Woof !

Yes, another ill informed regulation in my opinion.

The problem has rarely been the dog, but the owner. All dog owners should be assessed for fitness of ownership, and based on that, determines the breed of dog that can be owned. I suspect there is a strong correlation between human character trait and breed of dog. Thats why Crufts exists, in its current form, it's just a Frankenstien breeding programme to the cause of human vanity. 

Yap, yap.

Jason.

Chaps

This is just alarmist drivel.  In theory you can be prosecuted for driving at 71 mph on the motorway but the reality is different.

This law was rightly introduced to make dog owners accountable for dog bites on their own property. Up until now, someone like a Postman who had his fingers bitten by a dog could not take any action against the dog owner.  That has now changed, if your dog bites me whilst on your property, then you and your dog are in trouble.

This will not be enforced against burglars but was mainly brought about by pressure from the Royal Mail whose employees are regularly bitten by uncontrolled dogs.  So the message is simple, keep dogs under control at all times. 

This new law is long overdue.

Regards

Mick

That is purely your unqualified alarmist opinion and there is no history to base your comments on. You are merely making an unqualified prediction.

Damages are only awarded if medically proven suffering is inflicted on someone and if it takes an ambulance chaser to make it happen, then so be it.

If dogs are properly controlled, the ambulance chasers are out of a job.

This will help stop dogs being owned by irresponsible people who are incapable of controlling a dog..

Just remember, it could be your children / grand children who get bitten.

Mick

Char

That was a pointless post and a total red herring.

The new law is concerned about attacks that take place on the dog owners property that were previously exempt from the law.

Your case is irrelevant and nothing to do with this new law.

Mick

There was a dog on one of our dog-walking routes that was allowed to hang out in the unfenced front yard of its house. As we went past it would aggressively charge our dogs (who were on-leash). We reported it to the local council, who did follow up with the owners. A few days later, the owners of the house confronted my wife, (correctly) accusing here of making the call to the council. She stood her ground. She pointed out that we had asked them to keep their mutt under control on quite a few previous occassions. Result is that the dog now longer hangs out in the front yard. Success. Although we're not on their Xmas card list.

Char

You really do need to confine yourself to facts.

Cats are considered non domestic in law and hence you cannot claim damages against the person who "owns" the cat. So your comments about cat scatches are irrelevant.

The new law is simple, dog owners are now liable if their dog attacks someone, no matter where the attack takes place.

If I attacked you in my own house, I would be liable for conviction, the same now applies to dogs.

One minute you are addressing concerns that the new law is OTT and now you are seemingly exclaiming that the new law will discourage irresponsible people from owning dogs.

Frankly, your thought processes seem muddled.

Mick

Here we go again MP applying his rules on another's thread.

Char

I doubt if there is one instance in an English court where someone has been sued because their cat has done a poo in a garden. It just is not going to happen.

This new law was rightly brought in because people suffered horrific injuries and could not sue the dog owner purely because the attack took place on the owners premises. There is no way you can justify that.

Mick

Dear Mick,

I totally understand the predicament of the Postman delivering to houses where dangerous dogs roam gardens. The law sounds sensible to me.

As you know I am half Norwegian and there the excellent postal service delivers to boxes that are usually either at the boundary of the property or [as an option] held in the post office itself. Sometimes these boxes may be on the main government road at the end of long [and often poorly made] private roads leading to multiple properties.

Do you think that this would be useful as a scheme in the UK?

ATB from George

Hello George, long time no speak.

The law in the UK demands that every household and every business has the legal right to one delivery per day and the letter must land in inside the property via a "slit" in either the wall or the door.

I believe that may be up for review ten years after the Royal Mail privatisation date which will be 2023.

The main problem is that once people have had a delivery through the letter box, they expect it to continue and any thing else is considered a deterioration in the service.

Regards

Mick

Dear Mick,

I only know the different styles of service between the UK and Norway. I suppose this is historical, because Norway is a huge land area compared to its population so expecting to deliver along a rural ten mile gravel track each day in some cases led to a different approach. I take your point about any change in the UK being seen as a "deterioration" of service. 

For myself, I would not consider it a big problem to visit the Post Office to collect mail, and it would give the advantage that I could do away with the letter box, which does nothing for keeping out drafts and unwanted circulars!

ATB from George

George

The UK had at the last count, 26.8 million addresses. You can imagine the diversity of the customers. Many will be like yourself and be more than happy with a "collection at a local building" type of service.

However within that 26.8 million, you will have the elderly, the infirm and the downright grumpy, all of whom would oppose such a service.

You can imagine the horror on your local MPs face when his mail bag or email account is flooded with complaints.  I respectfully suggest to you that it is unlikely ever to happen.

Regards

Mick

Dear Mick,

You absolutely right in what you say. I'd never given it any thought. Give people a bone to gnaw on and they surely will!

I hope that you are keeping well?

How is you cycle? Mine has morphed a bit into something of a traditional upright with a still decent turn of speed. 

ATB from George

A dog attacks someone then the owners should be held responsible. Cannot see what the problem with that is.

