Meaning their immobility now is pitiful complacency or incompetence or thanks to some disgraceful lobbying by the RSPCA
I hope I’m wrong and this video never arrives
Quite so, on both points. Though it's not just the RSPCA, I am sure. There is a real threat to more politically influential owners' dogs. Remember Malmesbury's - Or at least I think it was him - suggestion that only the more working class breeds got it in the original DDA. not the equally dangerous but more upper class ones.
It wasn't me, but that kind of misses the point.
If you ask medics, the really damaging doc attacks they deal with generally come from a small number of breeds. Think plastic surgery to rebuild arms and faces.
There are other breeds that attack, but the bulk of the serious injuries....
Quite: the ones with large jaws and heavy musculature. Yet nothing seems to be happening - least of all in the way of announcements. Or if so I missed it. Ms Coffey would ne the one to listen to at the Mancunian conference, it being DEFRA's job. But all I can find on a quick check is this about gun control:
The reason the Dangerous Dogs act is Evul, Wrung and Stuuupid isn't the act itself. It is the concern that it grants the government carte blanche to ban type of dogs for attacking people.
So everyone with a dog is afraid they will come for Fido.
The result is a very vocal lobby of "don't ban any dogs" types. While they may be a minority, they are very active. See the recent petitions. This is a political red light - vocal, active minorities translate into voters.
It seems that the majority want a ban, but are not especially fired up over it. But a very fired up minority oppose a ban.
There may well be something in that.
The most dangerous breed in terms of total bites is the Labrador. Of course this is absurd in one sense as there are so many - but by the same token, there must be a lot of Lanrador owners fearful that their Rover gets the needle if something ever goes wrong.
The alternative is to look even harder at the dog's training - which is even more frightening.
Around 1% of the electorate have signed the "XL bully [...] loves children and people in general" petition and
The XL Bully? Do people not think there's a clue in the name?
I am not sure what I think about this. I'm currently living with my in-laws and their poorly-socialized Springer Spaniel, who I could unfortunately easily see biting someone in the wrong circumstances. It's not just the breed that can make a dog dangerous, but how well (or not) it's been trained.
I think this might be an example where an expansion of access to civil law would bring about improvements. If it was easier for people to sue the owners of dogs for the damage they cause, and the courts would hold people liable for the damage caused by their pets, then I think that would encourage dog owners to better train their dogs, keep them under better control when in public, choose more placid pets and provide remedy when these steps fail.
I don't think it's possible to draw a binary distinction between dog breeds that are safe and dog breeds that are unsafe, and so there will always be cases that can't be dealt with by banning a subset of dogs.
The nerf gun we have in the office has an unstable trigger. If you drop it, it can go off. And hit you in the ankle with a foam dart.
A Violet Club nuclear weapon could, if dropped, yield 25kt.
This is why nerf guns are unregulated. And nuclear weapons are.
It's pretty easy to draw a distinction between a nerf fun and a nuclear weapon. Is it so easy to draw distinctions between different dog breeds?
Injury rates per attack show a pretty stark effect.
Consider this - the domestic cat. They attack people on occasion. Stuff happens. Why do we regulate owning leopards? They are actually quite similar in temperament to a domestic cat.
I would rather encounter an unleashed leopard in Regent’s Park than an unleashed Bully XL
A leopard is, to an extent, a sensible animal. You get the odd man eater in the wild but most will only attack when hungry, or when it, or its offspring, are seriously threatened. Even then they will do the minimum damage necessary to achieve their objective. Evolution means they have learned to conserve energy
A Bully XL has “been evolved” to be an unpredictable and psychotic animal that will keep attacking beyond all “reason”. Once it starts on you it won’t stop even if severely injured. In one American attack a Bully XL had to be shot THIRTEEN TIMES by cops to get it to stop
And which do we allow people to own and walk around our streets and parks, where our children play?
Was that because the first twelve bullets hit young black men walking by......
"A mother-of-three has been left fearing for her children's safety after a violent XL Bully-type dog got into her garden and killed the family's beloved pet cat – in violent scenes caught on CCTV.
Nima Begum, 40, was in her house when she heard a commotion outside and saw a man wrestling with the powerful animal.
He kept shouting 'Your cat is fine', even though his pet's jaws were covered in blood.
Ms Begum rushed outside and found her terrified cat Kiwi cowering in a tree, which she managed to get down with the help of a passer-by. But the tabby died before she could get her to a vet."
This is driving me nuts. How much longer is the government going to wait? Get a fucking move on. Just order immediate muzzling NOW. The whole country wants it. Only 10% oppose
While they dither the attacks will continue and soon enough we will be faced with an utterly hideous video of a tiny child being eaten alive
Muzzle these fuckers. Give the owners a slapping
Put it down as another useless intervention by our PM.
The Tories can go fuck themselves. Everything they do is performative. Nothing ever actually happens. Apart from cancelling HS2
If there is an issue with muzzling these dogs then get on TV and explain the problem. What is it?? In the last three days a man has been killed and a toddler nearly lost a leg
Still not as many deaths as the motor car so espoused by Mr Sunak. His refusal to go to 20mph zones and his ban of LTNs is going to kill many more people.
Not that that is any excuse for the dogs. The argument may be that the existing laws are sufficient in principle - dangerous dogs out of control in public and so on. Though we need a clear statement one way or another, as you say. And if they are sufficient, why do we still have the DDA on the statute book banning some breeds?
But the thing is, after the next inevitable and horrifying video of someone being mauled to death, the government will suddenly discover that it CAN do something immediately. In response to the public outcry. Meaning their immobility now is pitiful complacency or incompetence or thanks to some disgraceful lobbying by the RSPCA
I hope I’m wrong and this video never arrives
Quite so, on both points. Though it's not just the RSPCA, I am sure. There is a real threat to more politically influential owners' dogs. Remember Malmesbury's - Or at least I think it was him - suggestion that only the more working class breeds got it in the original DDA. not the equally dangerous but more upper class ones.
It wasn't me, but that kind of misses the point.
If you ask medics, the really damaging doc attacks they deal with generally come from a small number of breeds. Think plastic surgery to rebuild arms and faces.
There are other breeds that attack, but the bulk of the serious injuries....
Quite: the ones with large jaws and heavy musculature. Yet nothing seems to be happening - least of all in the way of announcements. Or if so I missed it. Ms Coffey would ne the one to listen to at the Mancunian conference, it being DEFRA's job. But all I can find on a quick check is this about gun control:
The reason the Dangerous Dogs act is Evul, Wrung and Stuuupid isn't the act itself. It is the concern that it grants the government carte blanche to ban type of dogs for attacking people.
So everyone with a dog is afraid they will come for Fido.
The result is a very vocal lobby of "don't ban any dogs" types. While they may be a minority, they are very active. See the recent petitions. This is a political red light - vocal, active minorities translate into voters.
It seems that the majority want a ban, but are not especially fired up over it. But a very fired up minority oppose a ban.
There may well be something in that.
The most dangerous breed in terms of total bites is the Labrador. Of course this is absurd in one sense as there are so many - but by the same token, there must be a lot of Lanrador owners fearful that their Rover gets the needle if something ever goes wrong.
The alternative is to look even harder at the dog's training - which is even more frightening.
Around 1% of the electorate have signed the "XL bully [...] loves children and people in general" petition and
The XL Bully? Do people not think there's a clue in the name?
I am not sure what I think about this. I'm currently living with my in-laws and their poorly-socialized Springer Spaniel, who I could unfortunately easily see biting someone in the wrong circumstances. It's not just the breed that can make a dog dangerous, but how well (or not) it's been trained.
