'Suella Braverman is pushing for a ban on American bully XL dogs, arguing they are a “clear and lethal danger”, particularly to children.
The home secretary announced she has commissioned urgent advice on outlawing the dogs after she highlighted an “appalling” attack on an 11-year-old girl in Birmingham.
However, adding dogs to the banned list is the responsibility of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) under the environment secretary, Thérèse Coffey. The PA news agency understands there are concerns within Defra over the feasibility of adding the American bully.'
The idea Coffey would overrule Braverman on this is laughable.
Braverman will have got Sunak's approval for this popular ban, civil servants will do what the elected government tells them to do and most MPs would also almost certainly vote it into law
There is no legislation required. Just write in the names of all the breeds you want to ban.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 45m I see we have reached the Dangerous Dogs Bill stage of this Government’s term of office…
Although note the date of the Dangerous Dogs Act - it was 1991, not 1996!
The Dangerous Dogs Act is often cited as a classic case of an awful, rushed bit of legislation. Maybe it was. But perhaps worth pointing out it is still in force three decades later.
There appear to be three weaknesses:
1) The DDA does not prohibit enough dogs, so there are still lots of attacks
2) Lack of enforcement (particularly pitbulls)
3) does not take into account an individual dog's behaviour
I don't see why any of these are a reason not to ban Bullies using the DDA. It will do the job in this case - stopped clock etc.
3, in particular, is silly: "We'll only take your dog away after it has mauled a few children".
'As American XL Bullies are a new sub-breed of the American bulldog, there has been no scientific study of their bite risk and bite rates were rising long before they existed. They and the other American bulldogs and related pit bulls do feature highly in fatalities lists. Yet so do rottweilers, German shepherds and Malamutes.'
So the RSPCA have a point in that it's a much wider problem than the XL bully dogs (as common sense would have indicated anyway). Does the breed-based DDA need replacement in the longer term, then? Edit: but as Eabhal says, banning the XL Bully is an interim soilution anyway. One hopes that something would be done to cater for the next 'breed' or sub-breed along.
I feel that the FTPA, simple majority for mayoral contests and the voting ID regulations are simply evidence of an inability in the Conservative Party to come to terms with democracy.
It's also just reactionary enemy punishing. Yes, making the London Mayoralty FPTP gives Tories a greater chance to win it - but it also shows the London lefties that they don't have their own autonomy and the Tories (and their voters) can still tell them what to do. Couple that with the future where the younger generations are not making the same turn rightwards as they age / are not making the same turn rightwards at the same magnitude, and the Tories have to find other ways to win. Thankfully for that issue both sides of politics in Britain is more than willing to actively demonise the "young" (even though some millennials will be pushing 40 now), so arguing to make engagement harder for them sits easy with the waning boomer generation.
I also think this is an import from the US - where the structures of right wing politics have always been anti majoritarian and have always over empowered the power of elite minorities to block progress. Historically that would have been the Lords and the Monarch for the UK, but as that has been increasingly viewed as undemocratic, it is hard to do.
If anything in the US it is elites who have pushed forward progress, gay marriage and abortion came via the Supreme Court not President and Congress or referendum (even today's SC hasn't banned abortion just left it up to the states).
If anything the Lords now is more liberal than the elected Commons, see its opposition to sending migrants to Rwanda or votes to delay Brexit. Even the King is somewhat woke
In the UK
That is why I used the term historically for the UK, yes.
US elites are still very right wing, and the Supreme Court is a terrible example of "progressive elites" - equal marriage was won after years of campaigning and was the compromise position from the queer liberation movement after the AIDs crisis and years of being anti assimilationist. And Roe v Wade happened 50 years ago. Whereas the Supreme Court almost always sides with big business, even with liberal justice support, the police, the military and against the environment, the rights of the individual and minority rights. There was one moment in SCOTUS history of progressive movement (the Warren court) to which reactionaries created the entire right wing legal apparatus to dismantle its gains (through the creation of the Federalist Society) culminating in the court the US currently has. It has got so right wing that this SCOTUS is signalling it may get rid of Miranda Rights (on arrest "you have the right to remain silent, anything you say may be used against you... etc.") because that imposes too much on the ability of police to, you know, pick people off the streets and put them in jails where they can die from being consumed by insects.
No they aren''t the average elite member in New York city or DC or California is way more liberal than the average American in say Ohio or Pennsylvania or Arizona or Georgia.
Remember even as recently as 2004 Bush was re elected winning the popular vote too on a pledge to oppose gay marriage.
Generally most Americans aren't that liberal on law and order either. The current Supreme Court might be a bit more conservative but that is only because of judges appointment by Bush and Trump who most of the liberal elites in the US voted against and if Biden is re elected the court will likely on time become more liberal again
a) As I noted yday, a study showed that a third of households now have dogs. Extraordinary. Plenty bought during lockdown where they weren't able to socialise, and if there were no children or dogs or plenty of visitors (def not that last) in the household then will not be socialised to children or other dogs and fiercely protecting their domain from strangers.
It is no surprise that these dogs are now going rogue, of whatever breed.
b) Why on earth would the Cons bring forward the election from the latest possible date. If they are due for a malleting now why wouldn't they wait to see if events.
c) Korea is one of the most impenetrable (as a foreigner) place I have been. Seoul is fine, I went skiing there (not in Seoul!) and that's pretty grim not even up to 70s French resort with its moulded plastic seating and everything closing at 7pm.
'As American XL Bullies are a new sub-breed of the American bulldog, there has been no scientific study of their bite risk and bite rates were rising long before they existed. They and the other American bulldogs and related pit bulls do feature highly in fatalities lists. Yet so do rottweilers, German shepherds and Malamutes.'
So the RSPCA have a point in that it's a much wider problem than the XL bully dogs (as common sense would have indicated anyway). Does the breed-based DDA need replacement, then?
One intervention we did have a few years ago was after a huge moral panic about "puppy farms", whilst the actual measures involved heavily attacked small hobby breeders doing up to 3 litters a year.
I have no data on whether it impacted puppy farms.
I wonder where the extra 4 million dogs were supplied from, and how knowledgeable said breeders have been?
I feel that the FTPA, simple majority for mayoral contests and the voting ID regulations are simply evidence of an inability in the Conservative Party to come to terms with democracy.
It's also just reactionary enemy punishing. Yes, making the London Mayoralty FPTP gives Tories a greater chance to win it - but it also shows the London lefties that they don't have their own autonomy and the Tories (and their voters) can still tell them what to do. Couple that with the future where the younger generations are not making the same turn rightwards as they age / are not making the same turn rightwards at the same magnitude, and the Tories have to find other ways to win. Thankfully for that issue both sides of politics in Britain is more than willing to actively demonise the "young" (even though some millennials will be pushing 40 now), so arguing to make engagement harder for them sits easy with the waning boomer generation.
I also think this is an import from the US - where the structures of right wing politics have always been anti majoritarian and have always over empowered the power of elite minorities to block progress. Historically that would have been the Lords and the Monarch for the UK, but as that has been increasingly viewed as undemocratic, it is hard to do.
How do we know what 18 to 24s will vote in 20 or 30 years time? In 1997 the Conservatives even lost over 65s, by 2010 however the Conservatives won all voters over 25
It's not impossible, but I'm not the one proposing policies aimed at making it harder for young people to vote on the assumption they're more lefty - the Tories are. Rees Mogg basically said as much at the National Conservative Conference; that voting ID was supposed to keep away the people the Tories didn't want voting and it didn't work because it also likely impacted a load of older people who might have voted Tory anyway.
Again, you see the same over the Atlantic - with GOP candidates floating the idea of raising the voting age to 25, again, in hopes of making it easier to keep winning elections without having to appeal to a majority of younger voters.
Given the median voter is now 50 in the US and UK even if the age you can first vote remains 18, the Conservatives and GOP could still won narrowly despite losing most voters aged 18 to 50
Depends how those are geographically distributed - but sure. I mean, the GOP haven't won the presidential election popular vote since Bush Jr after 9/11. Bush Jr's first term and Trump's first term were all won with fewer votes than their opponent. And obviously the Senate is designed to over represent fewer people, whilst in the House gerrymandering has gotten so out of control that the GOP control significantly more seats than they "should". Some states have had popular vote shares in the ~60% for Dems, who would then get ~40% of the state representation.
The GOP won the House and the popular vote US wide in the House mid terms as recently as last year
'As American XL Bullies are a new sub-breed of the American bulldog, there has been no scientific study of their bite risk and bite rates were rising long before they existed. They and the other American bulldogs and related pit bulls do feature highly in fatalities lists. Yet so do rottweilers, German shepherds and Malamutes.'
So the RSPCA have a point in that it's a much wider problem than the XL bully dogs (as common sense would have indicated anyway). Does the breed-based DDA need replacement, then?
Is the evidence that there is a breed based behaviour pattern, or is it just that people who want their dogs to be aggressive and train them to be such tend towards certain breeds that also look aggressive? I would personally prefer more direct confrontation with owners of dangerous dogs, rather than treating the dogs themselves like the inherent threat - dogs are highly social animals that respond to training and environment provided by their owners.
6. UK Fusion. Delivering what the UK Fusion sector leaders asked for: a re-allocation of the £600m ringfenced for Euratom for our UK Fusion Industrial Strategy: a huge win for our UK Fusion Program. .. https://twitter.com/GeorgeFreemanMP/status/1700102250096464256
Almost certainly a waste of money. There is no way that fusion will be commercialised within the time frame required to replace fossil fuels, i.e. the next few decades, so better to spend the cash on the development of renewables and storage (edit: and, if necessary, conventional nuclear power). In the long term fusion may or may not become a viable means of energy generation, but it's not going to help us now.
£600m isn't a vast amount. And you could be wrong.
'As American XL Bullies are a new sub-breed of the American bulldog, there has been no scientific study of their bite risk and bite rates were rising long before they existed. They and the other American bulldogs and related pit bulls do feature highly in fatalities lists. Yet so do rottweilers, German shepherds and Malamutes.'
So the RSPCA have a point in that it's a much wider problem than the XL bully dogs (as common sense would have indicated anyway). Does the breed-based DDA need replacement, then?
One intervention we did have a couple of years ago was a huge panic about "puppy farms", whilst the actual measures involved attacked mainly small hobby breeders doing up to 3 litters a year.
I wonder where the extra 4 million dogs were supplied from, and how knowledgeable said breeders have been?
That too, including the inexperience of new owners in buying puppies. Real pig in poke stuff there.
6. UK Fusion. Delivering what the UK Fusion sector leaders asked for: a re-allocation of the £600m ringfenced for Euratom for our UK Fusion Industrial Strategy: a huge win for our UK Fusion Program. .. https://twitter.com/GeorgeFreemanMP/status/1700102250096464256
Almost certainly a waste of money. There is no way that fusion will be commercialised within the time frame required to replace fossil fuels, i.e. the next few decades, so better to spend the cash on the development of renewables and storage (edit: and, if necessary, conventional nuclear power). In the long term fusion may or may not become a viable means of energy generation, but it's not going to help us now.
£600m isn't a vast amount. And you could be wrong.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 45m I see we have reached the Dangerous Dogs Bill stage of this Government’s term of office…
Although note the date of the Dangerous Dogs Act - it was 1991, not 1996!
The Dangerous Dogs Act is often cited as a classic case of an awful, rushed bit of legislation. Maybe it was. But perhaps worth pointing out it is still in force three decades later.
Interesting comments here and your last posting, thanks.
Given that it's so easy to modify the list, it's curious it's taken so long to do nothing - it's not as if the bully dogs haven't been known for attacking other dogs and people for quite some time now. I wonder if DEFRA think the breed(s) aren't definable? Kennel Club UK certainly doesn't recognise it/them.
I think that one of the key criticisms of the Dangerous Dogs Act is that the concept of banning a fighting breed is difficult in terms of definition, and isn't terribly helpful as it leads to unfairness in individual cases whilst being quite easy to circumvent if you really want a vicious dog.
I don't pretend to know how fair that criticism is. However, whilst it is still on the statute books, that clause (which presumably the Government would seek to use) hasn't in fact been used since Baker.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 45m I see we have reached the Dangerous Dogs Bill stage of this Government’s term of office…
Although note the date of the Dangerous Dogs Act - it was 1991, not 1996!
The Dangerous Dogs Act is often cited as a classic case of an awful, rushed bit of legislation. Maybe it was. But perhaps worth pointing out it is still in force three decades later.
It's one of those things that assumes a life of its own by dint of repetition. I bet it's no better or worse than tons of other Acts of Parliament. If you want a great example of a rushed botch job piece of legislation Johnson's Brexit deal takes some beating.
Whilst there is a fair bit of hurried and poorly thought-through legislation, I guess the Dangerous Dogs Act is the poster-boy as most bad law doesn't threaten to confiscate and kill the much-loved family mutt (not that this happened all that much in practice but I think a fair few thousand families had to apply for exemption for Fido).
'Suella Braverman is pushing for a ban on American bully XL dogs, arguing they are a “clear and lethal danger”, particularly to children.
The home secretary announced she has commissioned urgent advice on outlawing the dogs after she highlighted an “appalling” attack on an 11-year-old girl in Birmingham.
However, adding dogs to the banned list is the responsibility of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) under the environment secretary, Thérèse Coffey. The PA news agency understands there are concerns within Defra over the feasibility of adding the American bully.'
The idea Coffey would overrule Braverman on this is laughable.
Braverman will have got Sunak's approval for this popular ban, civil servants will do what the elected government tells them to do and most MPs would also almost certainly vote it into law
What makes you think Braverman has Sunak’s approval?
She’s quite clearly politicking to be her successor by parking her tanks on someone else’s lawn. If Sunak had any authority he’d slap her down. But he doesn’t have that power.
Ms Braverman got lots of publicity over cats - cat lessons, not her dept at all.
Now it's dogs.
What next, gerbils or newts?
If she's talking about banning the breed, then it's not her dept at all. She can't override a fellow minister, as HYUFD seems to think - but he thought yesterday that just because Ms Braverman said she wanted X that meant it has already happened as ordered by the PM.
There may be scope within the HO for non-breed based solutions for what is a real problem - insurance, and so on - and those to my mind have more merit. But those would impact some, or all, other dogs. And, of course, there are existing laws on reckless behaviour.
