|
Post by cenydd on Sept 10, 2013 17:21:42 GMT
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24020428More confusion over the DDA, then - what a surprise! They are still tinkering around the edges without addressing the real problem with the nature of the act itself - the fact that it does nothing to address the root cause of the issue of dangerous dogs.
|
|
|
Post by Oddquine on Sept 18, 2013 19:01:12 GMT
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24020428More confusion over the DDA, then - what a surprise! They are still tinkering around the edges without addressing the real problem with the nature of the act itself - the fact that it does nothing to address the root cause of the issue of dangerous dogs. Dangerous dogs are the product of dangerous....or brain dead, humans, imo. Bet there would be a lot fewer of them if the owners were put down after two bites (or more realistically fined at a high level or jailed for a time) But then I think that parents should be responsible for the actions of their children as well..(though maybe euthanasia would be a bit strong there...I think). How stupid is any person who thinks that dogs should be allowed to savage anyone just because they enter a property, and I assume that means a garden as well as a house, because they can't differentiate between good people and bad people! Does a dog owner not have a responsibility to train their dog not to attack random strangers, particularly not those who are invited into the house. The problem is not with the dogs...but with the owners.......but not a snowball's chance in hell that the Government is going to legislate to sort out bad owners.....easiest to just let the dogs off with tearing out throats because their owners have never bothered to train them.just as they let kids off with blue murder, just because their parents have never bothered to "train" them! The act should be focused on penalties for the dog owners..... not the dogs. (Got a personal anecdote about the consequences of the two bite rule which upsets me to this day.....and which I suspect any new act will not address)
|
|