I think this might be an example where an expansion of access to civil law would bring about improvements. If it was easier for people to sue the owners of dogs for the damage they cause, and the courts would hold people liable for the damage caused by their pets, then I think that would encourage dog owners to better train their dogs, keep them under better control when in public, choose more placid pets and provide remedy when these steps fail.
I don't think it's possible to draw a binary distinction between dog breeds that are safe and dog breeds that are unsafe, and so there will always be cases that can't be dealt with by banning a subset of dogs.
To avoid accusations of dog racism, why not adopt something like a 3 strikes and you're out policy. Any breed that is involved in 3 attacks leading to serious injury of someone other than the adult owner (and excluding sepsis from bites) is automatically banned. After 2 such attacks, compulsory muzzling outside the home.
Doesn't that tend towards having every breed of dog banned, eventually?
Miaow, I couldn't purrsibly comment.
Imagine if cat-owners were charged for the wildlife destruction their cats are responsible for?
Not a cat owner but is it not just all the circle of life?
Wildlife lives and wildlife dies.
But wholesale extermination of species is not on, and that's what cats come close to doing.
"A mother-of-three has been left fearing for her children's safety after a violent XL Bully-type dog got into her garden and killed the family's beloved pet cat – in violent scenes caught on CCTV.
Nima Begum, 40, was in her house when she heard a commotion outside and saw a man wrestling with the powerful animal.
He kept shouting 'Your cat is fine', even though his pet's jaws were covered in blood.
Ms Begum rushed outside and found her terrified cat Kiwi cowering in a tree, which she managed to get down with the help of a passer-by. But the tabby died before she could get her to a vet."
This is driving me nuts. How much longer is the government going to wait? Get a fucking move on. Just order immediate muzzling NOW. The whole country wants it. Only 10% oppose
While they dither the attacks will continue and soon enough we will be faced with an utterly hideous video of a tiny child being eaten alive
Muzzle these fuckers. Give the owners a slapping
Put it down as another useless intervention by our PM.
The Tories can go fuck themselves. Everything they do is performative. Nothing ever actually happens. Apart from cancelling HS2
If there is an issue with muzzling these dogs then get on TV and explain the problem. What is it?? In the last three days a man has been killed and a toddler nearly lost a leg
Still not as many deaths as the motor car so espoused by Mr Sunak. His refusal to go to 20mph zones and his ban of LTNs is going to kill many more people.
Not that that is any excuse for the dogs. The argument may be that the existing laws are sufficient in principle - dangerous dogs out of control in public and so on. Though we need a clear statement one way or another, as you say. And if they are sufficient, why do we still have the DDA on the statute book banning some breeds?
But the thing is, after the next inevitable and horrifying video of someone being mauled to death, the government will suddenly discover that it CAN do something immediately. In response to the public outcry. Meaning their immobility now is pitiful complacency or incompetence or thanks to some disgraceful lobbying by the RSPCA
I hope I’m wrong and this video never arrives
Quite so, on both points. Though it's not just the RSPCA, I am sure. There is a real threat to more politically influential owners' dogs. Remember Malmesbury's - Or at least I think it was him - suggestion that only the more working class breeds got it in the original DDA. not the equally dangerous but more upper class ones.
It wasn't me, but that kind of misses the point.
If you ask medics, the really damaging doc attacks they deal with generally come from a small number of breeds. Think plastic surgery to rebuild arms and faces.
There are other breeds that attack, but the bulk of the serious injuries....
Quite: the ones with large jaws and heavy musculature. Yet nothing seems to be happening - least of all in the way of announcements. Or if so I missed it. Ms Coffey would ne the one to listen to at the Mancunian conference, it being DEFRA's job. But all I can find on a quick check is this about gun control:
The reason the Dangerous Dogs act is Evul, Wrung and Stuuupid isn't the act itself. It is the concern that it grants the government carte blanche to ban type of dogs for attacking people.
So everyone with a dog is afraid they will come for Fido.
The result is a very vocal lobby of "don't ban any dogs" types. While they may be a minority, they are very active. See the recent petitions. This is a political red light - vocal, active minorities translate into voters.
It seems that the majority want a ban, but are not especially fired up over it. But a very fired up minority oppose a ban.
There may well be something in that.
The most dangerous breed in terms of total bites is the Labrador. Of course this is absurd in one sense as there are so many - but by the same token, there must be a lot of Lanrador owners fearful that their Rover gets the needle if something ever goes wrong.
The alternative is to look even harder at the dog's training - which is even more frightening.
Around 1% of the electorate have signed the "XL bully [...] loves children and people in general" petition and
The XL Bully? Do people not think there's a clue in the name?
I am not sure what I think about this. I'm currently living with my in-laws and their poorly-socialized Springer Spaniel, who I could unfortunately easily see biting someone in the wrong circumstances. It's not just the breed that can make a dog dangerous, but how well (or not) it's been trained.
I think this might be an example where an expansion of access to civil law would bring about improvements. If it was easier for people to sue the owners of dogs for the damage they cause, and the courts would hold people liable for the damage caused by their pets, then I think that would encourage dog owners to better train their dogs, keep them under better control when in public, choose more placid pets and provide remedy when these steps fail.
I don't think it's possible to draw a binary distinction between dog breeds that are safe and dog breeds that are unsafe, and so there will always be cases that can't be dealt with by banning a subset of dogs.
The nerf gun we have in the office has an unstable trigger. If you drop it, it can go off. And hit you in the ankle with a foam dart.
A Violet Club nuclear weapon could, if dropped, yield 25kt.
This is why nerf guns are unregulated. And nuclear weapons are.
It's pretty easy to draw a distinction between a nerf fun and a nuclear weapon. Is it so easy to draw distinctions between different dog breeds?
I was under the impression that Rottweilers and Bull Terriers were already banned by the DDA, but they're still responsible for recent attacks.
I guess I'm wondering whether simply banning this single breed is going to be all that effective, as opposed to a more general change in the law that would make it clear that owners were responsible for the actions of their dogs.
I mean generally if a dog breed is named deliberately to sound scary, or conversely is used colloquially to describe scary traits in humans, there's probably an issue.
"A mother-of-three has been left fearing for her children's safety after a violent XL Bully-type dog got into her garden and killed the family's beloved pet cat – in violent scenes caught on CCTV.
Nima Begum, 40, was in her house when she heard a commotion outside and saw a man wrestling with the powerful animal.
He kept shouting 'Your cat is fine', even though his pet's jaws were covered in blood.
Ms Begum rushed outside and found her terrified cat Kiwi cowering in a tree, which she managed to get down with the help of a passer-by. But the tabby died before she could get her to a vet."
This is driving me nuts. How much longer is the government going to wait? Get a fucking move on. Just order immediate muzzling NOW. The whole country wants it. Only 10% oppose
While they dither the attacks will continue and soon enough we will be faced with an utterly hideous video of a tiny child being eaten alive
Muzzle these fuckers. Give the owners a slapping
Put it down as another useless intervention by our PM.
The Tories can go fuck themselves. Everything they do is performative. Nothing ever actually happens. Apart from cancelling HS2
If there is an issue with muzzling these dogs then get on TV and explain the problem. What is it?? In the last three days a man has been killed and a toddler nearly lost a leg
Still not as many deaths as the motor car so espoused by Mr Sunak. His refusal to go to 20mph zones and his ban of LTNs is going to kill many more people.
Not that that is any excuse for the dogs. The argument may be that the existing laws are sufficient in principle - dangerous dogs out of control in public and so on. Though we need a clear statement one way or another, as you say. And if they are sufficient, why do we still have the DDA on the statute book banning some breeds?