It will be banned. Do you want a bet on this? Seriously. I’m happy to wager
This is why
“Not that govt should always and only do popular things, but banning the American Bully XL is indeed extremely popular - 57-17, and 87-4 for holding dog owners criminally responsible for serious injuries/deaths (@YouGov via @s8mb) docs.cdn.yougov.com/ih73u15hvd/Res…”
I feel that the FTPA, simple majority for mayoral contests and the voting ID regulations are simply evidence of an inability in the Conservative Party to come to terms with democracy.
It's also just reactionary enemy punishing. Yes, making the London Mayoralty FPTP gives Tories a greater chance to win it - but it also shows the London lefties that they don't have their own autonomy and the Tories (and their voters) can still tell them what to do. Couple that with the future where the younger generations are not making the same turn rightwards as they age / are not making the same turn rightwards at the same magnitude, and the Tories have to find other ways to win. Thankfully for that issue both sides of politics in Britain is more than willing to actively demonise the "young" (even though some millennials will be pushing 40 now), so arguing to make engagement harder for them sits easy with the waning boomer generation.
I also think this is an import from the US - where the structures of right wing politics have always been anti majoritarian and have always over empowered the power of elite minorities to block progress. Historically that would have been the Lords and the Monarch for the UK, but as that has been increasingly viewed as undemocratic, it is hard to do.
How do we know what 18 to 24s will vote in 20 or 30 years time? In 1997 the Conservatives even lost over 65s, by 2010 however the Conservatives won all voters over 25
It's not impossible, but I'm not the one proposing policies aimed at making it harder for young people to vote on the assumption they're more lefty - the Tories are. Rees Mogg basically said as much at the National Conservative Conference; that voting ID was supposed to keep away the people the Tories didn't want voting and it didn't work because it also likely impacted a load of older people who might have voted Tory anyway.
Again, you see the same over the Atlantic - with GOP candidates floating the idea of raising the voting age to 25, again, in hopes of making it easier to keep winning elections without having to appeal to a majority of younger voters.
Given the median voter is now 50 in the US and UK even if the age you can first vote remains 18, the Conservatives and GOP could still won narrowly despite losing most voters aged 18 to 50
Depends how those are geographically distributed - but sure. I mean, the GOP haven't won the presidential election popular vote since Bush Jr after 9/11. Bush Jr's first term and Trump's first term were all won with fewer votes than their opponent. And obviously the Senate is designed to over represent fewer people, whilst in the House gerrymandering has gotten so out of control that the GOP control significantly more seats than they "should". Some states have had popular vote shares in the ~60% for Dems, who would then get ~40% of the state representation.
The GOP won the House and the popular vote US wide in the House mid terms as recently as last year
Indeed the GOP won the 2022 House of Representatives election by 3% in the popular vote but got just a 9 seat majority
'As American XL Bullies are a new sub-breed of the American bulldog, there has been no scientific study of their bite risk and bite rates were rising long before they existed. They and the other American bulldogs and related pit bulls do feature highly in fatalities lists. Yet so do rottweilers, German shepherds and Malamutes.'
So the RSPCA have a point in that it's a much wider problem than the XL bully dogs (as common sense would have indicated anyway). Does the breed-based DDA need replacement, then?
Is the evidence that there is a breed based behaviour pattern, or is it just that people who want their dogs to be aggressive and train them to be such tend towards certain breeds that also look aggressive? I would personally prefer more direct confrontation with owners of dangerous dogs, rather than treating the dogs themselves like the inherent threat - dogs are highly social animals that respond to training and environment provided by their owners.
Oh ffs. These things are obviously bred to kill and keep killing until they are killed themselves. 70 sheep killed/injured in Wales before the farmer could shoot them.
They go after police horses. Children. Other dogs, cats. And they can weigh 50kg.
The owners are always so surprised when it happens. Pit bull owners rave about their loyalty and gentleness. Then, out of nowhere, they rip the neck out of your neighbour.
'Suella Braverman is pushing for a ban on American bully XL dogs, arguing they are a “clear and lethal danger”, particularly to children.
The home secretary announced she has commissioned urgent advice on outlawing the dogs after she highlighted an “appalling” attack on an 11-year-old girl in Birmingham.
However, adding dogs to the banned list is the responsibility of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) under the environment secretary, Thérèse Coffey. The PA news agency understands there are concerns within Defra over the feasibility of adding the American bully.'
The idea Coffey would overrule Braverman on this is laughable.
Braverman will have got Sunak's approval for this popular ban, civil servants will do what the elected government tells them to do and most MPs would also almost certainly vote it into law
What makes you think Braverman has Sunak’s approval?
She’s quite clearly politicking to be her successor by parking her tanks on someone else’s lawn. If Sunak had any authority he’d slap her down. But he doesn’t have that power.
Ms Braverman got lots of publicity over cats - cat lessons, not her dept at all.
Now it's dogs.
What next, gerbils or newts?
If she's talking about banning the breed, then it's not her dept at all. She can't override a fellow minister, as HYUFD seems to think - but he thought yesterday that just because Ms Braverman said she wanted X that meant it has already happened as ordered by the PM.
There may be scope within the HO for non-breed based solutions for what is a real problem - insurance, and so on - and those to my mind have more merit. But those would impact some, or all, other dogs. And, of course, there are existing laws on reckless behaviour.
It will be banned. Do you want a bet on this? Seriously. I’m happy to wager
This is why
“Not that govt should always and only do popular things, but banning the American Bully XL is indeed extremely popular - 57-17, and 87-4 for holding dog owners criminally responsible for serious injuries/deaths (@YouGov via @s8mb) docs.cdn.yougov.com/ih73u15hvd/Res…”
I was on the train to Newport the other day on my way to Hereford (I may have mentioned it, or you may have read the account in an article I didn't write about it).
There was this tatted up geezer, mid-40s, shaven head, etc. Slightly down at heel, I'd say. With an American Bully. The dog was absolutely sweet but I did feel like asking why he had one. Any dog, in fact, looking at him, but one of those in particular.
But the train sped on and I didn't so we'll never know.
PB bringing you insight into today's hot topics. Nearly.
'As American XL Bullies are a new sub-breed of the American bulldog, there has been no scientific study of their bite risk and bite rates were rising long before they existed. They and the other American bulldogs and related pit bulls do feature highly in fatalities lists. Yet so do rottweilers, German shepherds and Malamutes.'
So the RSPCA have a point in that it's a much wider problem than the XL bully dogs (as common sense would have indicated anyway). Does the breed-based DDA need replacement, then?
One intervention we did have a couple of years ago was a huge panic about "puppy farms", whilst the actual measures involved attacked mainly small hobby breeders doing up to 3 litters a year.
I wonder where the extra 4 million dogs were supplied from, and how knowledgeable said breeders have been?
That too, including the inexperience of new owners in buying puppies. Real pig in poke stuff there.
A couple of bits of anecdata. Both one cousin's and my sister's households have obtained dogs in the last 12 months - as the children go to university. Both are explicit about "child substitute" - which is interesting.
One is quite a funny tautological dog - a Shitsu-Poodle cross, and the ban on calling it a Shit-pooh is total. The other one is, I think, some sort of handbag dog.
I've also noticed here (may be more prominent in city areas) a small trend towards renting a field for an hour from a local farmer to let dogs off the leash.
I don't know the detail of teh Dangerous Dogs Act, but was there an effort by some to make it deliberately ineffective?
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 45m I see we have reached the Dangerous Dogs Bill stage of this Government’s term of office…
Although note the date of the Dangerous Dogs Act - it was 1991, not 1996!
The Dangerous Dogs Act is often cited as a classic case of an awful, rushed bit of legislation. Maybe it was. But perhaps worth pointing out it is still in force three decades later.
It's one of those things that assumes a life of its own by dint of repetition. I bet it's no better or worse than tons of other Acts of Parliament. If you want a great example of a rushed botch job piece of legislation Johnson's Brexit deal takes some beating.
Whilst there is a fair bit of hurried and poorly thought-through legislation, I guess the Dangerous Dogs Act is the poster-boy as most bad law doesn't threaten to confiscate and kill the much-loved family mutt (not that this happened all that much in practice but I think a fair few thousand families had to apply for exemption for Fido).
A dangerous breed of rottweiler or Bully XL is not exactly the beloved family Labrador
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 45m I see we have reached the Dangerous Dogs Bill stage of this Government’s term of office…
Although note the date of the Dangerous Dogs Act - it was 1991, not 1996!
The Dangerous Dogs Act is often cited as a classic case of an awful, rushed bit of legislation. Maybe it was. But perhaps worth pointing out it is still in force three decades later.
It's one of those things that assumes a life of its own by dint of repetition. I bet it's no better or worse than tons of other Acts of Parliament. If you want a great example of a rushed botch job piece of legislation Johnson's Brexit deal takes some beating.
Whilst there is a fair bit of hurried and poorly thought-through legislation, I guess the Dangerous Dogs Act is the poster-boy as most bad law doesn't threaten to confiscate and kill the much-loved family mutt (not that this happened all that much in practice but I think a fair few thousand families had to apply for exemption for Fido).
A dangerous breed of rottweiler or Bully XL is not exactly the beloved family Labrador
Rottweilers aren't covered and indeed that's part of the point - a Rottweiler has an extremely strong jaw and can snap your arm like a twig, but temperamentally they are very good natured dogs. They need good training so they don't turn but are essentially softies - I lived with one (belonging to landlord) for a couple of years, and very much liked him.
'As American XL Bullies are a new sub-breed of the American bulldog, there has been no scientific study of their bite risk and bite rates were rising long before they existed. They and the other American bulldogs and related pit bulls do feature highly in fatalities lists. Yet so do rottweilers, German shepherds and Malamutes.'
So the RSPCA have a point in that it's a much wider problem than the XL bully dogs (as common sense would have indicated anyway). Does the breed-based DDA need replacement, then?
Is the evidence that there is a breed based behaviour pattern, or is it just that people who want their dogs to be aggressive and train them to be such tend towards certain breeds that also look aggressive? I would personally prefer more direct confrontation with owners of dangerous dogs, rather than treating the dogs themselves like the inherent threat - dogs are highly social animals that respond to training and environment provided by their owners.
Oh ffs. These things are obviously bred to kill and keep killing until they are killed themselves. 70 sheep killed/injured in Wales before the farmer could shoot them.
They go after police horses. Children. Other dogs, cats. And they can weigh 50kg.
The owners are always so surprised when it happens. Pit bull owners rave about their loyalty and gentleness. Then, out of nowhere, they rip the neck out of your neighbour.
There are two hypotheses - that certain breeds innately are more aggressive, or that environmental factors make them more aggressive. I was just wondering where the evidence actually pointed because (as far as I'm aware) most breeds were bred to hunt, just in different environments, and yet not all breeds are inherently aggressive. If the science says breed is the more impactful variable I will accept that - I was just asking.
Again, I don't think it is too far out of the realm of belief that people who want aggressive dogs pick breeds they view as looking aggressive to train to be aggressive and this reinforces the idea that they are. Whereas if you put those breeds in the hands of responsible dog owners, are they statistically more likely to act aggressively than any other breed?
If the idea of dog breed bans is to ban them and then do that research, I'm also okay with that. But if it's just a breed ban on the idea that breeds are inherently more violent regardless of training - I would like the evidence.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 45m I see we have reached the Dangerous Dogs Bill stage of this Government’s term of office…
Although note the date of the Dangerous Dogs Act - it was 1991, not 1996!
The Dangerous Dogs Act is often cited as a classic case of an awful, rushed bit of legislation. Maybe it was. But perhaps worth pointing out it is still in force three decades later.
It's one of those things that assumes a life of its own by dint of repetition. I bet it's no better or worse than tons of other Acts of Parliament. If you want a great example of a rushed botch job piece of legislation Johnson's Brexit deal takes some beating.
Whilst there is a fair bit of hurried and poorly thought-through legislation, I guess the Dangerous Dogs Act is the poster-boy as most bad law doesn't threaten to confiscate and kill the much-loved family mutt (not that this happened all that much in practice but I think a fair few thousand families had to apply for exemption for Fido).
A dangerous breed of rottweiler or Bully XL is not exactly the beloved family Labrador
I feel that the FTPA, simple majority for mayoral contests and the voting ID regulations are simply evidence of an inability in the Conservative Party to come to terms with democracy.
It's also just reactionary enemy punishing. Yes, making the London Mayoralty FPTP gives Tories a greater chance to win it - but it also shows the London lefties that they don't have their own autonomy and the Tories (and their voters) can still tell them what to do. Couple that with the future where the younger generations are not making the same turn rightwards as they age / are not making the same turn rightwards at the same magnitude, and the Tories have to find other ways to win. Thankfully for that issue both sides of politics in Britain is more than willing to actively demonise the "young" (even though some millennials will be pushing 40 now), so arguing to make engagement harder for them sits easy with the waning boomer generation.
I also think this is an import from the US - where the structures of right wing politics have always been anti majoritarian and have always over empowered the power of elite minorities to block progress. Historically that would have been the Lords and the Monarch for the UK, but as that has been increasingly viewed as undemocratic, it is hard to do.
How do we know what 18 to 24s will vote in 20 or 30 years time? In 1997 the Conservatives even lost over 65s, by 2010 however the Conservatives won all voters over 25
It's not impossible, but I'm not the one proposing policies aimed at making it harder for young people to vote on the assumption they're more lefty - the Tories are. Rees Mogg basically said as much at the National Conservative Conference; that voting ID was supposed to keep away the people the Tories didn't want voting and it didn't work because it also likely impacted a load of older people who might have voted Tory anyway.
Again, you see the same over the Atlantic - with GOP candidates floating the idea of raising the voting age to 25, again, in hopes of making it easier to keep winning elections without having to appeal to a majority of younger voters.
Given the median voter is now 50 in the US and UK even if the age you can first vote remains 18, the Conservatives and GOP could still won narrowly despite losing most voters aged 18 to 50
Depends how those are geographically distributed - but sure. I mean, the GOP haven't won the presidential election popular vote since Bush Jr after 9/11. Bush Jr's first term and Trump's first term were all won with fewer votes than their opponent. And obviously the Senate is designed to over represent fewer people, whilst in the House gerrymandering has gotten so out of control that the GOP control significantly more seats than they "should". Some states have had popular vote shares in the ~60% for Dems, who would then get ~40% of the state representation.
The GOP won the House and the popular vote US wide in the House mid terms as recently as last year
Indeed the GOP won the 2022 House of Representatives election by 3% in the popular vote but got just a 9 seat majority
Yeah, the 2022 election actually had outcomes similar to the voting percentages (GOP vote share and seat wins as % is basically spot on). But that doesn't change the history of wild gerrymandering - indeed this recent swing is probably partially due to white middle class women who typically voted GOP were more willing to vote Democratic after the removal of Roe protections and therefore making gerrymandered seats that depended on white voters more competitive.
