Tuesday, 1 December 2009

Going to the Dogs

I've been quite amused how long it has taken to ascertain the breed to dog in this story. There is so much sheer nastiness behind this story.

  • Why the hell would anyone breed dangerous illegal breeds? (ignoring the obvious for dog-fighting answer)
  • Why didn't the Police act when someone pointed out the whole "breeding illegal dogs" thing was going on? (too much like real crime?)
  • What sort of parents send their kids off to a breeding home for illegal dogs? (I can't seriously believe they didn't know what was going on, who cares if it's your Mother's home, it's still fucking dangerous!)
  • And finally: How the hell can it take days to work out if the Dog is illegal? It killed a small child, that's pretty much illegal behaviour in my book.

Why the hell has the government spent time and effort cataloguing the different types of dogs and deciding that Dog X is illegal and Dog Y is lovely. Wouldn't it just be far easier to identify illegal dogs by seeing if they do something illegal, like trying to eat a child?

What would they have done in this case if the dog had turned out to have enough Border-Collie genes to be legal? Just dismissed it as a tragic accident?

The breed of the dog should be irrelevant, it's the behaviour of the dog that should dictate whether there is a crime or not.

1 comment:

  1. The Dangerous Dogs Act is a ridiculous piece of legislation, and the Tories should be ashamed of having passed such nonsense.

    Even at the time it was ridiculed as being unenforceable as breeds couldn't be told apart. As 'Drop The Dead Donkey' lampooned: "if it's got short legs, big square shoulders and an aggressive temperament... then the dog it owns will be a pitbull"