But the thing is, after the next inevitable and horrifying video of someone being mauled to death, the government will suddenly discover that it CAN do something immediately. In response to the public outcry. Meaning their immobility now is pitiful complacency or incompetence or thanks to some disgraceful lobbying by the RSPCA
I hope I’m wrong and this video never arrives
Quite so, on both points. Though it's not just the RSPCA, I am sure. There is a real threat to more politically influential owners' dogs. Remember Malmesbury's - Or at least I think it was him - suggestion that only the more working class breeds got it in the original DDA. not the equally dangerous but more upper class ones.
It wasn't me, but that kind of misses the point.
If you ask medics, the really damaging doc attacks they deal with generally come from a small number of breeds. Think plastic surgery to rebuild arms and faces.
There are other breeds that attack, but the bulk of the serious injuries....
Quite: the ones with large jaws and heavy musculature. Yet nothing seems to be happening - least of all in the way of announcements. Or if so I missed it. Ms Coffey would ne the one to listen to at the Mancunian conference, it being DEFRA's job. But all I can find on a quick check is this about gun control:
The reason the Dangerous Dogs act is Evul, Wrung and Stuuupid isn't the act itself. It is the concern that it grants the government carte blanche to ban type of dogs for attacking people.
So everyone with a dog is afraid they will come for Fido.
The result is a very vocal lobby of "don't ban any dogs" types. While they may be a minority, they are very active. See the recent petitions. This is a political red light - vocal, active minorities translate into voters.
It seems that the majority want a ban, but are not especially fired up over it. But a very fired up minority oppose a ban.
There may well be something in that.
The most dangerous breed in terms of total bites is the Labrador. Of course this is absurd in one sense as there are so many - but by the same token, there must be a lot of Lanrador owners fearful that their Rover gets the needle if something ever goes wrong.
The alternative is to look even harder at the dog's training - which is even more frightening.
Around 1% of the electorate have signed the "XL bully [...] loves children and people in general" petition and
The XL Bully? Do people not think there's a clue in the name?
I am not sure what I think about this. I'm currently living with my in-laws and their poorly-socialized Springer Spaniel, who I could unfortunately easily see biting someone in the wrong circumstances. It's not just the breed that can make a dog dangerous, but how well (or not) it's been trained.
I think this might be an example where an expansion of access to civil law would bring about improvements. If it was easier for people to sue the owners of dogs for the damage they cause, and the courts would hold people liable for the damage caused by their pets, then I think that would encourage dog owners to better train their dogs, keep them under better control when in public, choose more placid pets and provide remedy when these steps fail.
I don't think it's possible to draw a binary distinction between dog breeds that are safe and dog breeds that are unsafe, and so there will always be cases that can't be dealt with by banning a subset of dogs.
The nerf gun we have in the office has an unstable trigger. If you drop it, it can go off. And hit you in the ankle with a foam dart.
A Violet Club nuclear weapon could, if dropped, yield 25kt.
This is why nerf guns are unregulated. And nuclear weapons are.
It's pretty easy to draw a distinction between a nerf fun and a nuclear weapon. Is it so easy to draw distinctions between different dog breeds?
I was talking to someone today whose husband does dog sitting for up to 8 mutts at a time. I asked her does he do XL Bullies and she said no definitely not, "we don't dogsit any of those sorts of breeds, it would be too risky".
I am not sure someone who dog sits for 8 dogs at a time is someone to trust for their risk assessment.
Especially not if from different owners and unused to each other. not to mention the pooch-sitter himself. I hate to think what might happen on walkies (and, sadly, does at times).
Totally O/T, but very little decent tv about at the moment....Lupin Season 3 has dropped on Netflix. Always found it quite a fun show, and French isn't too hard if you speak it (the main character speaks quite slowly for a native French speaker).
"A mother-of-three has been left fearing for her children's safety after a violent XL Bully-type dog got into her garden and killed the family's beloved pet cat – in violent scenes caught on CCTV.
Nima Begum, 40, was in her house when she heard a commotion outside and saw a man wrestling with the powerful animal.
He kept shouting 'Your cat is fine', even though his pet's jaws were covered in blood.
Ms Begum rushed outside and found her terrified cat Kiwi cowering in a tree, which she managed to get down with the help of a passer-by. But the tabby died before she could get her to a vet."
This is driving me nuts. How much longer is the government going to wait? Get a fucking move on. Just order immediate muzzling NOW. The whole country wants it. Only 10% oppose
While they dither the attacks will continue and soon enough we will be faced with an utterly hideous video of a tiny child being eaten alive
Muzzle these fuckers. Give the owners a slapping
Put it down as another useless intervention by our PM.
The Tories can go fuck themselves. Everything they do is performative. Nothing ever actually happens. Apart from cancelling HS2
If there is an issue with muzzling these dogs then get on TV and explain the problem. What is it?? In the last three days a man has been killed and a toddler nearly lost a leg
Still not as many deaths as the motor car so espoused by Mr Sunak. His refusal to go to 20mph zones and his ban of LTNs is going to kill many more people.
Not that that is any excuse for the dogs. The argument may be that the existing laws are sufficient in principle - dangerous dogs out of control in public and so on. Though we need a clear statement one way or another, as you say. And if they are sufficient, why do we still have the DDA on the statute book banning some breeds?
But the thing is, after the next inevitable and horrifying video of someone being mauled to death, the government will suddenly discover that it CAN do something immediately. In response to the public outcry. Meaning their immobility now is pitiful complacency or incompetence or thanks to some disgraceful lobbying by the RSPCA
I hope I’m wrong and this video never arrives
Quite so, on both points. Though it's not just the RSPCA, I am sure. There is a real threat to more politically influential owners' dogs. Remember Malmesbury's - Or at least I think it was him - suggestion that only the more working class breeds got it in the original DDA. not the equally dangerous but more upper class ones.
It wasn't me, but that kind of misses the point.
If you ask medics, the really damaging doc attacks they deal with generally come from a small number of breeds. Think plastic surgery to rebuild arms and faces.
There are other breeds that attack, but the bulk of the serious injuries....
Quite: the ones with large jaws and heavy musculature. Yet nothing seems to be happening - least of all in the way of announcements. Or if so I missed it. Ms Coffey would ne the one to listen to at the Mancunian conference, it being DEFRA's job. But all I can find on a quick check is this about gun control:
The reason the Dangerous Dogs act is Evul, Wrung and Stuuupid isn't the act itself. It is the concern that it grants the government carte blanche to ban type of dogs for attacking people.
So everyone with a dog is afraid they will come for Fido.
The result is a very vocal lobby of "don't ban any dogs" types. While they may be a minority, they are very active. See the recent petitions. This is a political red light - vocal, active minorities translate into voters.
It seems that the majority want a ban, but are not especially fired up over it. But a very fired up minority oppose a ban.
There may well be something in that.
The most dangerous breed in terms of total bites is the Labrador. Of course this is absurd in one sense as there are so many - but by the same token, there must be a lot of Lanrador owners fearful that their Rover gets the needle if something ever goes wrong.
The alternative is to look even harder at the dog's training - which is even more frightening.
Around 1% of the electorate have signed the "XL bully [...] loves children and people in general" petition and
The XL Bully? Do people not think there's a clue in the name?
I am not sure what I think about this. I'm currently living with my in-laws and their poorly-socialized Springer Spaniel, who I could unfortunately easily see biting someone in the wrong circumstances. It's not just the breed that can make a dog dangerous, but how well (or not) it's been trained.