'As American XL Bullies are a new sub-breed of the American bulldog, there has been no scientific study of their bite risk and bite rates were rising long before they existed. They and the other American bulldogs and related pit bulls do feature highly in fatalities lists. Yet so do rottweilers, German shepherds and Malamutes.'
So the RSPCA have a point in that it's a much wider problem than the XL bully dogs (as common sense would have indicated anyway). Does the breed-based DDA need replacement, then?
Is the evidence that there is a breed based behaviour pattern, or is it just that people who want their dogs to be aggressive and train them to be such tend towards certain breeds that also look aggressive? I would personally prefer more direct confrontation with owners of dangerous dogs, rather than treating the dogs themselves like the inherent threat - dogs are highly social animals that respond to training and environment provided by their owners.
Oh ffs. These things are obviously bred to kill and keep killing until they are killed themselves. 70 sheep killed/injured in Wales before the farmer could shoot them.
They go after police horses. Children. Other dogs, cats. And they can weigh 50kg.
The owners are always so surprised when it happens. Pit bull owners rave about their loyalty and gentleness. Then, out of nowhere, they rip the neck out of your neighbour.
There are two hypotheses - that certain breeds innately are more aggressive, or that environmental factors make them more aggressive. I was just wondering where the evidence actually pointed because (as far as I'm aware) most breeds were bred to hunt, just in different environments, and yet not all breeds are inherently aggressive. If the science says breed is the more impactful variable I will accept that - I was just asking.
Again, I don't think it is too far out of the realm of belief that people who want aggressive dogs pick breeds they view as looking aggressive to train to be aggressive and this reinforces the idea that they are. Whereas if you put those breeds in the hands of responsible dog owners, are they statistically more likely to act aggressively than any other breed?
If the idea of dog breed bans is to ban them and then do that research, I'm also okay with that. But if it's just a breed ban on the idea that breeds are inherently more violent regardless of training - I would like the evidence.
I'm all in favour in robust analysis like everyone else, but it's pretty obvious, isn't it? How many kids will be killed during the analysis, reporting and consultation phases? During the Commons debate?
"Just asking" is a classic tell for someone engaging in sealioning, btw. I'm sure that wasn't your intention.
There will be no early election whether people want one or not. If Sunak is sensible he will go in October 24. If not then when we approach conference season next year, he and his ministers will be saying there is no purpose in calling an "early election" (October) when the government has a mandate and a job to do.
The October scenario: May tax giveaway isn't a total disaster. Economy showing at least signs of life. What the hell, we have to at sometime. Disrupt Labour and LD conference plans by calling an election.
The January scenario: May tax giveaway is an omnishambles, so an autumn statement giveaway is needed. A November mini budget, pushed by the right wing media as Rishi's Christmas Presents, leading straight into an early proroguing and the start of a "Don't Let Labour Ruin Christmas" campaign.
On thread - not a massively meaningful finding. People who expect their favoured party to improve their position in an early vote, almost always favour an early vote.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 45m I see we have reached the Dangerous Dogs Bill stage of this Government’s term of office…
Although note the date of the Dangerous Dogs Act - it was 1991, not 1996!
The Dangerous Dogs Act is often cited as a classic case of an awful, rushed bit of legislation. Maybe it was. But perhaps worth pointing out it is still in force three decades later.
It's one of those things that assumes a life of its own by dint of repetition. I bet it's no better or worse than tons of other Acts of Parliament. If you want a great example of a rushed botch job piece of legislation Johnson's Brexit deal takes some beating.
Whilst there is a fair bit of hurried and poorly thought-through legislation, I guess the Dangerous Dogs Act is the poster-boy as most bad law doesn't threaten to confiscate and kill the much-loved family mutt (not that this happened all that much in practice but I think a fair few thousand families had to apply for exemption for Fido).
A dangerous breed of rottweiler or Bully XL is not exactly the beloved family Labrador
Small dogs - the Jack Russell types - are a mischief in my experience. People fail to train them adequately because, if they do bite you, it's painful but not life threatening. Whereas Rottweilers, for example, are often very well trained because if they bit you, you know about it.
There will be no early election whether people want one or not. If Sunak is sensible he will go in October 24. If not then when we approach conference season next year, he and his ministers will be saying there is no purpose in calling an "early election" (October) when the government has a mandate and a job to do.
The October scenario: May tax giveaway isn't a total disaster. Economy showing at least signs of life. What the hell, we have to at sometime. Disrupt Labour and LD conference plans by calling an election.
The January scenario: May tax giveaway is an omnishambles, so an autumn statement giveaway is needed. A November mini budget, pushed by the right wing media as Rishi's Christmas Presents, leading straight into an early proroguing and the start of a "Don't Let Labour Ruin Christmas" campaign.
So you dont think that the"Economy showing at least signs of life" is happening at the moment ?
I feel that the FTPA, simple majority for mayoral contests and the voting ID regulations are simply evidence of an inability in the Conservative Party to come to terms with democracy.
There is nothing intrinsically undemocratic about any of the topics you cite.
You just don’t like them because you think that “your side” benefits from voters not having to prove their right to vote, from the ability to have multiple preferences counted and to restrict the traditional flexibility of the executive to dissolve parliament at will (subject to maximum terms)
Whilst I think a FTPA is kind of impossible in our system, knowing that parliaments have a certain length before an election has benefits - both from a democratic normalcy point of view (how long is healthy for everyone to be "will they won't they" or "we want an early election"?) but also from a policy and investment point of view (if we know we have x years of this parliament, then we know things will likely be within these parameters during that time). I wonder how much of the underinvestment in the UK at the moment is just not knowing who will be in power, when, for how long and how stable that power will be.
In terms of voting ID - that is clearly a move to lower the voter turnout; even conservatives have said the quiet part out loud on that. I think the mayoralty move is also antidemocratic, but in a more interesting and grey sense that depends on your definition of democracy. I think it is fair to say FPTP is the worst way to use voting - you can have large majorities against a candidate who still ends up winning with a small plurality of the vote because their opposition is split. One of the benefits of transferable voting systems or proportional representation is it changes that dynamic. The voter gets more options and more ability to express their will, not less. I understand the whole "it's been done this way for x long, loads of dead people can't have been wrong" is kinda the root idea of conservatism - but that's not good enough for a lot of people. If you can really show why FPTP is better than STV or complete ranked choice voting in terms of democracy, rather than "it makes it harder for my guy to win", I'd be willing to back it - I just don't see it myself.
Those are just criticisms of the specifics of the policies.
None of them justify the broad brush attack that the Tories are “anti-democratic”
Part of the issue with politics these days is that extreme language has been normalised. Trump’s actions on Jan 6 were anti-democratic. These are not.
I mean, policies can be anti democratic. You can surely criticise policies on the basis that their impacts will reduce democracy. Illegally proroguing parliament, for instance, could be called anti democratic. Yes that language is "extreme", but so is the irregularity of politics at the moment. Both from external factors (covid) and from factors under control of politicians (the rhetoric around Brexit, immigrants, and anyone left of Attila the Hun).
He was saying the Tories were anti-democratic and thus, by implication, they were an illegitimate party. They are our elected government and they have shown no signs that they will seek to evade the next election.
Delegitimisation of one’s opponents is a favoured tactic of authoritarians.
One disappointment - the aviation museum in Gimpo was closed today as it's a Monday in the holiday season.
A few Mig 15s and F-86s I Imagine?
No idea - but it's just across from the rental car pickup, so would have been literally zero effort to check out. I'll assume it's a bit rubbish so didn't miss much.
Another way to realise why there will be a ban, whatever the devil-dog loving fools on here purport to believe, is to work out what will inevitably happen if there is NOT a ban
There are thousands of these dogs out there. And they are genuinely dangerous. They have killed a fair few people and mauled hundreds and savaged thousands of other dogs. This won’t stop
There will be other videos to come. One will very likely show a Bully XL killing a child
Imagine the optics around that. “Home Secretary you could have banned this dog but you didn’t, despite the massive public demand, and now here’s a child having its face torn off on tik tok, by the dog you didn’t ban, what are you going to say to the parents?”
That’s career ending stuff. No one comes back from that. It will be banned
'As American XL Bullies are a new sub-breed of the American bulldog, there has been no scientific study of their bite risk and bite rates were rising long before they existed. They and the other American bulldogs and related pit bulls do feature highly in fatalities lists. Yet so do rottweilers, German shepherds and Malamutes.'
So the RSPCA have a point in that it's a much wider problem than the XL bully dogs (as common sense would have indicated anyway). Does the breed-based DDA need replacement, then?
Is the evidence that there is a breed based behaviour pattern, or is it just that people who want their dogs to be aggressive and train them to be such tend towards certain breeds that also look aggressive? I would personally prefer more direct confrontation with owners of dangerous dogs, rather than treating the dogs themselves like the inherent threat - dogs are highly social animals that respond to training and environment provided by their owners.
Oh ffs. These things are obviously bred to kill and keep killing until they are killed themselves. 70 sheep killed/injured in Wales before the farmer could shoot them.
They go after police horses. Children. Other dogs, cats. And they can weigh 50kg.
The owners are always so surprised when it happens. Pit bull owners rave about their loyalty and gentleness. Then, out of nowhere, they rip the neck out of your neighbour.
There are two hypotheses - that certain breeds innately are more aggressive, or that environmental factors make them more aggressive. I was just wondering where the evidence actually pointed because (as far as I'm aware) most breeds were bred to hunt, just in different environments, and yet not all breeds are inherently aggressive. If the science says breed is the more impactful variable I will accept that - I was just asking.
Again, I don't think it is too far out of the realm of belief that people who want aggressive dogs pick breeds they view as looking aggressive to train to be aggressive and this reinforces the idea that they are. Whereas if you put those breeds in the hands of responsible dog owners, are they statistically more likely to act aggressively than any other breed?
If the idea of dog breed bans is to ban them and then do that research, I'm also okay with that. But if it's just a breed ban on the idea that breeds are inherently more violent regardless of training - I would like the evidence.
I'm all in favour in robust analysis like everyone else, but it's pretty obvious, isn't it? How many kids will be killed during the analysis, reporting and consultation phases? During the Commons debate?
"Just asking" is a classic tell for someone engaging in sealioning, btw. I'm sure that wasn't your intention.
Again, happy with the ban if the idea is "we ban for x long until research tells us if these dogs are inherently more dangerous". But I am not happy with the idea of "it's pretty obvious" that breed is the indicative factor of aggression, because from my understanding of animal psychology (which is limited to a couple of modules on animal psychology during my psych degree over a decade ago, I admit) dogs breeds are not that biologically different and that socialisation is a significantly more important factor.
'Suella Braverman is pushing for a ban on American bully XL dogs, arguing they are a “clear and lethal danger”, particularly to children.
The home secretary announced she has commissioned urgent advice on outlawing the dogs after she highlighted an “appalling” attack on an 11-year-old girl in Birmingham.
However, adding dogs to the banned list is the responsibility of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) under the environment secretary, Thérèse Coffey. The PA news agency understands there are concerns within Defra over the feasibility of adding the American bully.'
The idea Coffey would overrule Braverman on this is laughable.
Braverman will have got Sunak's approval for this popular ban, civil servants will do what the elected government tells them to do and most MPs would also almost certainly vote it into law
What makes you think Braverman has Sunak’s approval?
She’s quite clearly politicking to be her successor by parking her tanks on someone else’s lawn. If Sunak had any authority he’d slap her down. But he doesn’t have that power.
Ms Braverman got lots of publicity over cats - cat lessons, not her dept at all.
Now it's dogs.
What next, gerbils or newts?
If she's talking about banning the breed, then it's not her dept at all. She can't override a fellow minister, as HYUFD seems to think - but he thought yesterday that just because Ms Braverman said she wanted X that meant it has already happened as ordered by the PM.
There may be scope within the HO for non-breed based solutions for what is a real problem - insurance, and so on - and those to my mind have more merit. But those would impact some, or all, other dogs. And, of course, there are existing laws on reckless behaviour.
It’s not her department. But it’s a popular announcement and the government has not been swift to act. So she has positioned herself to claim the credit for the move as well as firming up her general “tough on x” image.
She thinks Sunak is going down and is positioning herself. Not sure whether she will wait for the election to strike.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 45m I see we have reached the Dangerous Dogs Bill stage of this Government’s term of office…
Although note the date of the Dangerous Dogs Act - it was 1991, not 1996!
The Dangerous Dogs Act is often cited as a classic case of an awful, rushed bit of legislation. Maybe it was. But perhaps worth pointing out it is still in force three decades later.
Interesting comments here and your last posting, thanks.
Given that it's so easy to modify the list, it's curious it's taken so long to do nothing - it's not as if the bully dogs haven't been known for attacking other dogs and people for quite some time now. I wonder if DEFRA think the breed(s) aren't definable? Kennel Club UK certainly doesn't recognise it/them.
HMG was about to ban the dog and add it to the list when the RSPCA did some intense lobbying - and the government backed away from the awkward politics
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 45m I see we have reached the Dangerous Dogs Bill stage of this Government’s term of office…
Although note the date of the Dangerous Dogs Act - it was 1991, not 1996!
The Dangerous Dogs Act is often cited as a classic case of an awful, rushed bit of legislation. Maybe it was. But perhaps worth pointing out it is still in force three decades later.
There’s a lot for our politicians to chew on before they change it
One disappointment - the aviation museum in Gimpo was closed today as it's a Monday in the holiday season.
A few Mig 15s and F-86s I Imagine?
No idea - but it's just across from the rental car pickup, so would have been literally zero effort to check out. I'll assume it's a bit rubbish so didn't miss much.
Don't get me wrong, a few Sabres and Fagots would still be pretty good. From t'internet the building itself looks pretty flashy.
Another way to realise why there will be a ban, whatever the devil-dog loving fools on here purport to believe, is to work out what will inevitably happen if there is NOT a ban
There are thousands of these dogs out there. And they are genuinely dangerous. They have killed a fair few people and mauled hundreds and savaged thousands of other dogs. This won’t stop
There will be other videos to come. One will very likely show a Bully XL killing a child
Imagine the optics around that. “Home Secretary you could have banned this dog but you didn’t, despite the massive public demand, and now here’s a child having its face torn off on tik tok, by the dog you didn’t ban, what are you going to say to the parents?”