If I still owned a dog, I would not let such a pathetic person into my house in the first place!

I prefer dogs to un-dog-friendly humans ...

Simple really!

ATB from George

I am amazingly tolerant of neighbours!

Just so long as they don't come calling by expecting to be let in!

ATB from George

Certainly Jota, I agree with this. And on the face of it, I would in principle agree with Mr Parry that this regulation is 'sensible'.

But the issue I have (and this is old news) is that regulatory efforts should be directed more at establishing if the owner is suitable for dog ownership in the first place. Yes, difficult, costly and time consuming, hense I suspect is why we always end up with said type of regulation, one where the main problem is not addressed directly.

Maybe, something similar to a driving license, where the persons dog keeping abilities are matched with the type of dog breed, just as a person with a driving licence can drive/own certain types of vehicles, classes A, B, C, D for example. Then perhaps less dog biting and maiming will occure in general?

Jason.

Honest question: How will this law apply to an intruder inside the house?  If it were the sue happy bass-ackwards world of the USA, I could easily see a prowler getting bitten by a dog during a break-in, then suing the owner under this statute, and the absent owner, whose dog was inside his house, getting in more trouble than the burglar...

Just wondered if they had delineated between welcome and "unwelcome" guests.

Char

Where on earth do you get this rubbish from. There have been hardly any cases in the UK where a householder has been cautioned for hitting a burglar.  The only instances of arrest is when it looks like the householder either premeditated the attack on the burglar or went widely over the top. If you woke up in the middle of the night after hearing a burglar, no court will prosecute you for trying to defend yourself or your property.  What you cannot do is bash him to death.

These wild statements coming from you lower the tone of a good forum. 

George

Sorry I have not replied sooner but since I retired, I seem to spend less time on the computer and less time on my bike.

Regards

Mick

In an ideal world Jason this is what would happen.  But the logistics would be huge given there are around 8.5 million dogs in the UK.  That's about a quarter of all households (although some households will have more than one).  Trying to interview all these people and keep on top of it would be an administrative nightmare.  A balance is the current situation where people who demonstrate they're not responsible get banned from keeping animals.

Nonsense again.  It's perfectly legal to defend yourself should you encounter an intruder and you are directly threatened/in danger.  What you are not allowed to do is chase one then give him a hiding as the danger passed when the intruder legged it and it then turned into a punishment beating.

If we allow punishment beatings your arse would be sore for weeks because of some of your posts!

We have a Large american Akita, if she sits on your lap you will suffer.

This is another one of those care in the community threads. I like it.

 "A balance is the current situation where people who demonstrate they're not responsible get banned from keeping animals."

Yes and it's proving innefectual because it only deals with the after effects of an incident to a person or terrible neglect to the animal...and the outcome of this approach is piecemeal regulation as demonstrated, see above and below. It does not stop unfit people from owning them, breeding them, selling them or buying them. A dog owners licence based on owner assessment would go a long way in preventing many of these incidents occurring in the first place IMO, and therefore also prevent unnecessary stress/discomfort to the dog.

This type of regulation is hailed as "sensible" because it's the simplest and cheapest method to address general concerns regarding one specific problem area. And the one problem that really matters is considered too complicated and too expensive to address, so it isn't.

We have already had attempts to legislate against 'dangerous' dogs, but again this has proven somewhat innefective, it seems.

"Does Breed Specific Legislation work?

In short, no. BSL has not prevented attacks on people, animals or discouraged irresponsible ownership. It has also failed in other countries where it has been evaluated, such as the Netherlands, Spain and Denmark. The law was intended to phase out these types of dogs. However, experts in this area suggest that, the introduction of breed specific legislation simply made the prospect of owning a banned ‘dangerous’ dog more desirable to the type of people who encourage their dog to be aggressive."

RSPCA.

Personally, I think addressing the 'human' aspect of dog ownership is avoided because it would prove, controversial. The usual naysayers will come forth with human right arguments, too expensive/too complicated arguments (always the lowest common denominators in any discussion), it could even even attract local and national protest.

The current situation is somewhat farcical, in that someone who wishes to look after a potentially psychologically fragile dog must be interviewed and asseseed to see if they are fit to own a neglected dog and where the previous owner may have been unfit to own that animal in the first place and is thus the cause of this never ending cycle of human vanity and animal neglect.

I suspect if you take out the lowest common denominator (the economic element), which always gets in the way of a more homogenous approach to issues, then a dog owners license based on assessments would be very highly considered by the general public And less emphasis on regulation that will not solve the problem.

Jason.

I don't know about dogs. But the installation of burgar alarms is encouraged by insurance companies by way of lower premiums. Two mechanisms are at play. One, they do have a slight effect in reducing the incidence of burglaries; but two, the presence of an alarms system dramatically reduces the chance that the insurance company has to pay a claim, as there is a high likelihood that the alarm will be found to be ineffective (not responded-to in the timeframe specified, faulty or not turned on), thus voiding the policy.

And this one is the 'care in the Forum' thread.

Jason.