I think this might be an example where an expansion of access to civil law would bring about improvements. If it was easier for people to sue the owners of dogs for the damage they cause, and the courts would hold people liable for the damage caused by their pets, then I think that would encourage dog owners to better train their dogs, keep them under better control when in public, choose more placid pets and provide remedy when these steps fail.
I don't think it's possible to draw a binary distinction between dog breeds that are safe and dog breeds that are unsafe, and so there will always be cases that can't be dealt with by banning a subset of dogs.
To avoid accusations of dog racism, why not adopt something like a 3 strikes and you're out policy. Any breed that is involved in 3 attacks leading to serious injury of someone other than the adult owner (and excluding sepsis from bites) is automatically banned. After 2 such attacks, compulsory muzzling outside the home.
Doesn't that tend towards having every breed of dog banned, eventually?
Miaow, I couldn't purrsibly comment.
Imagine if cat-owners were charged for the wildlife destruction their cats are responsible for?
Not a cat owner but is it not just all the circle of life?
Wildlife lives and wildlife dies.
But wholesale extermination of species is not on, and that's what cats come close to doing.
There is definitely an issue particularly in dense urban areas. Very few dogs around here, it's cat country. Notably fewer little birds than there are up the road on Blackheath hill which is more dog country.
(I'm a cat owner but don't blame me, it was the rest of the family's choice).
"A mother-of-three has been left fearing for her children's safety after a violent XL Bully-type dog got into her garden and killed the family's beloved pet cat – in violent scenes caught on CCTV.
Nima Begum, 40, was in her house when she heard a commotion outside and saw a man wrestling with the powerful animal.
He kept shouting 'Your cat is fine', even though his pet's jaws were covered in blood.
Ms Begum rushed outside and found her terrified cat Kiwi cowering in a tree, which she managed to get down with the help of a passer-by. But the tabby died before she could get her to a vet."
This is driving me nuts. How much longer is the government going to wait? Get a fucking move on. Just order immediate muzzling NOW. The whole country wants it. Only 10% oppose
While they dither the attacks will continue and soon enough we will be faced with an utterly hideous video of a tiny child being eaten alive
Muzzle these fuckers. Give the owners a slapping
Put it down as another useless intervention by our PM.
The Tories can go fuck themselves. Everything they do is performative. Nothing ever actually happens. Apart from cancelling HS2
If there is an issue with muzzling these dogs then get on TV and explain the problem. What is it?? In the last three days a man has been killed and a toddler nearly lost a leg
Still not as many deaths as the motor car so espoused by Mr Sunak. His refusal to go to 20mph zones and his ban of LTNs is going to kill many more people.
Not that that is any excuse for the dogs. The argument may be that the existing laws are sufficient in principle - dangerous dogs out of control in public and so on. Though we need a clear statement one way or another, as you say. And if they are sufficient, why do we still have the DDA on the statute book banning some breeds?
But the thing is, after the next inevitable and horrifying video of someone being mauled to death, the government will suddenly discover that it CAN do something immediately. In response to the public outcry. Meaning their immobility now is pitiful complacency or incompetence or thanks to some disgraceful lobbying by the RSPCA
I hope I’m wrong and this video never arrives
Quite so, on both points. Though it's not just the RSPCA, I am sure. There is a real threat to more politically influential owners' dogs. Remember Malmesbury's - Or at least I think it was him - suggestion that only the more working class breeds got it in the original DDA. not the equally dangerous but more upper class ones.
It wasn't me, but that kind of misses the point.
If you ask medics, the really damaging doc attacks they deal with generally come from a small number of breeds. Think plastic surgery to rebuild arms and faces.
There are other breeds that attack, but the bulk of the serious injuries....
Quite: the ones with large jaws and heavy musculature. Yet nothing seems to be happening - least of all in the way of announcements. Or if so I missed it. Ms Coffey would ne the one to listen to at the Mancunian conference, it being DEFRA's job. But all I can find on a quick check is this about gun control:
The reason the Dangerous Dogs act is Evul, Wrung and Stuuupid isn't the act itself. It is the concern that it grants the government carte blanche to ban type of dogs for attacking people.
So everyone with a dog is afraid they will come for Fido.
The result is a very vocal lobby of "don't ban any dogs" types. While they may be a minority, they are very active. See the recent petitions. This is a political red light - vocal, active minorities translate into voters.
It seems that the majority want a ban, but are not especially fired up over it. But a very fired up minority oppose a ban.
There may well be something in that.
The most dangerous breed in terms of total bites is the Labrador. Of course this is absurd in one sense as there are so many - but by the same token, there must be a lot of Lanrador owners fearful that their Rover gets the needle if something ever goes wrong.
The alternative is to look even harder at the dog's training - which is even more frightening.
Around 1% of the electorate have signed the "XL bully [...] loves children and people in general" petition and
The XL Bully? Do people not think there's a clue in the name?
I am not sure what I think about this. I'm currently living with my in-laws and their poorly-socialized Springer Spaniel, who I could unfortunately easily see biting someone in the wrong circumstances. It's not just the breed that can make a dog dangerous, but how well (or not) it's been trained.
I think this might be an example where an expansion of access to civil law would bring about improvements. If it was easier for people to sue the owners of dogs for the damage they cause, and the courts would hold people liable for the damage caused by their pets, then I think that would encourage dog owners to better train their dogs, keep them under better control when in public, choose more placid pets and provide remedy when these steps fail.
I don't think it's possible to draw a binary distinction between dog breeds that are safe and dog breeds that are unsafe, and so there will always be cases that can't be dealt with by banning a subset of dogs.
To avoid accusations of dog racism, why not adopt something like a 3 strikes and you're out policy. Any breed that is involved in 3 attacks leading to serious injury of someone other than the adult owner (and excluding sepsis from bites) is automatically banned. After 2 such attacks, compulsory muzzling outside the home.
Doesn't that tend towards having every breed of dog banned, eventually?
Miaow, I couldn't purrsibly comment.
Imagine if cat-owners were charged for the wildlife destruction their cats are responsible for?
Not a cat owner but is it not just all the circle of life?
Wildlife lives and wildlife dies.
Domestic cats are not wildlife. A human construct and part of our realm. Derived from unnatural selection from wildcats.
Totally O/T, but very little decent tv about at the moment....Lupin Season 3 has dropped on Netflix. Always found it quite a fun show, and French isn't too hard if you speak it (the main character speaks quite slowly for a native French speaker).
Son really likes it. It's a good way to learn French.
Been pondering again whom I should vote for around here. It's been a two horse race for a long, long time apart from in the early 2000s when it was a 1 horse race. I'd previously come to the conclusion that it had to be SNP because my priority was to throw the useless sack of shit Duguid and the Tories in general out.
I still can't imagine that anyone else is the main challenger but last night's result was so bad for the SNP I'm wondering.
Last election: Con 50% SNP 40% LD 5% Lab 4%
Thoughts?
Have a look at my earlier post with the [edit!] Prof Curtice discussion and the Blair Foundation report links.
Sorry, I can't find it, mind highlighting it to me?
"A mother-of-three has been left fearing for her children's safety after a violent XL Bully-type dog got into her garden and killed the family's beloved pet cat – in violent scenes caught on CCTV.
Nima Begum, 40, was in her house when she heard a commotion outside and saw a man wrestling with the powerful animal.
He kept shouting 'Your cat is fine', even though his pet's jaws were covered in blood.
Ms Begum rushed outside and found her terrified cat Kiwi cowering in a tree, which she managed to get down with the help of a passer-by. But the tabby died before she could get her to a vet."