That’s career ending stuff. No one comes back from that. It will be banned
Yeah I think they will probably be banned. Is it right or wrong I've no idea. Don't like banning things, plus unintended consequences plus, plus, and yet we have these huge fucking dogs attacking things, people, other dogs and hence I can understand it.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 45m I see we have reached the Dangerous Dogs Bill stage of this Government’s term of office…
Although note the date of the Dangerous Dogs Act - it was 1991, not 1996!
The Dangerous Dogs Act is often cited as a classic case of an awful, rushed bit of legislation. Maybe it was. But perhaps worth pointing out it is still in force three decades later.
Big deal , it was not that long ago they got rid of law that hackney cabs had to carry bale of hay for the horse.
This of course takes us into the whole realm of (over)breeding, which is an interesting but difficult area, and therefore ill-suited to politicians and others wishing to grandstand for popular acclaim.
I feel that the FTPA, simple majority for mayoral contests and the voting ID regulations are simply evidence of an inability in the Conservative Party to come to terms with democracy.
There is nothing intrinsically undemocratic about any of the topics you cite.
You just don’t like them because you think that “your side” benefits from voters not having to prove their right to vote, from the ability to have multiple preferences counted and to restrict the traditional flexibility of the executive to dissolve parliament at will (subject to maximum terms)
Whilst I think a FTPA is kind of impossible in our system, knowing that parliaments have a certain length before an election has benefits - both from a democratic normalcy point of view (how long is healthy for everyone to be "will they won't they" or "we want an early election"?) but also from a policy and investment point of view (if we know we have x years of this parliament, then we know things will likely be within these parameters during that time). I wonder how much of the underinvestment in the UK at the moment is just not knowing who will be in power, when, for how long and how stable that power will be.
In terms of voting ID - that is clearly a move to lower the voter turnout; even conservatives have said the quiet part out loud on that. I think the mayoralty move is also antidemocratic, but in a more interesting and grey sense that depends on your definition of democracy. I think it is fair to say FPTP is the worst way to use voting - you can have large majorities against a candidate who still ends up winning with a small plurality of the vote because their opposition is split. One of the benefits of transferable voting systems or proportional representation is it changes that dynamic. The voter gets more options and more ability to express their will, not less. I understand the whole "it's been done this way for x long, loads of dead people can't have been wrong" is kinda the root idea of conservatism - but that's not good enough for a lot of people. If you can really show why FPTP is better than STV or complete ranked choice voting in terms of democracy, rather than "it makes it harder for my guy to win", I'd be willing to back it - I just don't see it myself.
Those are just criticisms of the specifics of the policies.
None of them justify the broad brush attack that the Tories are “anti-democratic”
Part of the issue with politics these days is that extreme language has been normalised. Trump’s actions on Jan 6 were anti-democratic. These are not.
I mean, policies can be anti democratic. You can surely criticise policies on the basis that their impacts will reduce democracy. Illegally proroguing parliament, for instance, could be called anti democratic. Yes that language is "extreme", but so is the irregularity of politics at the moment. Both from external factors (covid) and from factors under control of politicians (the rhetoric around Brexit, immigrants, and anyone left of Attila the Hun).
He was saying the Tories were anti-democratic and thus, by implication, they were an illegitimate party. They are our elected government and they have shown no signs that they will seek to evade the next election.
Delegitimisation of one’s opponents is a favoured tactic of authoritarians.
I don't think that was the implication - I think the implication was if they continued with these kinds of policies they would become an illegitimate governing party, yes. Which I think is a reasonable position to take.
I think FPTP is antidemocratic, no matter who it benefits, because you can win a majority of seats without a majority of votes. It puts the idea that powerful and cohesive parties being able to govern alone is better than governing parties actually having to represent the complexities of what people want. Is that me saying any government elected under FPTP is illegitimate? I would say partly - I do in many cases think it is illegitimate to claim such a mandate in those circumstances, if 35% of the vote gave you 50+1% of seats I don't think that's okay. Does that make me an authoritarian? Up to you I guess - personally I don't think so.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 45m I see we have reached the Dangerous Dogs Bill stage of this Government’s term of office…
Although note the date of the Dangerous Dogs Act - it was 1991, not 1996!
The Dangerous Dogs Act is often cited as a classic case of an awful, rushed bit of legislation. Maybe it was. But perhaps worth pointing out it is still in force three decades later.
It's one of those things that assumes a life of its own by dint of repetition. I bet it's no better or worse than tons of other Acts of Parliament. If you want a great example of a rushed botch job piece of legislation Johnson's Brexit deal takes some beating.
Whilst there is a fair bit of hurried and poorly thought-through legislation, I guess the Dangerous Dogs Act is the poster-boy as most bad law doesn't threaten to confiscate and kill the much-loved family mutt (not that this happened all that much in practice but I think a fair few thousand families had to apply for exemption for Fido).
A dangerous breed of rottweiler or Bully XL is not exactly the beloved family Labrador
Generally PMs facing defeat and well behind in the polls try and go on for the full 5 years to maximise their time in office. Think Brown 2010 or Major 1997 and Sunak is unlikely to be different
Just a further instance of Tories putting party interest before national interest
There will be no early election whether people want one or not. If Sunak is sensible he will go in October 24. If not then when we approach conference season next year, he and his ministers will be saying there is no purpose in calling an "early election" (October) when the government has a mandate and a job to do.
The October scenario: May tax giveaway isn't a total disaster. Economy showing at least signs of life. What the hell, we have to at sometime. Disrupt Labour and LD conference plans by calling an election.
The January scenario: May tax giveaway is an omnishambles, so an autumn statement giveaway is needed. A November mini budget, pushed by the right wing media as Rishi's Christmas Presents, leading straight into an early proroguing and the start of a "Don't Let Labour Ruin Christmas" campaign.
So you dont think that the"Economy showing at least signs of life" is happening at the moment ?
In the real world? No - and voters aren't stupid enough to listen to Tory bullshit saying "signs of life" when their lived experience demonstrates the opposite.
One disappointment - the aviation museum in Gimpo was closed today as it's a Monday in the holiday season.
A few Mig 15s and F-86s I Imagine?
No idea - but it's just across from the rental car pickup, so would have been literally zero effort to check out. I'll assume it's a bit rubbish so didn't miss much.
I now have an image of you being disappointed by your car so renting a MIG instead…
'Suella Braverman is pushing for a ban on American bully XL dogs, arguing they are a “clear and lethal danger”, particularly to children.
The home secretary announced she has commissioned urgent advice on outlawing the dogs after she highlighted an “appalling” attack on an 11-year-old girl in Birmingham.
However, adding dogs to the banned list is the responsibility of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) under the environment secretary, Thérèse Coffey. The PA news agency understands there are concerns within Defra over the feasibility of adding the American bully.'
The idea Coffey would overrule Braverman on this is laughable.
Braverman will have got Sunak's approval for this popular ban, civil servants will do what the elected government tells them to do and most MPs would also almost certainly vote it into law
There is no legislation required. Just write in the names of all the breeds you want to ban.
Pitbulls kill the most people, by a big margin, then Rotweilers, German shepherds, and mastiffs.
'Suella Braverman is pushing for a ban on American bully XL dogs, arguing they are a “clear and lethal danger”, particularly to children.
The home secretary announced she has commissioned urgent advice on outlawing the dogs after she highlighted an “appalling” attack on an 11-year-old girl in Birmingham.
However, adding dogs to the banned list is the responsibility of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) under the environment secretary, Thérèse Coffey. The PA news agency understands there are concerns within Defra over the feasibility of adding the American bully.'
The idea Coffey would overrule Braverman on this is laughable.
Braverman will have got Sunak's approval for this popular ban, civil servants will do what the elected government tells them to do and most MPs would also almost certainly vote it into law
There is no legislation required. Just write in the names of all the breeds you want to ban.
Pitbulls kill the most people, by a big margin, then Rotweilers, German shepherds, and mastiffs.
I feel that the FTPA, simple majority for mayoral contests and the voting ID regulations are simply evidence of an inability in the Conservative Party to come to terms with democracy.
There is nothing intrinsically undemocratic about any of the topics you cite.
You just don’t like them because you think that “your side” benefits from voters not having to prove their right to vote, from the ability to have multiple preferences counted and to restrict the traditional flexibility of the executive to dissolve parliament at will (subject to maximum terms)
Whilst I think a FTPA is kind of impossible in our system, knowing that parliaments have a certain length before an election has benefits - both from a democratic normalcy point of view (how long is healthy for everyone to be "will they won't they" or "we want an early election"?) but also from a policy and investment point of view (if we know we have x years of this parliament, then we know things will likely be within these parameters during that time). I wonder how much of the underinvestment in the UK at the moment is just not knowing who will be in power, when, for how long and how stable that power will be.
In terms of voting ID - that is clearly a move to lower the voter turnout; even conservatives have said the quiet part out loud on that. I think the mayoralty move is also antidemocratic, but in a more interesting and grey sense that depends on your definition of democracy. I think it is fair to say FPTP is the worst way to use voting - you can have large majorities against a candidate who still ends up winning with a small plurality of the vote because their opposition is split. One of the benefits of transferable voting systems or proportional representation is it changes that dynamic. The voter gets more options and more ability to express their will, not less. I understand the whole "it's been done this way for x long, loads of dead people can't have been wrong" is kinda the root idea of conservatism - but that's not good enough for a lot of people. If you can really show why FPTP is better than STV or complete ranked choice voting in terms of democracy, rather than "it makes it harder for my guy to win", I'd be willing to back it - I just don't see it myself.
Those are just criticisms of the specifics of the policies.
None of them justify the broad brush attack that the Tories are “anti-democratic”
Part of the issue with politics these days is that extreme language has been normalised. Trump’s actions on Jan 6 were anti-democratic. These are not.
I mean, policies can be anti democratic. You can surely criticise policies on the basis that their impacts will reduce democracy. Illegally proroguing parliament, for instance, could be called anti democratic. Yes that language is "extreme", but so is the irregularity of politics at the moment. Both from external factors (covid) and from factors under control of politicians (the rhetoric around Brexit, immigrants, and anyone left of Attila the Hun).
He was saying the Tories were anti-democratic and thus, by implication, they were an illegitimate party. They are our elected government and they have shown no signs that they will seek to evade the next election.
Delegitimisation of one’s opponents is a favoured tactic of authoritarians.
I don't think that was the implication - I think the implication was if they continued with these kinds of policies they would become an illegitimate governing party, yes. Which I think is a reasonable position to take.
I think FPTP is antidemocratic, no matter who it benefits, because you can win a majority of seats without a majority of votes. It puts the idea that powerful and cohesive parties being able to govern alone is better than governing parties actually having to represent the complexities of what people want. Is that me saying any government elected under FPTP is illegitimate? I would say partly - I do in many cases think it is illegitimate to claim such a mandate in those circumstances, if 35% of the vote gave you 50+1% of seats I don't think that's okay. Does that make me an authoritarian? Up to you I guess - personally I don't think so.
So continuing with the system that has existed in the UK since the advent of democracy will make the Tories an “illegitimate governing party”.
'As American XL Bullies are a new sub-breed of the American bulldog, there has been no scientific study of their bite risk and bite rates were rising long before they existed. They and the other American bulldogs and related pit bulls do feature highly in fatalities lists. Yet so do rottweilers, German shepherds and Malamutes.'
So the RSPCA have a point in that it's a much wider problem than the XL bully dogs (as common sense would have indicated anyway). Does the breed-based DDA need replacement, then?
Is the evidence that there is a breed based behaviour pattern, or is it just that people who want their dogs to be aggressive and train them to be such tend towards certain breeds that also look aggressive? I would personally prefer more direct confrontation with owners of dangerous dogs, rather than treating the dogs themselves like the inherent threat - dogs are highly social animals that respond to training and environment provided by their owners.
Oh ffs. These things are obviously bred to kill and keep killing until they are killed themselves. 70 sheep killed/injured in Wales before the farmer could shoot them.
They go after police horses. Children. Other dogs, cats. And they can weigh 50kg.
The owners are always so surprised when it happens. Pit bull owners rave about their loyalty and gentleness. Then, out of nowhere, they rip the neck out of your neighbour.
There are two hypotheses - that certain breeds innately are more aggressive, or that environmental factors make them more aggressive. I was just wondering where the evidence actually pointed because (as far as I'm aware) most breeds were bred to hunt, just in different environments, and yet not all breeds are inherently aggressive. If the science says breed is the more impactful variable I will accept that - I was just asking.
Again, I don't think it is too far out of the realm of belief that people who want aggressive dogs pick breeds they view as looking aggressive to train to be aggressive and this reinforces the idea that they are. Whereas if you put those breeds in the hands of responsible dog owners, are they statistically more likely to act aggressively than any other breed?
If the idea of dog breed bans is to ban them and then do that research, I'm also okay with that. But if it's just a breed ban on the idea that breeds are inherently more violent regardless of training - I would like the evidence.
I'm all in favour in robust analysis like everyone else, but it's pretty obvious, isn't it? How many kids will be killed during the analysis, reporting and consultation phases? During the Commons debate?
"Just asking" is a classic tell for someone engaging in sealioning, btw. I'm sure that wasn't your intention.
Again, happy with the ban if the idea is "we ban for x long until research tells us if these dogs are inherently more dangerous". But I am not happy with the idea of "it's pretty obvious" that breed is the indicative factor of aggression, because from my understanding of animal psychology (which is limited to a couple of modules on animal psychology during my psych degree over a decade ago, I admit) dogs breeds are not that biologically different and that socialisation is a significantly more important factor.
Some relatively new research suggesting just that!
"Your dog’s breed doesn’t determine its personality, study suggests"
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 45m I see we have reached the Dangerous Dogs Bill stage of this Government’s term of office…
Although note the date of the Dangerous Dogs Act - it was 1991, not 1996!
The Dangerous Dogs Act is often cited as a classic case of an awful, rushed bit of legislation. Maybe it was. But perhaps worth pointing out it is still in force three decades later.
It's one of those things that assumes a life of its own by dint of repetition. I bet it's no better or worse than tons of other Acts of Parliament. If you want a great example of a rushed botch job piece of legislation Johnson's Brexit deal takes some beating.
Whilst there is a fair bit of hurried and poorly thought-through legislation, I guess the Dangerous Dogs Act is the poster-boy as most bad law doesn't threaten to confiscate and kill the much-loved family mutt (not that this happened all that much in practice but I think a fair few thousand families had to apply for exemption for Fido).
A dangerous breed of rottweiler or Bully XL is not exactly the beloved family Labrador
There will be no early election whether people want one or not. If Sunak is sensible he will go in October 24. If not then when we approach conference season next year, he and his ministers will be saying there is no purpose in calling an "early election" (October) when the government has a mandate and a job to do.
The October scenario: May tax giveaway isn't a total disaster. Economy showing at least signs of life. What the hell, we have to at sometime. Disrupt Labour and LD conference plans by calling an election.
The January scenario: May tax giveaway is an omnishambles, so an autumn statement giveaway is needed. A November mini budget, pushed by the right wing media as Rishi's Christmas Presents, leading straight into an early proroguing and the start of a "Don't Let Labour Ruin Christmas" campaign.
So you dont think that the"Economy showing at least signs of life" is happening at the moment ?
In the real world? No - and voters aren't stupid enough to listen to Tory bullshit saying "signs of life" when their lived experience demonstrates the opposite.
God knows what you would have made of the early 80s and 90s.
Heading down to London myself today (albeit I’ll be central-ish). Looks like it’ll get up to 26°-ish and sunny, so you’ve got another day of post-dated summer yet.
Manchester is on the turn though - the black clouds are approaching.
A slightly cooler night eventually last night, thank god.
Weather looks lovely later in the week – sunny and 23c. Hardly autumnal, just pleasant English summer weather, rather than broiling ugly heat and insomniac night temperatures.
One disappointment - the aviation museum in Gimpo was closed today as it's a Monday in the holiday season.
A few Mig 15s and F-86s I Imagine?
No idea - but it's just across from the rental car pickup, so would have been literally zero effort to check out. I'll assume it's a bit rubbish so didn't miss much.
I now have an image of you being disappointed by your car so renting a MIG instead…
Driving on Jeju-do was easy. Seoul another matter; quite impossible without satnav, I think, unless you live there.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 45m I see we have reached the Dangerous Dogs Bill stage of this Government’s term of office…
Although note the date of the Dangerous Dogs Act - it was 1991, not 1996!
The Dangerous Dogs Act is often cited as a classic case of an awful, rushed bit of legislation. Maybe it was. But perhaps worth pointing out it is still in force three decades later.
Big deal , it was not that long ago they got rid of law that hackney cabs had to carry bale of hay for the horse.
1976 was nearly 50 years ago!
Feels like yesterday though. That heatwave. The Windies tour. Southampton beating Man U in the Cup. My O levels. (messed up Biology).
They're ain't any devil dogs, just moronic owners. Obviously some dog breeds don't make good pets and I can understand limiting those breeds in some way. Far too many people want a dog to be something it's not. It's not a toy for the kids or a fashion accessory or a tool to show how hard you are. It's a living, sentiment being that has its own moods and foibles. Some days it might want to lick your face and chase after a ball. Other days it might want to lick its own balls and then bite your balls. They take time, money and commitment and they deserve to be respected and treated well. Some dogs shouldn't be pets, but there's more families that shouldn't be pet owners!
This of course takes us into the whole realm of (over)breeding, which is an interesting but difficult area, and therefore ill-suited to politicians and others wishing to grandstand for popular acclaim.
The health issues are a big problem for most snub nosed dogs - I have friends with bulldogs and pigs and frenchies and they really struggle in general especially in summer.
I have very close friends however who got the dog below. On first sight to a lot of people he looks like some sort of Bully or similar. Very stocky around the neck and chest however he’s an old English bulldog where they have been reverse engineered to be as close as possible to the original bulldogs before people bred them with stumpy legs. He has a long snout and much longer legs.
He’s bloody fast and powerful but soft as shit. In the 8 years they’ve had him he hasn’t been scary once despite kids annoying him and being bullied by his cohabitant French bulldog. He could probably eat the Frenchie in one go but never reacts to attacks. He just wants food and sleep.
I feel that the FTPA, simple majority for mayoral contests and the voting ID regulations are simply evidence of an inability in the Conservative Party to come to terms with democracy.
There is nothing intrinsically undemocratic about any of the topics you cite.
You just don’t like them because you think that “your side” benefits from voters not having to prove their right to vote, from the ability to have multiple preferences counted and to restrict the traditional flexibility of the executive to dissolve parliament at will (subject to maximum terms)
Whilst I think a FTPA is kind of impossible in our system, knowing that parliaments have a certain length before an election has benefits - both from a democratic normalcy point of view (how long is healthy for everyone to be "will they won't they" or "we want an early election"?) but also from a policy and investment point of view (if we know we have x years of this parliament, then we know things will likely be within these parameters during that time). I wonder how much of the underinvestment in the UK at the moment is just not knowing who will be in power, when, for how long and how stable that power will be.
In terms of voting ID - that is clearly a move to lower the voter turnout; even conservatives have said the quiet part out loud on that. I think the mayoralty move is also antidemocratic, but in a more interesting and grey sense that depends on your definition of democracy. I think it is fair to say FPTP is the worst way to use voting - you can have large majorities against a candidate who still ends up winning with a small plurality of the vote because their opposition is split. One of the benefits of transferable voting systems or proportional representation is it changes that dynamic. The voter gets more options and more ability to express their will, not less. I understand the whole "it's been done this way for x long, loads of dead people can't have been wrong" is kinda the root idea of conservatism - but that's not good enough for a lot of people. If you can really show why FPTP is better than STV or complete ranked choice voting in terms of democracy, rather than "it makes it harder for my guy to win", I'd be willing to back it - I just don't see it myself.
Those are just criticisms of the specifics of the policies.
None of them justify the broad brush attack that the Tories are “anti-democratic”
Part of the issue with politics these days is that extreme language has been normalised. Trump’s actions on Jan 6 were anti-democratic. These are not.
I mean, policies can be anti democratic. You can surely criticise policies on the basis that their impacts will reduce democracy. Illegally proroguing parliament, for instance, could be called anti democratic. Yes that language is "extreme", but so is the irregularity of politics at the moment. Both from external factors (covid) and from factors under control of politicians (the rhetoric around Brexit, immigrants, and anyone left of Attila the Hun).
He was saying the Tories were anti-democratic and thus, by implication, they were an illegitimate party. They are our elected government and they have shown no signs that they will seek to evade the next election.
Delegitimisation of one’s opponents is a favoured tactic of authoritarians.
I don't think that was the implication - I think the implication was if they continued with these kinds of policies they would become an illegitimate governing party, yes. Which I think is a reasonable position to take.
I think FPTP is antidemocratic, no matter who it benefits, because you can win a majority of seats without a majority of votes. It puts the idea that powerful and cohesive parties being able to govern alone is better than governing parties actually having to represent the complexities of what people want. Is that me saying any government elected under FPTP is illegitimate? I would say partly - I do in many cases think it is illegitimate to claim such a mandate in those circumstances, if 35% of the vote gave you 50+1% of seats I don't think that's okay. Does that make me an authoritarian? Up to you I guess - personally I don't think so.
So continuing with the system that has existed in the UK since the advent of democracy will make the Tories an “illegitimate governing party”.
Thank you. Alles klar.
I didn't say that, and literally said "no matter who it benefits". If Labour wins a majority on 35% of the vote, I would too argue that isn't enough to make them legitimate.
The Tories have done more than just support FPTP - they have taken away more democratic forms of voting in places they were being used and enforced FPTP on them. They have also put in increased barriers to voting with minimal evidence of their efficacy or necessity - with a Tory MP and former cabinet member making it clear the intention of this policy was to reduce the turnout of voters from other parties. That sounds pretty anti democratic to me.
I think Labour also have some bad anti democratic tendencies. The conference can vote on policies and then leadership can turn around and ignore them is ridiculous to me. The local parties can have candidates enforced on them by the central party is despicable. But Labour aren't in government and haven't been for a while, so I can't point to examples of their anti democratic policies nation wide as they haven't passed any yet.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 45m I see we have reached the Dangerous Dogs Bill stage of this Government’s term of office…
Although note the date of the Dangerous Dogs Act - it was 1991, not 1996!
The Dangerous Dogs Act is often cited as a classic case of an awful, rushed bit of legislation. Maybe it was. But perhaps worth pointing out it is still in force three decades later.
Interesting comments here and your last posting, thanks.
Given that it's so easy to modify the list, it's curious it's taken so long to do nothing - it's not as if the bully dogs haven't been known for attacking other dogs and people for quite some time now. I wonder if DEFRA think the breed(s) aren't definable? Kennel Club UK certainly doesn't recognise it/them.
HMG was about to ban the dog and add it to the list when the RSPCA did some intense lobbying - and the government backed away from the awkward politics
That won’t happen again
There are also practical issues.
Both France and Spain have longer lists of supposedly banned breeds than us, but there are usually exemptions for purebred show dogs and the usual advice for prospective travellers on pet travel sites is, if you have a purebred, get a kennel club certificate, or otherwise get a DNA test that will almost certainly come back with some breed mix, or just put 'mix breed' on the paperwork and wing it. Occasionally there's a story of someone challenged because of a dog's appearance, but people mostly get away with it because in these cash strapped times there's usually no enforcement. The only people deterred are the occasional ultra-responsible owner whose dog probably wasn't a threat anyway.
Anyhow we're playing ball in the shade of Budapest city park watching the tethered hot air balloon go up and down
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 45m I see we have reached the Dangerous Dogs Bill stage of this Government’s term of office…
Although note the date of the Dangerous Dogs Act - it was 1991, not 1996!
The Dangerous Dogs Act is often cited as a classic case of an awful, rushed bit of legislation. Maybe it was. But perhaps worth pointing out it is still in force three decades later.
It's one of those things that assumes a life of its own by dint of repetition. I bet it's no better or worse than tons of other Acts of Parliament. If you want a great example of a rushed botch job piece of legislation Johnson's Brexit deal takes some beating.
Whilst there is a fair bit of hurried and poorly thought-through legislation, I guess the Dangerous Dogs Act is the poster-boy as most bad law doesn't threaten to confiscate and kill the much-loved family mutt (not that this happened all that much in practice but I think a fair few thousand families had to apply for exemption for Fido).
A dangerous breed of rottweiler or Bully XL is not exactly the beloved family Labrador
I'm shocked that they haven't normalised their data.
I think compulsory insurance is the way forward, but I guess that might be quite unpopular. Easier to ban a breed of dog that you don't want to own.
But that’s another point. What kind of person wants to own a huge, muscled dog known for its lethal and psychotic aggression, and tendency to kill children?
I get that some people want a dog to feel safer. Fair enough. But there are plenty of other breeds for that. Alsatians are quite scary enough
The only reason you would buy a dog like this is because you are an inadequate fuck who wants to terrify the shit out of people
As for the civil liberties argument, I’d quite like to own a leopard and walk it around Camden, but the government doesn’t allow that. A bully XL is easily as dangerous as a leopard. Probably worse, in fact
'Suella Braverman is pushing for a ban on American bully XL dogs, arguing they are a “clear and lethal danger”, particularly to children.
The home secretary announced she has commissioned urgent advice on outlawing the dogs after she highlighted an “appalling” attack on an 11-year-old girl in Birmingham.
However, adding dogs to the banned list is the responsibility of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) under the environment secretary, Thérèse Coffey. The PA news agency understands there are concerns within Defra over the feasibility of adding the American bully.'
The idea Coffey would overrule Braverman on this is laughable.
Braverman will have got Sunak's approval for this popular ban, civil servants will do what the elected government tells them to do and most MPs would also almost certainly vote it into law
What makes you think Braverman has Sunak’s approval?
She’s quite clearly politicking to be her successor by parking her tanks on someone else’s lawn. If Sunak had any authority he’d slap her down. But he doesn’t have that power.
Ms Braverman got lots of publicity over cats - cat lessons, not her dept at all.
Now it's dogs.
What next, gerbils or newts?
If she's talking about banning the breed, then it's not her dept at all. She can't override a fellow minister, as HYUFD seems to think - but he thought yesterday that just because Ms Braverman said she wanted X that meant it has already happened as ordered by the PM.
There may be scope within the HO for non-breed based solutions for what is a real problem - insurance, and so on - and those to my mind have more merit. But those would impact some, or all, other dogs. And, of course, there are existing laws on reckless behaviour.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 45m I see we have reached the Dangerous Dogs Bill stage of this Government’s term of office…
Although note the date of the Dangerous Dogs Act - it was 1991, not 1996!
The Dangerous Dogs Act is often cited as a classic case of an awful, rushed bit of legislation. Maybe it was. But perhaps worth pointing out it is still in force three decades later.
It's one of those things that assumes a life of its own by dint of repetition. I bet it's no better or worse than tons of other Acts of Parliament. If you want a great example of a rushed botch job piece of legislation Johnson's Brexit deal takes some beating.
Whilst there is a fair bit of hurried and poorly thought-through legislation, I guess the Dangerous Dogs Act is the poster-boy as most bad law doesn't threaten to confiscate and kill the much-loved family mutt (not that this happened all that much in practice but I think a fair few thousand families had to apply for exemption for Fido).
A dangerous breed of rottweiler or Bully XL is not exactly the beloved family Labrador
I'm shocked that they haven't normalised their data.
I think compulsory insurance is the way forward, but I guess that might be quite unpopular. Easier to ban a breed of dog that you don't want to own.
But that’s another point. What kind of person wants to own a huge, muscled dog known for its lethal and psychotic aggression, and tendency to kill children?
I get that some people want a dog to feel safer. Fair enough. But there are plenty of other breeds for that. Alsatians are quite scary enough
The only reason you would buy a dog like this is because you are an inadequate fuck who wants to terrify the shit out of people
As for the civil liberties argument, I’d quite like to own a leopard and walk it around Camden, but the government doesn’t allow that. A bully XL is easily as dangerous as a leopard. Probably worse, in fact
Leopards are sane
But I would argue that it is exactly the first point you make that is more significant than the breed of dog.
I think you could take any dog and make it a dangerous dog, regardless of breed, if you wished.
The issue is that some dogs have physical attributes that play into the visuals of being dangerous, and therefore people who want dangerous dogs pick them and train them to be dangerous.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 45m I see we have reached the Dangerous Dogs Bill stage of this Government’s term of office…
Although note the date of the Dangerous Dogs Act - it was 1991, not 1996!
The Dangerous Dogs Act is often cited as a classic case of an awful, rushed bit of legislation. Maybe it was. But perhaps worth pointing out it is still in force three decades later.
It's one of those things that assumes a life of its own by dint of repetition. I bet it's no better or worse than tons of other Acts of Parliament. If you want a great example of a rushed botch job piece of legislation Johnson's Brexit deal takes some beating.