This is driving me nuts. How much longer is the government going to wait? Get a fucking move on. Just order immediate muzzling NOW. The whole country wants it. Only 10% oppose
While they dither the attacks will continue and soon enough we will be faced with an utterly hideous video of a tiny child being eaten alive
Muzzle these fuckers. Give the owners a slapping
Put it down as another useless intervention by our PM.
The Tories can go fuck themselves. Everything they do is performative. Nothing ever actually happens. Apart from cancelling HS2
If there is an issue with muzzling these dogs then get on TV and explain the problem. What is it?? In the last three days a man has been killed and a toddler nearly lost a leg
Still not as many deaths as the motor car so espoused by Mr Sunak. His refusal to go to 20mph zones and his ban of LTNs is going to kill many more people.
Not that that is any excuse for the dogs. The argument may be that the existing laws are sufficient in principle - dangerous dogs out of control in public and so on. Though we need a clear statement one way or another, as you say. And if they are sufficient, why do we still have the DDA on the statute book banning some breeds?
But the thing is, after the next inevitable and horrifying video of someone being mauled to death, the government will suddenly discover that it CAN do something immediately. In response to the public outcry. Meaning their immobility now is pitiful complacency or incompetence or thanks to some disgraceful lobbying by the RSPCA
I hope I’m wrong and this video never arrives
Quite so, on both points. Though it's not just the RSPCA, I am sure. There is a real threat to more politically influential owners' dogs. Remember Malmesbury's - Or at least I think it was him - suggestion that only the more working class breeds got it in the original DDA. not the equally dangerous but more upper class ones.
It wasn't me, but that kind of misses the point.
If you ask medics, the really damaging doc attacks they deal with generally come from a small number of breeds. Think plastic surgery to rebuild arms and faces.
There are other breeds that attack, but the bulk of the serious injuries....
Quite: the ones with large jaws and heavy musculature. Yet nothing seems to be happening - least of all in the way of announcements. Or if so I missed it. Ms Coffey would ne the one to listen to at the Mancunian conference, it being DEFRA's job. But all I can find on a quick check is this about gun control:
The reason the Dangerous Dogs act is Evul, Wrung and Stuuupid isn't the act itself. It is the concern that it grants the government carte blanche to ban type of dogs for attacking people.
So everyone with a dog is afraid they will come for Fido.
The result is a very vocal lobby of "don't ban any dogs" types. While they may be a minority, they are very active. See the recent petitions. This is a political red light - vocal, active minorities translate into voters.
It seems that the majority want a ban, but are not especially fired up over it. But a very fired up minority oppose a ban.
There may well be something in that.
The most dangerous breed in terms of total bites is the Labrador. Of course this is absurd in one sense as there are so many - but by the same token, there must be a lot of Lanrador owners fearful that their Rover gets the needle if something ever goes wrong.
The alternative is to look even harder at the dog's training - which is even more frightening.
Around 1% of the electorate have signed the "XL bully [...] loves children and people in general" petition and
The XL Bully? Do people not think there's a clue in the name?
I am not sure what I think about this. I'm currently living with my in-laws and their poorly-socialized Springer Spaniel, who I could unfortunately easily see biting someone in the wrong circumstances. It's not just the breed that can make a dog dangerous, but how well (or not) it's been trained.
I think this might be an example where an expansion of access to civil law would bring about improvements. If it was easier for people to sue the owners of dogs for the damage they cause, and the courts would hold people liable for the damage caused by their pets, then I think that would encourage dog owners to better train their dogs, keep them under better control when in public, choose more placid pets and provide remedy when these steps fail.
I don't think it's possible to draw a binary distinction between dog breeds that are safe and dog breeds that are unsafe, and so there will always be cases that can't be dealt with by banning a subset of dogs.
To avoid accusations of dog racism, why not adopt something like a 3 strikes and you're out policy. Any breed that is involved in 3 attacks leading to serious injury of someone other than the adult owner (and excluding sepsis from bites) is automatically banned. After 2 such attacks, compulsory muzzling outside the home.
Doesn't that tend towards having every breed of dog banned, eventually?
Miaow, I couldn't purrsibly comment.
Imagine if cat-owners were charged for the wildlife destruction their cats are responsible for?
Not a cat owner but is it not just all the circle of life?
Wildlife lives and wildlife dies.
Domestic cats are not wild. Essentially you are subsidising a predator, and so supporting a higher population of predators than the local ecology would itself support. This can lead to wiping out the local population of prey animals, because there's no correction to the population of predators if prey becomes scarce.
As someone who has enjoyed living with cats for at least 25 of my years it's an issue I am thinking over when considering whether to provide a home for a cat in the future.
"A mother-of-three has been left fearing for her children's safety after a violent XL Bully-type dog got into her garden and killed the family's beloved pet cat – in violent scenes caught on CCTV.
Nima Begum, 40, was in her house when she heard a commotion outside and saw a man wrestling with the powerful animal.
He kept shouting 'Your cat is fine', even though his pet's jaws were covered in blood.
Ms Begum rushed outside and found her terrified cat Kiwi cowering in a tree, which she managed to get down with the help of a passer-by. But the tabby died before she could get her to a vet."
This is driving me nuts. How much longer is the government going to wait? Get a fucking move on. Just order immediate muzzling NOW. The whole country wants it. Only 10% oppose
While they dither the attacks will continue and soon enough we will be faced with an utterly hideous video of a tiny child being eaten alive
Muzzle these fuckers. Give the owners a slapping
Put it down as another useless intervention by our PM.
The Tories can go fuck themselves. Everything they do is performative. Nothing ever actually happens. Apart from cancelling HS2
If there is an issue with muzzling these dogs then get on TV and explain the problem. What is it?? In the last three days a man has been killed and a toddler nearly lost a leg
Still not as many deaths as the motor car so espoused by Mr Sunak. His refusal to go to 20mph zones and his ban of LTNs is going to kill many more people.
Not that that is any excuse for the dogs. The argument may be that the existing laws are sufficient in principle - dangerous dogs out of control in public and so on. Though we need a clear statement one way or another, as you say. And if they are sufficient, why do we still have the DDA on the statute book banning some breeds?
But the thing is, after the next inevitable and horrifying video of someone being mauled to death, the government will suddenly discover that it CAN do something immediately. In response to the public outcry. Meaning their immobility now is pitiful complacency or incompetence or thanks to some disgraceful lobbying by the RSPCA
I hope I’m wrong and this video never arrives
Quite so, on both points. Though it's not just the RSPCA, I am sure. There is a real threat to more politically influential owners' dogs. Remember Malmesbury's - Or at least I think it was him - suggestion that only the more working class breeds got it in the original DDA. not the equally dangerous but more upper class ones.
It wasn't me, but that kind of misses the point.
If you ask medics, the really damaging doc attacks they deal with generally come from a small number of breeds. Think plastic surgery to rebuild arms and faces.
There are other breeds that attack, but the bulk of the serious injuries....
Quite: the ones with large jaws and heavy musculature. Yet nothing seems to be happening - least of all in the way of announcements. Or if so I missed it. Ms Coffey would ne the one to listen to at the Mancunian conference, it being DEFRA's job. But all I can find on a quick check is this about gun control:
The reason the Dangerous Dogs act is Evul, Wrung and Stuuupid isn't the act itself. It is the concern that it grants the government carte blanche to ban type of dogs for attacking people.
So everyone with a dog is afraid they will come for Fido.
The result is a very vocal lobby of "don't ban any dogs" types. While they may be a minority, they are very active. See the recent petitions. This is a political red light - vocal, active minorities translate into voters.