Whilst there is a fair bit of hurried and poorly thought-through legislation, I guess the Dangerous Dogs Act is the poster-boy as most bad law doesn't threaten to confiscate and kill the much-loved family mutt (not that this happened all that much in practice but I think a fair few thousand families had to apply for exemption for Fido).
A dangerous breed of rottweiler or Bully XL is not exactly the beloved family Labrador
I'm shocked that they haven't normalised their data.
I think compulsory insurance is the way forward, but I guess that might be quite unpopular. Easier to ban a breed of dog that you don't want to own.
We have compulsory insurance for cars with a credible enforcement mechanism but we still have a substantial problem with uninsured drivers, so I don't think it would be a panacea for dangerous dogs.
There will be no early election whether people want one or not. If Sunak is sensible he will go in October 24. If not then when we approach conference season next year, he and his ministers will be saying there is no purpose in calling an "early election" (October) when the government has a mandate and a job to do.
The October scenario: May tax giveaway isn't a total disaster. Economy showing at least signs of life. What the hell, we have to at sometime. Disrupt Labour and LD conference plans by calling an election.
The January scenario: May tax giveaway is an omnishambles, so an autumn statement giveaway is needed. A November mini budget, pushed by the right wing media as Rishi's Christmas Presents, leading straight into an early proroguing and the start of a "Don't Let Labour Ruin Christmas" campaign.
So you dont think that the"Economy showing at least signs of life" is happening at the moment ?
In the real world? No - and voters aren't stupid enough to listen to Tory bullshit saying "signs of life" when their lived experience demonstrates the opposite.
God knows what you would have made of the early 80s and 90s.
Yes but back in the days of Loadsamoney and Tell Sid a lot of people were living it up
They're ain't any devil dogs, just moronic owners. Obviously some dog breeds don't make good pets and I can understand limiting those breeds in some way. Far too many people want a dog to be something it's not. It's not a toy for the kids or a fashion accessory or a tool to show how hard you are. It's a living, sentiment being that has its own moods and foibles. Some days it might want to lick your face and chase after a ball. Other days it might want to lick its own balls and then bite your balls. They take time, money and commitment and they deserve to be respected and treated well. Some dogs shouldn't be pets, but there's more families that shouldn't be pet owners!
Wrong. There ARE devil dogs - do your research. The American bully XL has been specifically bred for unhinged aggression and ferocious tenacity - so as to win dog fights in the USA. It will fight and fight until it dies, it is extremely powerful and muscled, and it has also been severely inbred - so these lunatic urges have gotten worse, like the Habsburg chin
Very few breeds are inherently dangerous. But this one is
Also Tory supporters on PB: what do you mean schools might fall down, don't be so stupid, don't try to blackmail us with the idea that kids might die, anyway on a cost benefit analysis some kids dying is probably acceptable. anyway, it's too expensive.
Tory supporters on PB: dog attacks? that doesn't cost any money to do something about... just ban 'em, it's obvious that it's all due to their breed, how many kids is okay to let die, won't somebody think of the children. you want "evidence" that this would work - well your prevaricating will kill kids, how dare you!
They're ain't any devil dogs, just moronic owners. Obviously some dog breeds don't make good pets and I can understand limiting those breeds in some way. Far too many people want a dog to be something it's not. It's not a toy for the kids or a fashion accessory or a tool to show how hard you are. It's a living, sentiment being that has its own moods and foibles. Some days it might want to lick your face and chase after a ball. Other days it might want to lick its own balls and then bite your balls. They take time, money and commitment and they deserve to be respected and treated well. Some dogs shouldn't be pets, but there's more families that shouldn't be pet owners!
There's one European country where I recall you have to take some sort of test to become a dog owner?
They're ain't any devil dogs, just moronic owners. Obviously some dog breeds don't make good pets and I can understand limiting those breeds in some way. Far too many people want a dog to be something it's not. It's not a toy for the kids or a fashion accessory or a tool to show how hard you are. It's a living, sentiment being that has its own moods and foibles. Some days it might want to lick your face and chase after a ball. Other days it might want to lick its own balls and then bite your balls. They take time, money and commitment and they deserve to be respected and treated well. Some dogs shouldn't be pets, but there's more families that shouldn't be pet owners!
Wrong. There ARE devil dogs - do your research. The American bully XL has been specifically bred for unhinged aggression and ferocious tenacity - so as to win dog fights in the USA. It will fight and fight until it dies, it is extremely powerful and muscled, and it has also been severely inbred - so these lunatic urges have gotten worse, like the Habsburg chin
Very few breeds are inherently dangerous. But this one is
It's not a devil dog, it's a human engineered dog that's aggressive, and is probably a breed that shouldn't be a pet. Anyone who wants to own one is most definitely not the the sort of person who should be allowed any breed of dog.
They're ain't any devil dogs, just moronic owners. Obviously some dog breeds don't make good pets and I can understand limiting those breeds in some way. Far too many people want a dog to be something it's not. It's not a toy for the kids or a fashion accessory or a tool to show how hard you are. It's a living, sentiment being that has its own moods and foibles. Some days it might want to lick your face and chase after a ball. Other days it might want to lick its own balls and then bite your balls. They take time, money and commitment and they deserve to be respected and treated well. Some dogs shouldn't be pets, but there's more families that shouldn't be pet owners!
Wrong. There ARE devil dogs - do your research. The American bully XL has been specifically bred for unhinged aggression and ferocious tenacity - so as to win dog fights in the USA. It will fight and fight until it dies, it is extremely powerful and muscled, and it has also been severely inbred - so these lunatic urges have gotten worse, like the Habsburg chin
Very few breeds are inherently dangerous. But this one is
Can you provide some of this research? I would be really interested to read it. I've put in this thread further down from Science their research on how dog breed is not a good indicator of behaviour, and (whilst I accept that this source will be heavily biased in favour of dog ownership) the point they make that biting and fatalities have gone up since breed based bans, not down, does suggest that the policy is a failure:
They're ain't any devil dogs, just moronic owners. Obviously some dog breeds don't make good pets and I can understand limiting those breeds in some way. Far too many people want a dog to be something it's not. It's not a toy for the kids or a fashion accessory or a tool to show how hard you are. It's a living, sentiment being that has its own moods and foibles. Some days it might want to lick your face and chase after a ball. Other days it might want to lick its own balls and then bite your balls. They take time, money and commitment and they deserve to be respected and treated well. Some dogs shouldn't be pets, but there's more families that shouldn't be pet owners!
Wrong. There ARE devil dogs - do your research. The American bully XL has been specifically bred for unhinged aggression and ferocious tenacity - so as to win dog fights in the USA. It will fight and fight until it dies, it is extremely powerful and muscled, and it has also been severely inbred - so these lunatic urges have gotten worse, like the Habsburg chin
Very few breeds are inherently dangerous. But this one is
Can you provide some of this research? I would be really interested to read it. I've put in this thread further down from Science their research on how dog breed is not a good indicator of behaviour, and (whilst I accept that this source will be heavily biased in favour of dog ownership) the point they make that biting and fatalities have gone up since breed based bans, not down, does suggest that the policy is a failure:
My herding dog knows how to round up sheep and goats without any training and in the goats case before he'd even seen a goat. So clearly a dog bred for fighting comes hard wired with the knowledge and propensity for fighting
They're ain't any devil dogs, just moronic owners. Obviously some dog breeds don't make good pets and I can understand limiting those breeds in some way. Far too many people want a dog to be something it's not. It's not a toy for the kids or a fashion accessory or a tool to show how hard you are. It's a living, sentiment being that has its own moods and foibles. Some days it might want to lick your face and chase after a ball. Other days it might want to lick its own balls and then bite your balls. They take time, money and commitment and they deserve to be respected and treated well. Some dogs shouldn't be pets, but there's more families that shouldn't be pet owners!
Wrong. There ARE devil dogs - do your research. The American bully XL has been specifically bred for unhinged aggression and ferocious tenacity - so as to win dog fights in the USA. It will fight and fight until it dies, it is extremely powerful and muscled, and it has also been severely inbred - so these lunatic urges have gotten worse, like the Habsburg chin
Very few breeds are inherently dangerous. But this one is
Can you provide some of this research? I would be really interested to read it. I've put in this thread further down from Science their research on how dog breed is not a good indicator of behaviour, and (whilst I accept that this source will be heavily biased in favour of dog ownership) the point they make that biting and fatalities have gone up since breed based bans, not down, does suggest that the policy is a failure:
My herding dog knows how to round up sheep and goats without any training and in the goats case before he'd even seen a goat. So clearly a dog bred for fighting comes hard wired with the knowledge and propensity for fighting
They're ain't any devil dogs, just moronic owners. Obviously some dog breeds don't make good pets and I can understand limiting those breeds in some way. Far too many people want a dog to be something it's not. It's not a toy for the kids or a fashion accessory or a tool to show how hard you are. It's a living, sentiment being that has its own moods and foibles. Some days it might want to lick your face and chase after a ball. Other days it might want to lick its own balls and then bite your balls. They take time, money and commitment and they deserve to be respected and treated well. Some dogs shouldn't be pets, but there's more families that shouldn't be pet owners!
Wrong. There ARE devil dogs - do your research. The American bully XL has been specifically bred for unhinged aggression and ferocious tenacity - so as to win dog fights in the USA. It will fight and fight until it dies, it is extremely powerful and muscled, and it has also been severely inbred - so these lunatic urges have gotten worse, like the Habsburg chin
Very few breeds are inherently dangerous. But this one is
Can you provide some of this research? I would be really interested to read it. I've put in this thread further down from Science their research on how dog breed is not a good indicator of behaviour, and (whilst I accept that this source will be heavily biased in favour of dog ownership) the point they make that biting and fatalities have gone up since breed based bans, not down, does suggest that the policy is a failure:
My herding dog knows how to round up sheep and goats without any training and in the goats case before he'd even seen a goat. So clearly a dog bred for fighting comes hard wired with the knowledge and propensity for fighting
Are herding instincts and fighting instincts the same? I don't think that's how biology works. Again - the Science article suggests breed is not a good indicator of behaviour, and the selection bias of owners as described by the dogs magazine is as good a hypothesis as biological determinism; I am just asking for better data. Sans evidence that aggression in dogs is heritable - and with evidence backing the hypothesis it might not be - why should banning the breed lead to better outcomes?
But that’s another point. What kind of person wants to own a huge, muscled dog known for its lethal and psychotic aggression, and tendency to kill children?
I get that some people want a dog to feel safer. Fair enough. But there are plenty of other breeds for that. Alsatians are quite scary enough
The only reason you would buy a dog like this is because you are an inadequate fuck who wants to terrify the shit out of people
As for the civil liberties argument, I’d quite like to own a leopard and walk it around Camden, but the government doesn’t allow that. A bully XL is easily as dangerous as a leopard. Probably worse, in fact
Leopards are sane
That's the point, though. There are some people who are extremely aggressive and like have dogs that scare people. There are plenty of dogs that meet that spec, and banning one particular breed is just tokenism, as if the US banned one particular type of gun. It'd be reasonable to require owners of a range of potentially lethal dogs to keep them on a lead or muzzled when outside enclosed premises.
Anecdotally, my mother knew someone who did have a leopard and used to walk it in Regent's Park. Illegal now but was seen as just exotic and interesting then.
They're ain't any devil dogs, just moronic owners. Obviously some dog breeds don't make good pets and I can understand limiting those breeds in some way. Far too many people want a dog to be something it's not. It's not a toy for the kids or a fashion accessory or a tool to show how hard you are. It's a living, sentiment being that has its own moods and foibles. Some days it might want to lick your face and chase after a ball. Other days it might want to lick its own balls and then bite your balls. They take time, money and commitment and they deserve to be respected and treated well. Some dogs shouldn't be pets, but there's more families that shouldn't be pet owners!
Wrong. There ARE devil dogs - do your research. The American bully XL has been specifically bred for unhinged aggression and ferocious tenacity - so as to win dog fights in the USA. It will fight and fight until it dies, it is extremely powerful and muscled, and it has also been severely inbred - so these lunatic urges have gotten worse, like the Habsburg chin
Very few breeds are inherently dangerous. But this one is
Can you provide some of this research? I would be really interested to read it. I've put in this thread further down from Science their research on how dog breed is not a good indicator of behaviour, and (whilst I accept that this source will be heavily biased in favour of dog ownership) the point they make that biting and fatalities have gone up since breed based bans, not down, does suggest that the policy is a failure:
But that’s another point. What kind of person wants to own a huge, muscled dog known for its lethal and psychotic aggression, and tendency to kill children?
I get that some people want a dog to feel safer. Fair enough. But there are plenty of other breeds for that. Alsatians are quite scary enough
The only reason you would buy a dog like this is because you are an inadequate fuck who wants to terrify the shit out of people
As for the civil liberties argument, I’d quite like to own a leopard and walk it around Camden, but the government doesn’t allow that. A bully XL is easily as dangerous as a leopard. Probably worse, in fact
Leopards are sane
That's the point, though. There are some people who are extremely aggressive and like have dogs that scare people. There are plenty of dogs that meet that spec, and banning one particular breed is just tokenism, as if the US banned one particular type of gun. It'd be reasonable to require owners of a range of potentially lethal dogs to keep them on a lead or muzzled when outside enclosed premises.
Anecdotally, my mother knew someone who did have a leopard and used to walk it in Regent's Park. Illegal now but was seen as just exotic and interesting then.
It would make more sense to ban this breed of dog than leopards.
a) As I noted yday, a study showed that a third of households now have dogs. Extraordinary. Plenty bought during lockdown where they weren't able to socialise, and if there were no children or dogs or plenty of visitors (def not that last) in the household then will not be socialised to children or other dogs and fiercely protecting their domain from strangers.
It is no surprise that these dogs are now going rogue, of whatever breed.
b) Why on earth would the Cons bring forward the election from the latest possible date. If they are due for a malleting now why wouldn't they wait to see if events.
c) Korea is one of the most impenetrable (as a foreigner) place I have been. Seoul is fine, I went skiing there (not in Seoul!) and that's pretty grim not even up to 70s French resort with its moulded plastic seating and everything closing at 7pm.
My guess yesterday that every third person seems to have a dog now was right in that case.
There will be no early election whether people want one or not. If Sunak is sensible he will go in October 24. If not then when we approach conference season next year, he and his ministers will be saying there is no purpose in calling an "early election" (October) when the government has a mandate and a job to do.
The October scenario: May tax giveaway isn't a total disaster. Economy showing at least signs of life. What the hell, we have to at sometime. Disrupt Labour and LD conference plans by calling an election.
The January scenario: May tax giveaway is an omnishambles, so an autumn statement giveaway is needed. A November mini budget, pushed by the right wing media as Rishi's Christmas Presents, leading straight into an early proroguing and the start of a "Don't Let Labour Ruin Christmas" campaign.
So you dont think that the"Economy showing at least signs of life" is happening at the moment ?
In the real world? No - and voters aren't stupid enough to listen to Tory bullshit saying "signs of life" when their lived experience demonstrates the opposite.
God knows what you would have made of the early 80s and 90s.
Yes but back in the days of Loadsamoney and Tell Sid a lot of people were living it up
Thats the late 80s, in th early 80s and 90s there was literally no jobs, compare and contrast with now when apparently the economy is doing terribly.
But that’s another point. What kind of person wants to own a huge, muscled dog known for its lethal and psychotic aggression, and tendency to kill children?
I get that some people want a dog to feel safer. Fair enough. But there are plenty of other breeds for that. Alsatians are quite scary enough
The only reason you would buy a dog like this is because you are an inadequate fuck who wants to terrify the shit out of people
As for the civil liberties argument, I’d quite like to own a leopard and walk it around Camden, but the government doesn’t allow that. A bully XL is easily as dangerous as a leopard. Probably worse, in fact
Leopards are sane
That's the point, though. There are some people who are extremely aggressive and like have dogs that scare people. There are plenty of dogs that meet that spec, and banning one particular breed is just tokenism, as if the US banned one particular type of gun. It'd be reasonable to require owners of a range of potentially lethal dogs to keep them on a lead or muzzled when outside enclosed premises.
Anecdotally, my mother knew someone who did have a leopard and used to walk it in Regent's Park. Illegal now but was seen as just exotic and interesting then.
You’d probably feel differently if you had small kids playing in a park and lots of wankers walking these dogs nearby
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 45m I see we have reached the Dangerous Dogs Bill stage of this Government’s term of office…
Although note the date of the Dangerous Dogs Act - it was 1991, not 1996!
The Dangerous Dogs Act is often cited as a classic case of an awful, rushed bit of legislation. Maybe it was. But perhaps worth pointing out it is still in force three decades later.
Interesting comments here and your last posting, thanks.
Given that it's so easy to modify the list, it's curious it's taken so long to do nothing - it's not as if the bully dogs haven't been known for attacking other dogs and people for quite some time now. I wonder if DEFRA think the breed(s) aren't definable? Kennel Club UK certainly doesn't recognise it/them.
HMG was about to ban the dog and add it to the list when the RSPCA did some intense lobbying - and the government backed away from the awkward politics
That won’t happen again
There are also practical issues.
Both France and Spain have longer lists of supposedly banned breeds than us, but there are usually exemptions for purebred show dogs and the usual advice for prospective travellers on pet travel sites is, if you have a purebred, get a kennel club certificate, or otherwise get a DNA test that will almost certainly come back with some breed mix, or just put 'mix breed' on the paperwork and wing it. Occasionally there's a story of someone challenged because of a dog's appearance, but people mostly get away with it because in these cash strapped times there's usually no enforcement. The only people deterred are the occasional ultra-responsible owner whose dog probably wasn't a threat anyway.
Anyhow we're playing ball in the shade of Budapest city park watching the tethered hot air balloon go up and down
Pedants corner -the balloon is helium gas filled not hot air. My brother died last December in Budapest - health service excellent and no cost once we had organized a GHIC card for him If someone died in a UK hospital would the NHS dispose of the body free of charge?
They're ain't any devil dogs, just moronic owners. Obviously some dog breeds don't make good pets and I can understand limiting those breeds in some way. Far too many people want a dog to be something it's not. It's not a toy for the kids or a fashion accessory or a tool to show how hard you are. It's a living, sentiment being that has its own moods and foibles. Some days it might want to lick your face and chase after a ball. Other days it might want to lick its own balls and then bite your balls. They take time, money and commitment and they deserve to be respected and treated well. Some dogs shouldn't be pets, but there's more families that shouldn't be pet owners!
Wrong. There ARE devil dogs - do your research. The American bully XL has been specifically bred for unhinged aggression and ferocious tenacity - so as to win dog fights in the USA. It will fight and fight until it dies, it is extremely powerful and muscled, and it has also been severely inbred - so these lunatic urges have gotten worse, like the Habsburg chin
Very few breeds are inherently dangerous. But this one is
Can you provide some of this research? I would be really interested to read it. I've put in this thread further down from Science their research on how dog breed is not a good indicator of behaviour, and (whilst I accept that this source will be heavily biased in favour of dog ownership) the point they make that biting and fatalities have gone up since breed based bans, not down, does suggest that the policy is a failure:
My herding dog knows how to round up sheep and goats without any training and in the goats case before he'd even seen a goat. So clearly a dog bred for fighting comes hard wired with the knowledge and propensity for fighting
Are herding instincts and fighting instincts the same? I don't think that's how biology works. Again - the Science article suggests breed is not a good indicator of behaviour, and the selection bias of owners as described by the dogs magazine is as good a hypothesis as biological determinism; I am just asking for better data. Sans evidence that aggression in dogs is heritable - and with evidence backing the hypothesis it might not be - why should banning the breed lead to better outcomes?
Dogs have been bred for aggression and fighting skill for thousands of years. The Romans famously had terrifying soldier-dogs
Aggression and lethality are heritable traits just like intelligence, speed, smallness, herding skills, wiry coats for winter - and so on
For mad breeders in the USA looking to make money in dog fights it makes sense to select and breed the most horrifying dogs unimaginable. It makes no sense at all for these dogs to then be legal to own as pets
Loads of countries calmly and successfully ban these dogs. Their children are not torn to pieces. Why should Britain be uniquely stupid and NOT ban them?
They're ain't any devil dogs, just moronic owners. Obviously some dog breeds don't make good pets and I can understand limiting those breeds in some way. Far too many people want a dog to be something it's not. It's not a toy for the kids or a fashion accessory or a tool to show how hard you are. It's a living, sentiment being that has its own moods and foibles. Some days it might want to lick your face and chase after a ball. Other days it might want to lick its own balls and then bite your balls. They take time, money and commitment and they deserve to be respected and treated well. Some dogs shouldn't be pets, but there's more families that shouldn't be pet owners!
Wrong. There ARE devil dogs - do your research. The American bully XL has been specifically bred for unhinged aggression and ferocious tenacity - so as to win dog fights in the USA. It will fight and fight until it dies, it is extremely powerful and muscled, and it has also been severely inbred - so these lunatic urges have gotten worse, like the Habsburg chin
Very few breeds are inherently dangerous. But this one is
Can you provide some of this research? I would be really interested to read it. I've put in this thread further down from Science their research on how dog breed is not a good indicator of behaviour, and (whilst I accept that this source will be heavily biased in favour of dog ownership) the point they make that biting and fatalities have gone up since breed based bans, not down, does suggest that the policy is a failure:
My herding dog knows how to round up sheep and goats without any training and in the goats case before he'd even seen a goat. So clearly a dog bred for fighting comes hard wired with the knowledge and propensity for fighting
Are herding instincts and fighting instincts the same? I don't think that's how biology works. Again - the Science article suggests breed is not a good indicator of behaviour, and the selection bias of owners as described by the dogs magazine is as good a hypothesis as biological determinism; I am just asking for better data. Sans evidence that aggression in dogs is heritable - and with evidence backing the hypothesis it might not be - why should banning the breed lead to better outcomes?
I don't know enough of the science to answer that question.
I do know that far more by way of skills and habits and emotional states is inherited than we previously assumed, in both people and animals. People come hard-wired for language, for example.
I will always remember the first time my dog saw sheep; he must have been about four or five months old and I'd taken him down the (award-winning) beach at Compton Bay; across the road from the NT car park was a field of sheep, just standing around doing their sheep stuff, yet the second he saw them it was as if a switch had been flipped and he was hopping up and down and trying to pull me toward the field; i took him across for a look and he was desperate to get into the field. It was as if he'd suddenly seen his purpose.
A few times since he's got in with sheep or goats when I've not spotted that they're about quick enough, and he just rounds them up and runs them around the field. The more difficult stuff such as getting them into an enclosure likely does have to be taught.
OT I'm slowly throwing away around 2,000 books, in the course of which I've just noticed this business book called Avoiding Adversity has a chapter on Fixed Cost Reduction Through Remote Working, from 1989. Nothing new etc.
If anyone knows where to buy boxes suitable for posting about 2 feet of books, please let me know. Weight might mean using several smaller boxes, come to think of it, but where are they sold?
- certain breeds banned on account of danger (like certain cars not permitted if too dangerous ie failed MOT) - Pass a test to get a dog owner licence and be permitted to own one - Certain safety features mandatory in public (keeping on a lead equivalent to wearing a seatbelt) - Tax dogs: annual charge, hypothecated (at least in theory) to council park and street cleaning budgets, ranging from very cheap for mini pooches and chihuahuas to ruinously expensive for large scary dogs (the hummers of the canine world)
Plus tax dog food based on carbon emissions.
Might help with our budget deficit.
[I appreciate it would also be a sure fire election loser]
But that’s another point. What kind of person wants to own a huge, muscled dog known for its lethal and psychotic aggression, and tendency to kill children?
I get that some people want a dog to feel safer. Fair enough. But there are plenty of other breeds for that. Alsatians are quite scary enough
The only reason you would buy a dog like this is because you are an inadequate fuck who wants to terrify the shit out of people
As for the civil liberties argument, I’d quite like to own a leopard and walk it around Camden, but the government doesn’t allow that. A bully XL is easily as dangerous as a leopard. Probably worse, in fact
Leopards are sane
That's the point, though. There are some people who are extremely aggressive and like have dogs that scare people. There are plenty of dogs that meet that spec, and banning one particular breed is just tokenism, as if the US banned one particular type of gun. It'd be reasonable to require owners of a range of potentially lethal dogs to keep them on a lead or muzzled when outside enclosed premises.
Anecdotally, my mother knew someone who did have a leopard and used to walk it in Regent's Park. Illegal now but was seen as just exotic and interesting then.
It would make more sense to ban this breed of dog than leopards.
Amazingly, that is almost certainly true
Like all wild animals, leopards are “lazy” - they only make an effort when it is fundamental to survival - to eat, or to protect themselves or offspring
They’d much rather be lying in the sun, snoozing. I’ve known a few leopards in my time. They never attack without very good reason
So all you have do is keep the leopard fed and unthreatened, and you have no problem. Bully XLs are completely different, bred to seek out fights and then attack without compunction, and to keep attacking beyond all “sense” - see the 70 sheep killed and savaged by just 2 XLs
A leopard would have killed one sheep to eat and maybe taken another to drag up into a tree, then left it at that
They're ain't any devil dogs, just moronic owners. Obviously some dog breeds don't make good pets and I can understand limiting those breeds in some way. Far too many people want a dog to be something it's not. It's not a toy for the kids or a fashion accessory or a tool to show how hard you are. It's a living, sentiment being that has its own moods and foibles. Some days it might want to lick your face and chase after a ball. Other days it might want to lick its own balls and then bite your balls. They take time, money and commitment and they deserve to be respected and treated well. Some dogs shouldn't be pets, but there's more families that shouldn't be pet owners!
Wrong. There ARE devil dogs - do your research. The American bully XL has been specifically bred for unhinged aggression and ferocious tenacity - so as to win dog fights in the USA. It will fight and fight until it dies, it is extremely powerful and muscled, and it has also been severely inbred - so these lunatic urges have gotten worse, like the Habsburg chin
Very few breeds are inherently dangerous. But this one is
Can you provide some of this research? I would be really interested to read it. I've put in this thread further down from Science their research on how dog breed is not a good indicator of behaviour, and (whilst I accept that this source will be heavily biased in favour of dog ownership) the point they make that biting and fatalities have gone up since breed based bans, not down, does suggest that the policy is a failure:
My herding dog knows how to round up sheep and goats without any training and in the goats case before he'd even seen a goat. So clearly a dog bred for fighting comes hard wired with the knowledge and propensity for fighting
Are herding instincts and fighting instincts the same? I don't think that's how biology works. Again - the Science article suggests breed is not a good indicator of behaviour, and the selection bias of owners as described by the dogs magazine is as good a hypothesis as biological determinism; I am just asking for better data. Sans evidence that aggression in dogs is heritable - and with evidence backing the hypothesis it might not be - why should banning the breed lead to better outcomes?
I don't know enough of the science to answer that question.
I do know that far more by way of skills and habits and emotional states is inherited than we previously assumed, in both people and animals. People come hard-wired for language, for example.
I will always remember the first time my dog saw sheep; he must have been about four or five months old and
a) As I noted yday, a study showed that a third of households now have dogs. Extraordinary. Plenty bought during lockdown where they weren't able to socialise, and if there were no children or dogs or plenty of visitors (def not that last) in the household then will not be socialised to children or other dogs and fiercely protecting their domain from strangers.
It is no surprise that these dogs are now going rogue, of whatever breed.
b) Why on earth would the Cons bring forward the election from the latest possible date. If they are due for a malleting now why wouldn't they wait to see if events.
c) Korea is one of the most impenetrable (as a foreigner) place I have been. Seoul is fine, I went skiing there (not in Seoul!) and that's pretty grim not even up to 70s French resort with its moulded plastic seating and everything closing at 7pm.
My guess yesterday that every third person seems to have a dog now was right in that case.
Getting on for half of UK households have a pet of some sort, and getting on for third have a dog (maybe post covid it has now topped a third?). Higher in the countryside and lower in the cities, and otherwise pretty evenly distributed across the country, marginally higher in the south ex London as I recall, but that may just be the fewer large cities
They're ain't any devil dogs, just moronic owners. Obviously some dog breeds don't make good pets and I can understand limiting those breeds in some way. Far too many people want a dog to be something it's not. It's not a toy for the kids or a fashion accessory or a tool to show how hard you are. It's a living, sentiment being that has its own moods and foibles. Some days it might want to lick your face and chase after a ball. Other days it might want to lick its own balls and then bite your balls. They take time, money and commitment and they deserve to be respected and treated well. Some dogs shouldn't be pets, but there's more families that shouldn't be pet owners!