It seems that the majority want a ban, but are not especially fired up over it. But a very fired up minority oppose a ban.
There may well be something in that.
The most dangerous breed in terms of total bites is the Labrador. Of course this is absurd in one sense as there are so many - but by the same token, there must be a lot of Lanrador owners fearful that their Rover gets the needle if something ever goes wrong.
The alternative is to look even harder at the dog's training - which is even more frightening.
Around 1% of the electorate have signed the "XL bully [...] loves children and people in general" petition and
The XL Bully? Do people not think there's a clue in the name?
I am not sure what I think about this. I'm currently living with my in-laws and their poorly-socialized Springer Spaniel, who I could unfortunately easily see biting someone in the wrong circumstances. It's not just the breed that can make a dog dangerous, but how well (or not) it's been trained.
I think this might be an example where an expansion of access to civil law would bring about improvements. If it was easier for people to sue the owners of dogs for the damage they cause, and the courts would hold people liable for the damage caused by their pets, then I think that would encourage dog owners to better train their dogs, keep them under better control when in public, choose more placid pets and provide remedy when these steps fail.
I don't think it's possible to draw a binary distinction between dog breeds that are safe and dog breeds that are unsafe, and so there will always be cases that can't be dealt with by banning a subset of dogs.
To avoid accusations of dog racism, why not adopt something like a 3 strikes and you're out policy. Any breed that is involved in 3 attacks leading to serious injury of someone other than the adult owner (and excluding sepsis from bites) is automatically banned. After 2 such attacks, compulsory muzzling outside the home.
Doesn't that tend towards having every breed of dog banned, eventually?
Miaow, I couldn't purrsibly comment.
Imagine if cat-owners were charged for the wildlife destruction their cats are responsible for?
Not a cat owner but is it not just all the circle of life?
Wildlife lives and wildlife dies.
But wholesale extermination of species is not on, and that's what cats come close to doing.
There is definitely an issue particularly in dense urban areas. Very few dogs around here, it's cat country. Notably fewer little birds than there are up the road on Blackheath hill which is more dog country.
(I'm a cat owner but don't blame me, it was the rest of the family's choice).
Quite. We keep an eye on the diversity of small bird life in our garden andf it has crashed since the neighbours got two cats. Things like killing the male of the resident bullfinch pair, and generally frightening the rest away.
Totally O/T, but very little decent tv about at the moment....Lupin Season 3 has dropped on Netflix. Always found it quite a fun show, and French isn't too hard if you speak it (the main character speaks quite slowly for a native French speaker).
Son really likes it. It's a good way to learn French.
Absolutely. My French isn't very good these days (20 years ago I could speak reasonable amount), but found watching it, that I was reading the subtitles less and less as things came back to me.
When I speak to a lot of friends whose native language isn't English, so many said they really learned it from tv, particularly comedies, where subtitles are basically useless as they either don't make sense or spoil the timing.
"A mother-of-three has been left fearing for her children's safety after a violent XL Bully-type dog got into her garden and killed the family's beloved pet cat – in violent scenes caught on CCTV.
Nima Begum, 40, was in her house when she heard a commotion outside and saw a man wrestling with the powerful animal.
He kept shouting 'Your cat is fine', even though his pet's jaws were covered in blood.
Ms Begum rushed outside and found her terrified cat Kiwi cowering in a tree, which she managed to get down with the help of a passer-by. But the tabby died before she could get her to a vet."
This is driving me nuts. How much longer is the government going to wait? Get a fucking move on. Just order immediate muzzling NOW. The whole country wants it. Only 10% oppose
While they dither the attacks will continue and soon enough we will be faced with an utterly hideous video of a tiny child being eaten alive
Muzzle these fuckers. Give the owners a slapping
Put it down as another useless intervention by our PM.
The Tories can go fuck themselves. Everything they do is performative. Nothing ever actually happens. Apart from cancelling HS2
If there is an issue with muzzling these dogs then get on TV and explain the problem. What is it?? In the last three days a man has been killed and a toddler nearly lost a leg
Still not as many deaths as the motor car so espoused by Mr Sunak. His refusal to go to 20mph zones and his ban of LTNs is going to kill many more people.
Not that that is any excuse for the dogs. The argument may be that the existing laws are sufficient in principle - dangerous dogs out of control in public and so on. Though we need a clear statement one way or another, as you say. And if they are sufficient, why do we still have the DDA on the statute book banning some breeds?
But the thing is, after the next inevitable and horrifying video of someone being mauled to death, the government will suddenly discover that it CAN do something immediately. In response to the public outcry. Meaning their immobility now is pitiful complacency or incompetence or thanks to some disgraceful lobbying by the RSPCA
I hope I’m wrong and this video never arrives
Quite so, on both points. Though it's not just the RSPCA, I am sure. There is a real threat to more politically influential owners' dogs. Remember Malmesbury's - Or at least I think it was him - suggestion that only the more working class breeds got it in the original DDA. not the equally dangerous but more upper class ones.
It wasn't me, but that kind of misses the point.
If you ask medics, the really damaging doc attacks they deal with generally come from a small number of breeds. Think plastic surgery to rebuild arms and faces.
There are other breeds that attack, but the bulk of the serious injuries....
Quite: the ones with large jaws and heavy musculature. Yet nothing seems to be happening - least of all in the way of announcements. Or if so I missed it. Ms Coffey would ne the one to listen to at the Mancunian conference, it being DEFRA's job. But all I can find on a quick check is this about gun control:
The reason the Dangerous Dogs act is Evul, Wrung and Stuuupid isn't the act itself. It is the concern that it grants the government carte blanche to ban type of dogs for attacking people.
So everyone with a dog is afraid they will come for Fido.
The result is a very vocal lobby of "don't ban any dogs" types. While they may be a minority, they are very active. See the recent petitions. This is a political red light - vocal, active minorities translate into voters.
It seems that the majority want a ban, but are not especially fired up over it. But a very fired up minority oppose a ban.
There may well be something in that.
The most dangerous breed in terms of total bites is the Labrador. Of course this is absurd in one sense as there are so many - but by the same token, there must be a lot of Lanrador owners fearful that their Rover gets the needle if something ever goes wrong.
The alternative is to look even harder at the dog's training - which is even more frightening.
Around 1% of the electorate have signed the "XL bully [...] loves children and people in general" petition and
The XL Bully? Do people not think there's a clue in the name?
I am not sure what I think about this. I'm currently living with my in-laws and their poorly-socialized Springer Spaniel, who I could unfortunately easily see biting someone in the wrong circumstances. It's not just the breed that can make a dog dangerous, but how well (or not) it's been trained.
I think this might be an example where an expansion of access to civil law would bring about improvements. If it was easier for people to sue the owners of dogs for the damage they cause, and the courts would hold people liable for the damage caused by their pets, then I think that would encourage dog owners to better train their dogs, keep them under better control when in public, choose more placid pets and provide remedy when these steps fail.
I don't think it's possible to draw a binary distinction between dog breeds that are safe and dog breeds that are unsafe, and so there will always be cases that can't be dealt with by banning a subset of dogs.
The nerf gun we have in the office has an unstable trigger. If you drop it, it can go off. And hit you in the ankle with a foam dart.
A Violet Club nuclear weapon could, if dropped, yield 25kt.
This is why nerf guns are unregulated. And nuclear weapons are.
It's pretty easy to draw a distinction between a nerf fun and a nuclear weapon. Is it so easy to draw distinctions between different dog breeds?
I was under the impression that Rottweilers and Bull Terriers were already banned by the DDA, but they're still responsible for recent attacks.
I guess I'm wondering whether simply banning this single breed is going to be all that effective, as opposed to a more general change in the law that would make it clear that owners were responsible for the actions of their dogs.
Rottweillers certainly aren't banned. Nor should they be. Their danger comes from their being large dogs, not from their temprement - unlike Bully XLs.
It is notable that there have been more fataltities from Bully XLs in the last 2 years than there have been from Rottweillers in the last 40 years
"A mother-of-three has been left fearing for her children's safety after a violent XL Bully-type dog got into her garden and killed the family's beloved pet cat – in violent scenes caught on CCTV.
Nima Begum, 40, was in her house when she heard a commotion outside and saw a man wrestling with the powerful animal.
He kept shouting 'Your cat is fine', even though his pet's jaws were covered in blood.
Ms Begum rushed outside and found her terrified cat Kiwi cowering in a tree, which she managed to get down with the help of a passer-by. But the tabby died before she could get her to a vet."
This is driving me nuts. How much longer is the government going to wait? Get a fucking move on. Just order immediate muzzling NOW. The whole country wants it. Only 10% oppose
While they dither the attacks will continue and soon enough we will be faced with an utterly hideous video of a tiny child being eaten alive
Muzzle these fuckers. Give the owners a slapping
Put it down as another useless intervention by our PM.
The Tories can go fuck themselves. Everything they do is performative. Nothing ever actually happens. Apart from cancelling HS2
If there is an issue with muzzling these dogs then get on TV and explain the problem. What is it?? In the last three days a man has been killed and a toddler nearly lost a leg
Still not as many deaths as the motor car so espoused by Mr Sunak. His refusal to go to 20mph zones and his ban of LTNs is going to kill many more people.
Not that that is any excuse for the dogs. The argument may be that the existing laws are sufficient in principle - dangerous dogs out of control in public and so on. Though we need a clear statement one way or another, as you say. And if they are sufficient, why do we still have the DDA on the statute book banning some breeds?
But the thing is, after the next inevitable and horrifying video of someone being mauled to death, the government will suddenly discover that it CAN do something immediately. In response to the public outcry. Meaning their immobility now is pitiful complacency or incompetence or thanks to some disgraceful lobbying by the RSPCA
I hope I’m wrong and this video never arrives
Quite so, on both points. Though it's not just the RSPCA, I am sure. There is a real threat to more politically influential owners' dogs. Remember Malmesbury's - Or at least I think it was him - suggestion that only the more working class breeds got it in the original DDA. not the equally dangerous but more upper class ones.
It wasn't me, but that kind of misses the point.
If you ask medics, the really damaging doc attacks they deal with generally come from a small number of breeds. Think plastic surgery to rebuild arms and faces.
There are other breeds that attack, but the bulk of the serious injuries....
Quite: the ones with large jaws and heavy musculature. Yet nothing seems to be happening - least of all in the way of announcements. Or if so I missed it. Ms Coffey would ne the one to listen to at the Mancunian conference, it being DEFRA's job. But all I can find on a quick check is this about gun control:
The reason the Dangerous Dogs act is Evul, Wrung and Stuuupid isn't the act itself. It is the concern that it grants the government carte blanche to ban type of dogs for attacking people.
So everyone with a dog is afraid they will come for Fido.
The result is a very vocal lobby of "don't ban any dogs" types. While they may be a minority, they are very active. See the recent petitions. This is a political red light - vocal, active minorities translate into voters.
It seems that the majority want a ban, but are not especially fired up over it. But a very fired up minority oppose a ban.
There may well be something in that.
The most dangerous breed in terms of total bites is the Labrador. Of course this is absurd in one sense as there are so many - but by the same token, there must be a lot of Lanrador owners fearful that their Rover gets the needle if something ever goes wrong.
The alternative is to look even harder at the dog's training - which is even more frightening.
Around 1% of the electorate have signed the "XL bully [...] loves children and people in general" petition and
The XL Bully? Do people not think there's a clue in the name?
I am not sure what I think about this. I'm currently living with my in-laws and their poorly-socialized Springer Spaniel, who I could unfortunately easily see biting someone in the wrong circumstances. It's not just the breed that can make a dog dangerous, but how well (or not) it's been trained.
I think this might be an example where an expansion of access to civil law would bring about improvements. If it was easier for people to sue the owners of dogs for the damage they cause, and the courts would hold people liable for the damage caused by their pets, then I think that would encourage dog owners to better train their dogs, keep them under better control when in public, choose more placid pets and provide remedy when these steps fail.
I don't think it's possible to draw a binary distinction between dog breeds that are safe and dog breeds that are unsafe, and so there will always be cases that can't be dealt with by banning a subset of dogs.
To avoid accusations of dog racism, why not adopt something like a 3 strikes and you're out policy. Any breed that is involved in 3 attacks leading to serious injury of someone other than the adult owner (and excluding sepsis from bites) is automatically banned. After 2 such attacks, compulsory muzzling outside the home.
Doesn't that tend towards having every breed of dog banned, eventually?
Miaow, I couldn't purrsibly comment.
Imagine if cat-owners were charged for the wildlife destruction their cats are responsible for?
Not a cat owner but is it not just all the circle of life?
Wildlife lives and wildlife dies.
Domestic cats are not wild. Essentially you are subsidising a predator, and so supporting a higher population of predators than the local ecology would itself support. This can lead to wiping out the local population of prey animals, because there's no correction to the population of predators if prey becomes scarce.
As someone who has enjoyed living with cats for at least 25 of my years it's an issue I am thinking over when considering whether to provide a home for a cat in the future.
Quite. The same problem with hedgehogs in the Outer Hebrides - they have enough food supplies not to give a shit if they exterminate the local groundnesting birds.
Been pondering again whom I should vote for around here. It's been a two horse race for a long, long time apart from in the early 2000s when it was a 1 horse race. I'd previously come to the conclusion that it had to be SNP because my priority was to throw the useless sack of shit Duguid and the Tories in general out.
I still can't imagine that anyone else is the main challenger but last night's result was so bad for the SNP I'm wondering.
Last election: Con 50% SNP 40% LD 5% Lab 4%
Thoughts?
I don't know what your attitude to the indy question is, but if it were me (I'm normally a Lib Dem voter) then notwithstanding my distaste for the nationalists I would consider the fact they are likely to lose seats overall to Labour, while the Tories are deserving of a thorough whipping, hold my nose and vote SNP.
Is there a monster raving loony candidate available?
Voting for the best-placed candidate to defeat the SNP seems the obvious choice, North of the Border.
Comments
https://www.thenational.scot/news/23838676.scottish-independence-support-leads-support-union-report-finds/?ref=ebbn
https://www.thenational.scot/news/23837694.john-curtice-uncertain-labour-sealed-deal-electorate/
and while at it
https://www.thenational.scot/news/23838799.rutherglen-result-tells-us-general-election/
The reason the Dangerous Dogs act is Evul, Wrung and Stuuupid isn't the act itself. It is the concern that it grants the government carte blanche to ban type of dogs for attacking people.
So everyone with a dog is afraid they will come for Fido.
The result is a very vocal lobby of "don't ban any dogs" types. While they may be a minority, they are very active. See the recent petitions. This is a political red light - vocal, active minorities translate into voters.
It seems that the majority want a ban, but are not especially fired up over it. But a very fired up minority oppose a ban.
This country needs fundamental constitutional reform, in my view. The reason I'm open to independence is that I don't see it happening within the UK. The thing that puts me off is the upheaval it would undoubtedly cause.
I wouldn't be holding my nose voting for SNP, Lib Dem, or Labour. They've all got their attractions for me. So the main question for me next time is tactical rather than ideological.
Also, they might see at most four people a day, but perhaps not always be fully booked on every day of the week.
They could be good enough to be worth the money?
The most dangerous breed in terms of total bites is the Labrador. Of course this is absurd in one sense as there are so many - but by the same token, there must be a lot of Lanrador owners fearful that their Rover gets the needle if something ever goes wrong.
The alternative is to look even harder at the dog's training - which is even more frightening.
Around 1% of the electorate have signed the "XL bully [...] loves children and people in general" petition and
Tam,worth is a particular highlight with just gone 1.5% of all voters signed up.
See map here: https://petitionmap.unboxedconsulting.com/?petition=643611
And remind me, what's happening there soon?
Why Italian food is a lie
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZZfwyKa0Lc
based on this article,
https://www.ft.com/content/6ac009d5-dbfd-4a86-839e-28bb44b2b64c
After all the talk the other day about how crap American cheese is, seems the closest to "traditional" Italian Parmesan is probably found in Wisconsin.
Except the greyhound belonging to one of the other regulars. Always reacted badly to that.
@DavidParsley50
·
25m
🚨EXCLUSIVE: HS2 evictees to be told they can buy back their old homes, but at a higher price.
🔴Those who sold properties along the axed northern leg of HS2 may have to pay hundreds of thousands more to return home.
Got to say they definitely are not Conservative...
EXCLUSIVE Government has failed to tell HS2 manager to stop buying properties under compulsory purchase orders despite cancellation of northern leg of the line between Birmingham and Manchester
https://inews.co.uk/news/government-bought-house-hs2-line-rishi-sunak-cancelled-2667199
I am not sure what I think about this. I'm currently living with my in-laws and their poorly-socialized Springer Spaniel, who I could unfortunately easily see biting someone in the wrong circumstances. It's not just the breed that can make a dog dangerous, but how well (or not) it's been trained.
I think this might be an example where an expansion of access to civil law would bring about improvements. If it was easier for people to sue the owners of dogs for the damage they cause, and the courts would hold people liable for the damage caused by their pets, then I think that would encourage dog owners to better train their dogs, keep them under better control when in public, choose more placid pets and provide remedy when these steps fail.
I don't think it's possible to draw a binary distinction between dog breeds that are safe and dog breeds that are unsafe, and so there will always be cases that can't be dealt with by banning a subset of dogs.
"Employers added 336,000 jobs in September, almost double what had been predicted, confirming the overall strength of an economy that is facing challenges." NY Times
Or maybe they only want to work part time and set their rate accordingly.
A Violet Club nuclear weapon could, if dropped, yield 25kt.
This is why nerf guns are unregulated. And nuclear weapons are.
Mike Lindell’s lawyers in election defamation cases seek to quit over millions of dollars in unpaid legal fees
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/10/05/media/mike-lindell-smartmatic-lawyers/index.html
(He's been rather fond of the Chavista regime, if I recall correctly, so he might want to learn why so many are leaving that paradise.)
If you are truly serious about upgrading infrastructure, you have to have an overall consistent plan, how train will link to into the buses, to planes, to cars, integration with freight etc etc etc.
Reading out a list of random projects isn't that.
It is also why HS2 was terrible name and all wrong PR focused on a high-speed line.
Rather than this is how we are going to upgrade infrastructure across the country over the next 20 years. We could have done this from 2008 onwards, you could borrow to build while still getting every day spending under control.
Instead all the talk became about this one rail project and mythical airport / upgrade to existing airports (all separate to the new rail project).
So it can be done. Do it
I predict - again - that the government will come under irresistible pressure to speed up on this when we encounter the next truly horrible video; probably involving a child
For example, demand for a Louis Vuitton £1000 handbag would rise if the price changed to £2000? Surely not. I think the usual supply and demand rules apply.
I mean, it's expensive, but doctors are expensive. Probably the most expensive professionals most of us come into contact with on a regular basis. And psychiatry is one of those things that needs a lot of hours.
Looks a slam dunk for the XL Bully.
Consider this - the domestic cat. They attack people on occasion. Stuff happens. Why do we regulate owning leopards? They are actually quite similar in temperament to a domestic cat.
Of course, IKB didn't have the foresight to build the railway station there. One of his less well known lapses). But tbf if he had been allowed to continue the line of the original railway northwards that would have been tickety-boo (had a friend who lived on the remains of the line, one of the interesting little quirks of that side of Oxford).
"Counsellor" and "Therapist" are not-so-defined terms. They are just civilians who like to listen and have a couple of comfy seats.
Which one are you talking about?
The first one was a Saturday morning, a local cat (we didn't know who owned it) which had been breaking in at night and terrorising our two before usually leaving a shit on the kitchen floor, had got in but couldn't get back out. I grabbed it with the intention of putting it into a basket and taking to the vets to be snipped, assuming it an un-neutered Tom. It bit me deep in the thumb, at which I threw it on the floor. 24 hours later I was in hospital with a septic arm on IV antibiotics, and the cat had only one eye, the throwing on the floor having injured it beyond repair. Turned out the offending cat was a spayed female owned by our nice neighbours up the road.
Second was a couple of months ago on a Sunday night in the early hours. I picked up one of our cats to carry downstairs to the kitchen. I slipped on the steps and fell breaking 4 ribs. Spent 2 nights in hospital.
Cats seem to have it in for me. There is perhaps a karmic element to this after an unfortunate event that took place back in 2007.
"The US state that bans sparklers but not guns"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41811499
I guess I'm wondering whether simply banning this single breed is going to be all that effective, as opposed to a more general change in the law that would make it clear that owners were responsible for the actions of their dogs.
A leopard is, to an extent, a sensible animal. You get the odd man eater in the wild but most will only attack when hungry, or when it, or its offspring, are seriously threatened. Even then they will do the minimum damage necessary to achieve their objective. Evolution means they have learned to conserve energy
A Bully XL has “been evolved” to be an unpredictable and psychotic animal that will keep attacking beyond all “reason”. Once it starts on you it won’t stop even if severely injured. In one American attack a Bully XL had to be shot THIRTEEN TIMES by cops to get it to stop
And which do we allow people to parade around our streets and parks, where our children play?
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a755914ed915d6faf2b24bc/dogs-guide-enforcers.pdf
'[...]
The dog should have a good depth from the top of head to bottom of jaw and a straight
box-like muzzle.
• Its eyes should be small and deep-set, triangular when viewed from the side and elliptical
from front.
• Its shoulders should be wider than the rib cage at the eighth rib.
• Its elbows should be flat with its front legs running parallel to the spine.
• Its forelegs should be heavy and solid and nearly twice the thickness of the hind legs just below
the hock.
• The rib cage should be deep and spring straight out from the spine, it should be elliptical in
cross section tapering at the bottom and not ‘barrel’ chested.
• It should have a tail that hangs down like an old fashioned ‘pump handle’ to around the hock. [...]'
Wildlife lives and wildlife dies.
(I'm a cat owner but don't blame me, it was the rest of the family's choice).
As someone who has enjoyed living with cats for at least 25 of my years it's an issue I am thinking over when considering whether to provide a home for a cat in the future.
When I speak to a lot of friends whose native language isn't English, so many said they really learned it from tv, particularly comedies, where subtitles are basically useless as they either don't make sense or spoil the timing.
It is notable that there have been more fataltities from Bully XLs in the last 2 years than there have been from Rottweillers in the last 40 years