Wrong. There ARE devil dogs - do your research. The American bully XL has been specifically bred for unhinged aggression and ferocious tenacity - so as to win dog fights in the USA. It will fight and fight until it dies, it is extremely powerful and muscled, and it has also been severely inbred - so these lunatic urges have gotten worse, like the Habsburg chin
Very few breeds are inherently dangerous. But this one is
Can you provide some of this research? I would be really interested to read it. I've put in this thread further down from Science their research on how dog breed is not a good indicator of behaviour, and (whilst I accept that this source will be heavily biased in favour of dog ownership) the point they make that biting and fatalities have gone up since breed based bans, not down, does suggest that the policy is a failure:
I think the 'naturally aggressive' debate is largely irrelevant. The point is that almost any dog breed can be aggressive, but these are so much more powerful than the average dog that it's just not a reasonable risk to allow them out there.
You can intimidate an aggressive Jack Russell if need be; not one of these.
🚨 BREAKING: The UK has leapfrogged France to become the 8th largest manufacturer in the world.
With an annual output of £224 billion, the buoyant sector now supports 2.6 million jobs according to new data released this morning by trade association @MakeUK_ .
OT I'm slowly throwing away around 2,000 books, in the course of which I've just noticed this business book called Avoiding Adversity has a chapter on Fixed Cost Reduction Through Remote Working, from 1989. Nothing new etc.
If anyone knows where to buy boxes suitable for posting about 2 feet of books, please let me know. Weight might mean using several smaller boxes, come to think of it, but where are they sold?
Comments
1) The DDA does not prohibit enough dogs, so there are still lots of attacks
2) Lack of enforcement (particularly pitbulls)
3) does not take into account an individual dog's behaviour
I don't see why any of these are a reason not to ban Bullies using the DDA. It will do the job in this case - stopped clock etc.
3, in particular, is silly: "We'll only take your dog away after it has mauled a few children".
So the RSPCA have a point in that it's a much wider problem than the XL bully dogs (as common sense would have indicated anyway). Does the breed-based DDA need replacement in the longer term, then? Edit: but as Eabhal says, banning the XL Bully is an interim soilution anyway. One hopes that something would be done to cater for the next 'breed' or sub-breed along.
Remember even as recently as 2004 Bush was re elected winning the popular vote too on a pledge to oppose gay marriage.
Generally most Americans aren't that liberal on law and order either.
The current Supreme Court might be a bit more conservative but that is only because of judges appointment by Bush and Trump who most of the liberal elites in the US voted against and if Biden is re elected the court will likely on time become more liberal again
It is no surprise that these dogs are now going rogue, of whatever breed.
b) Why on earth would the Cons bring forward the election from the latest possible date. If they are due for a malleting now why wouldn't they wait to see if events.
c) Korea is one of the most impenetrable (as a foreigner) place I have been. Seoul is fine, I went skiing there (not in Seoul!) and that's pretty grim not even up to 70s French resort with its moulded plastic seating and everything closing at 7pm.
I have no data on whether it impacted puppy farms.
I wonder where the extra 4 million dogs were supplied from, and how knowledgeable said breeders have been?
Ah Rottweilers, and Sun jokes.
"What has four legs and an arm?"
And you could be wrong.
I don't pretend to know how fair that criticism is. However, whilst it is still on the statute books, that clause (which presumably the Government would seek to use) hasn't in fact been used since Baker.
This is why
“Not that govt should always and only do popular things, but banning the American Bully XL is indeed extremely popular - 57-17, and 87-4 for holding dog owners criminally responsible for serious injuries/deaths (@YouGov via @s8mb) docs.cdn.yougov.com/ih73u15hvd/Res…”
https://x.com/rcolvile/status/1701124433098739732?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
HMG is stupid but not that stupid
Is it OK if I send you a PM about our chat the other day re landlords?
They go after police horses. Children. Other dogs, cats. And they can weigh 50kg.
The owners are always so surprised when it happens. Pit bull owners rave about their loyalty and gentleness. Then, out of nowhere, they rip the neck out of your neighbour.
It's just that it's not going to solve the wider problem of dog attacks. Unless I am very surprised.
There was this tatted up geezer, mid-40s, shaven head, etc. Slightly down at heel, I'd say. With an American Bully. The dog was absolutely sweet but I did feel like asking why he had one. Any dog, in fact, looking at him, but one of those in particular.
But the train sped on and I didn't so we'll never know.
PB bringing you insight into today's hot topics. Nearly.
One is quite a funny tautological dog - a Shitsu-Poodle cross, and the ban on calling it a Shit-pooh is total. The other one is, I think, some sort of handbag dog.
I've also noticed here (may be more prominent in city areas) a small trend towards renting a field for an hour from a local farmer to let dogs off the leash.
I don't know the detail of teh Dangerous Dogs Act, but was there an effort by some to make it deliberately ineffective?
Again, I don't think it is too far out of the realm of belief that people who want aggressive dogs pick breeds they view as looking aggressive to train to be aggressive and this reinforces the idea that they are. Whereas if you put those breeds in the hands of responsible dog owners, are they statistically more likely to act aggressively than any other breed?
If the idea of dog breed bans is to ban them and then do that research, I'm also okay with that. But if it's just a breed ban on the idea that breeds are inherently more violent regardless of training - I would like the evidence.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/dog-breed-most-likely-to-attack-bite-you-revealed-a7166296.html
"Just asking" is a classic tell for someone engaging in sealioning, btw. I'm sure that wasn't your intention.
The October scenario:
May tax giveaway isn't a total disaster. Economy showing at least signs of life. What the hell, we have to at sometime. Disrupt Labour and LD conference plans by calling an election.
The January scenario:
May tax giveaway is an omnishambles, so an autumn statement giveaway is needed. A November mini budget, pushed by the right wing media as Rishi's Christmas Presents, leading straight into an early proroguing and the start of a "Don't Let Labour Ruin Christmas" campaign.
Delegitimisation of one’s opponents is a favoured tactic of authoritarians.
I'll assume it's a bit rubbish so didn't miss much.
There are thousands of these dogs out there. And they are genuinely dangerous. They have killed a fair few people and mauled hundreds and savaged thousands of other dogs. This won’t stop
There will be other videos to come. One will very likely show a Bully XL killing a child
Imagine the optics around that. “Home Secretary you could have banned this dog but you didn’t, despite the massive public demand, and now here’s a child having its face torn off on tik tok, by the dog you didn’t ban, what are you going to say to the parents?”
That’s career ending stuff. No one comes back from
that. It will be banned
She thinks Sunak is going down and is positioning herself. Not sure whether she will wait for the election to strike.
and the government backed away from the awkward politics
That won’t happen again
From t'internet the building itself looks pretty flashy.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pugs-dog-breed-health-issues-study/
This of course takes us into the whole realm of (over)breeding, which is an interesting but difficult area, and therefore ill-suited to politicians and others wishing to grandstand for popular acclaim.
I think FPTP is antidemocratic, no matter who it benefits, because you can win a majority of seats without a majority of votes. It puts the idea that powerful and cohesive parties being able to govern alone is better than governing parties actually having to represent the complexities of what people want. Is that me saying any government elected under FPTP is illegitimate? I would say partly - I do in many cases think it is illegitimate to claim such a mandate in those circumstances, if 35% of the vote gave you 50+1% of seats I don't think that's okay. Does that make me an authoritarian? Up to you I guess - personally I don't think so.
https://www.politico.eu/article/russia-vladimir-putin-more-land-eu-enlargement-growth/
Compare the percentage of bites and deaths from Labradors to Bully XLs and you would get a different story
Thank you. Alles klar.
"Your dog’s breed doesn’t determine its personality, study suggests"
https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.abk0639
https://www.science.org/content/article/your-dog-s-breed-doesn-t-determine-its-personality-study-suggests
I think compulsory insurance is the way forward, but I guess that might be quite unpopular. Easier to ban a breed of dog that you don't want to own.
Weather looks lovely later in the week – sunny and 23c. Hardly autumnal, just pleasant English summer weather, rather than broiling ugly heat and insomniac night temperatures.
Bring it on.
Seoul another matter; quite impossible without satnav, I think, unless you live there.
Sunil would like the subway.
Some dogs shouldn't be pets, but there's more families that shouldn't be pet owners!
I have very close friends however who got the dog below. On first sight to a lot of people he looks like some sort of Bully or similar. Very stocky around the neck and chest however he’s an old English bulldog where they have been reverse engineered to be as close as possible to the original bulldogs before people bred them with stumpy legs. He has a long snout and much longer legs.
He’s bloody fast and powerful but soft as shit. In the 8 years they’ve had him he hasn’t been scary once despite kids annoying him and being bullied by his cohabitant French bulldog. He could probably eat the Frenchie in one go but never reacts to attacks. He just wants food and sleep.
The Tories have done more than just support FPTP - they have taken away more democratic forms of voting in places they were being used and enforced FPTP on them. They have also put in increased barriers to voting with minimal evidence of their efficacy or necessity - with a Tory MP and former cabinet member making it clear the intention of this policy was to reduce the turnout of voters from other parties. That sounds pretty anti democratic to me.
I think Labour also have some bad anti democratic tendencies. The conference can vote on policies and then leadership can turn around and ignore them is ridiculous to me. The local parties can have candidates enforced on them by the central party is despicable. But Labour aren't in government and haven't been for a while, so I can't point to examples of their anti democratic policies nation wide as they haven't passed any yet.
Both France and Spain have longer lists of supposedly banned breeds than us, but there are usually exemptions for purebred show dogs and the usual advice for prospective travellers on pet travel sites is, if you have a purebred, get a kennel club certificate, or otherwise get a DNA test that will almost certainly come back with some breed mix, or just put 'mix breed' on the paperwork and wing it. Occasionally there's a story of someone challenged because of a dog's appearance, but people mostly get away with it because in these cash strapped times there's usually no enforcement. The only people deterred are the occasional ultra-responsible owner whose dog probably wasn't a threat anyway.
Anyhow we're playing ball in the shade of Budapest city park watching the tethered hot air balloon go up and down
I get that some people want a dog to feel safer. Fair enough. But there are plenty of other breeds for that. Alsatians are quite scary enough
The only reason you would buy a dog like this is because you are an inadequate fuck who wants to terrify the shit out of people
As for the civil liberties argument, I’d quite like to own a leopard and walk it around Camden, but the government doesn’t allow that. A bully XL is easily as dangerous as a leopard. Probably worse, in fact
Leopards are sane
I think you could take any dog and make it a dangerous dog, regardless of breed, if you wished.
The issue is that some dogs have physical attributes that play into the visuals of being dangerous, and therefore people who want dangerous dogs pick them and train them to be dangerous.
Very few breeds are inherently dangerous. But this one is
Tory supporters on PB: dog attacks? that doesn't cost any money to do something about... just ban 'em, it's obvious that it's all due to their breed, how many kids is okay to let die, won't somebody think of the children. you want "evidence" that this would work - well your prevaricating will kill kids, how dare you!
https://dogstodaymagazine.co.uk/2023/05/30/xl-bullies-why-banning-breeds-is-not-the-solution-to-dog-attacks/
Anecdotally, my mother knew someone who did have a leopard and used to walk it in Regent's Park. Illegal now but was seen as just exotic and interesting then.
“Just how dangerous is the American Bully?
Is this an isolated incident?
I've been focused on this issue for months and here's what we know about the most dangerous dog breed in British history 🧵👇”
https://x.com/pursuitofprog/status/1700746239363465423?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
Stupid animal lovers can do one
Aggression and lethality are heritable traits just like intelligence, speed, smallness, herding skills, wiry coats for winter - and so on
For mad breeders in the USA looking to make money in dog fights it makes sense to select and breed the most horrifying dogs unimaginable. It makes no sense at all for these dogs to then be legal to own as pets
Loads of countries calmly and successfully ban these dogs. Their children are not torn to pieces. Why should Britain be uniquely stupid and NOT ban them?
I do know that far more by way of skills and habits and emotional states is inherited than we previously assumed, in both people and animals. People come hard-wired for language, for example.
I will always remember the first time my dog saw sheep; he must have been about four or five months old and I'd taken him down the (award-winning) beach at Compton Bay; across the road from the NT car park was a field of sheep, just standing around doing their sheep stuff, yet the second he saw them it was as if a switch had been flipped and he was hopping up and down and trying to pull me toward the field; i took him across for a look and he was desperate to get into the field. It was as if he'd suddenly seen his purpose.
A few times since he's got in with sheep or goats when I've not spotted that they're about quick enough, and he just rounds them up and runs them around the field. The more difficult stuff such as getting them into an enclosure likely does have to be taught.
If anyone knows where to buy boxes suitable for posting about 2 feet of books, please let me know. Weight might mean using several smaller boxes, come to think of it, but where are they sold?
- certain breeds banned on account of danger (like certain cars not permitted if too dangerous ie failed MOT)
- Pass a test to get a dog owner licence and be permitted to own one
- Certain safety features mandatory in public (keeping on a lead equivalent to wearing a seatbelt)
- Tax dogs: annual charge, hypothecated (at least in theory) to council park and street cleaning budgets, ranging from very cheap for mini pooches and chihuahuas to ruinously expensive for large scary dogs (the hummers of the canine world)
Plus tax dog food based on carbon emissions.
Might help with our budget deficit.
[I appreciate it would also be a sure fire election loser]
Like all wild animals, leopards are “lazy” - they only make an effort when it is fundamental to survival - to eat, or to protect themselves or offspring
They’d much rather be lying in the sun, snoozing. I’ve known a few leopards in my time. They never attack without very good reason
So all you have do is keep the leopard fed and unthreatened, and you have no problem. Bully XLs are completely different, bred to seek out fights and then attack without compunction, and to keep attacking beyond all “sense” - see the 70 sheep killed and savaged by just 2 XLs
A leopard would have killed one sheep to eat and maybe taken another to drag up into a tree, then left it at that
I do know that far more by way of skills and habits and emotional states is inherited than we previously assumed, in both people and animals. People come hard-wired for language, for example.
I will always remember the first time my dog saw sheep; he must have been about four or five months old and Getting on for half of UK households have a pet of some sort, and getting on for third have a dog (maybe post covid it has now topped a third?). Higher in the countryside and lower in the cities, and otherwise pretty evenly distributed across the country, marginally higher in the south ex London as I recall, but that may just be the fewer large cities
The point is that almost any dog breed can be aggressive, but these are so much more powerful than the average dog that it's just not a reasonable risk to allow them out there.
You can intimidate an aggressive Jack Russell if need be; not one of these.
In the countryside, everyone is packin’.
🚨 BREAKING: The UK has leapfrogged France to become the 8th largest manufacturer in the world.
With an annual output of £224 billion, the buoyant sector now supports 2.6 million jobs according to new data released this morning by trade association @MakeUK_ .
https://x.com/jefferson_mfg/status/1701122404452360684?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw