Morning:
6°c
Met to seize 1,000 dangerous dogs in year amid calls to stop animals being used as weapons
9 Mar 2010
A police unit for tackling “weapon dogs” is set to seize more than 1,000 dangerous animals in its first year, the Standard can reveal.
But London's deputy mayor admits this is only the “tip of the iceberg” and is demanding tough jail sentences for criminals who use dogs to carry out vicious attacks.
The call comes as the Government today began consulting on plans to target dangerous pets by making it compulsory for all dogs to be microchipped. Owners would be required to take out insurance to cover payments should their animal attack someone, while Asbos would be imposed on dangerous dog owners — dubbed “Dogbos”.
Figures obtained by the Standard reveal that 838 dogs were seized by the Met's status dogs unit from last March up to mid-December — putting it on course to top 1,000 once further data is gathered covering its first 12 months.
The full-year figure, up to last Tuesday, is expected to show a 40 per cent rise in seizures of dangerous dogs in London, up from 719 in 2008/9.
Last month a policeman was savaged by two pitbulls, a banned breed, as he attempted to make an arrest in Plumstead. A 19-year-old whose pitbull attacked a guide dog at Cricklewood station was given a three-month jail term, suspended for two years, and banned from keeping dogs for 10 years.
Kit Malthouse, one of Boris Johnson's deputies, said the status dogs unit tackled priority cases — those resulting from neighbour complaints or those that came to the Met's attention via intelligence reports.
He said: “They are dealing with the sharp end but it's very much the tip of the iceberg. We are committed over the next two to three years, along with the Met, to pushing for greater and greater efforts on this.”
The unit — a police sergeant and five constables — is having its funding boosted by £1 million to £2.5 million a year. Most of this will be spent kennelling dogs while the courts decide whether they should be destroyed. Three years ago the Met only had a £130,000 budget for tackling dangerous dogs.
Minister for London, Tessa Jowell, said 80 per cent of the dogs seized by the Met over the past year were banned breeds. She added: “There is a worrying trend in the capital for dogs to be used as status symbols. I have seen the way dogs can be used to intimidate people and taking action to combat this is one part of the Government's commitment to take on anti-social behaviour. In the wrong hands, one of these dogs can be as lethal as a knife.”
Mr Malthouse is seeking the support of Labour and Lib-Dem MPs to amend the Crime and Security Bill to bring the penalties for using a “weapon dog” closer to the sentences given for gun and knife possession with intent, which are four and 10 years respectively.
He also wants the law changed to allow dogs to be seized on private land — rather than only in public areas — and for the process of taking and neutering dogs to be simplified.
The issues have been raised with Gordon Brown at Prime Minister's Questions. Labour MP Angela Smith told the Commons about a “nineteenfold increase in the number of dangerous and status dogs in London since the early 1990s”.
The Home Office told the Standard that it was introducing injunctions to ban gang members who use dogs as weapons from entering specified areas with their animal. Boroughs such as Lambeth are planning to change the rules for council tenants to require owners to have their dogs microchipped.
Mr Malthouse said the use of “weapon dogs” was a global problem, with countries such as Denmark experiencing a rise in dog seizures.
He said: “I think it's an area that has been neglected. Until we get tougher penalties, anybody who is intent on violence is much more likely to walk down the street with a pitbull than a knife or gun. Even if they get caught with a pitbull, they are not going to get the same penalty.”
Val Shawcross, a Labour assembly member for Southwark and Lambeth who brought the matter to the Mayor's attention, said: “The dangerous owners are the problem. It's not the breed of the dog, it's the way it's handled and trained by its owner that is the issue. Keeping dogs as a status symbol by gang members is still a problem but I think it's being dealt with much better.”
A Lambeth council spokesman said: “We are proposing that dog chipping is a compulsory part of tenancy agreements, and are consulting on this.”
Reader views (61)
Can you imagine the premium when the insurance company ask for your address and type of dog you want to insure. How much would it cost for and American Pit Bull - Staffy cross in the wrong side of town. It would be like a male 17 year old driver trying to get insurance for a 911 turbo - no chance.
- David Anderson, Durham UK, 10/03/2010 12:06
Report abuse
Simple-minded people always want more laws, more controls, more licences and police checks. Such childlike naivity is becoming increasingly common in this country, which has already turned into a police state of total surveillance and social control, with a dumbed-down population of TV-watchers crying out for less freedom and more draconian rules and regulations, to spare them the trouble of having to think for themselves and take responsibility for their actions.
- Conspiracy Factualist, London UK, 10/03/2010 08:22
Report abuse
Yet again the proposed amendments to the Dangerous Dog Act are ridiculous and unenforceable. It will be the responsible, loving dog owners who will pay out for the insurance ( including 5% ipt to the government), whilst the actual problem owners will carry on their merry way, inflicting their intimidatiory dogs on the general public.
If people wish to have these "status" dogs and crosses of, then they need to be licesenced, and this document carried with them at all times. No license, the dog should be seized and if the document cant be produced within 48 hrs then the dog destroyed.
To get the license the dog should be innoculated, by a Vet, therefore having been health checked, micro chipped, and have a record of regularly attending a Kennel Club Training Club, therefore showing the owner's desire to have a well behaved, healthy, social pet, not a killing machine.
Asbo's should be produced for any breed of dog, that attacks, humans or other dogs, and should lead to licensing for that dog, and under the same rules as above , I know I would move heaven and earth to "produce" if it were my dog under a death sentence.
The rottweiller mentioned in connection with the attack on his owner, has been proved innocent. The owner had had a heart attack, and the dog was trying to get the poor man to safety. Not all dogs are bad!!
- K Smith, Kent, 10/03/2010 07:47
Report abuse
Dog Breeders should all be licensed in order to sell pups. They should only be allowed to sell to owners who have achieved a dog owning licence and have insurance. Unless you have your dog 'chipped' your insurance premium should be sky high. The dogs they sell to the public should all be castrated or neutered.
I also think pedigree dogs should be banned, this will stop 2 problems; 1) inherit health problems in dogs 2) breed specific dogs being bought as status symbols.
After that lets move onto a child breeding licence.....!
- Richard, Leeds UK, 09/03/2010 21:03
Report abuse
Well said, E Sullivan, below.
You obviously know how to care for and nurture a dog so that it acts appropriately. I also applaud the responsibility you took with regards to keeping these dogs away from babies.
Because this is the crux of the argument. All the supposedly responsible owners of dogs are far too quick to dismiss the idea that their dog could do any harm at all. They live in an enclosed mindset where their dogs' interactions with their own family members, family friends, or other dogs whilst at play, is conclusive evidence that their dog is harmless.
But they need to realise that there are numerous things that can turn even the most placid dog into a danger to other people.
Simple things like over-excitement, being in heat, or catching a disconcerting smell in the nostrils can cause a dog to regress to a more animal state. More complicated things too such as illness, like a brain tumour, can turn a dog from the most placid creature to a vicious animal.
At times even the most, seemingly, responsible owners can be completely irresponsible simply because they are so comfortable with the friendly attitude their dog displays 95% of the time.
Even responsible dog owners need to recognise that their dog is, in fact, an animal capable of causing serious harm and therefore I think all dogs should be licensed, chipped and insured to prompt people to consider their dogs' actions towards other people far more carefully.
- Pete, Beckenham, 09/03/2010 16:45
Report abuse
Lambeth Living one of London's biggest landlords could do more to stop dangerous dogs in their housing areas.
A simple change in the tenancy agreement would allow dogs to be banned on some estates and especially in Tower Blocks.
Residents should also be advised of their right to vote for dogs to be banned, a vote rarely taken, largely unknown by tenants and never advertised by Landlords.
Walking on a London Street with a dangerous dog on a leash or off a leash is unsettling and makes people afraid.
The dangerous dog owners use these dogs to create fear , terrorise residents, instil fear in their oppononts and scare police off from doing something.
Lets stop being and reclaim London from these people and their dogs
- Patrick Mc Crossan, London Lambeth, 09/03/2010 16:08
Report abuse
I feel that dangerous dogs and politicians alike should be muzzled,only in this way will we be able to contain the lies and deceit that spew forth from their mouths on a daily basis...at least a rabid dog will only bite you once,whereas a LibLabCon MP can bite your wallet for decades and still come back for more.
- Jacob, Canine Canterbury Poodle Britain, 09/03/2010 15:49
Report abuse
Could they go to the Leybridge Estate on the Eltham Road where there are numerous Staffs and what look like Pit Bulls being bred and excercised daily, mostly off the lead terrorising anyone with a "normal" small dog on the lead, ruining the lives of the residents, a lot of them elderly.
- Jackie, england,surrey, 09/03/2010 15:41
Report abuse
All dogs should be microchipped and the owners must apply for a dog license and / or purchase insurance. A special task force should be started with roaming vans randomly checking owners and their pets. The yearly dog license fee will cover the cost of this and this can be implemented by local councils.
- Dirk Diggler, Soho, London, 09/03/2010 14:56
Report abuse
Most blokes buy a dog because they are short of mates,most women buy dogs because they are sick of their husbands.....a personal view obviously.
- Jacob, UK, 09/03/2010 14:46
Report abuse
Muzzle all the mutts in public. Ban dangerous breeds.If you have a criminal record ban ownership of a dog and if the owners complain muzzle them.Perhaps then no more toddlers will get mauled.This government should get their finger out and sort this.
- Tony, Essex, 09/03/2010 14:28
Report abuse
I have a staffordshire bull terrier and an american staffordshire terrier, no dogs are banned here but some come under certain guidlines.
15 out of 25 dogs that have achieved world super dog status have been american pit bull terriers, they are the most versatile breed on the planet, blame the idiots at the other end of the lead.
- Steve, alicante, spain, 09/03/2010 14:18
Report abuse
Cat, Essex wrote re. my post on muzzles: "Maybe you would like to spend some time with a dog and then you would know that this is totally unnecessary for 99% of dogs. It's irresponsible dog owners who are the problem and they wouldn't comply with any rules anyway"
Yes, it IS unnecessary for 99% of dogs, but so what? Muzzles, unlike insurance, can be SEEN by everyone, and costs peanuts.
- Croyboy, Croydon, 09/03/2010 14:03
Report abuse
More Labour rubbish, pass a law and the problem is solved.
Will the people who presently do not insure their cars be likely to insure their dogs ?
- John J, Edinburgh, Scotland, 09/03/2010 13:38
Report abuse
"Why does this government hate dogs and dog owners?
This country is in bad shape but all the ministers worry about is dog control!"
It does not hate them, it passed a law giving courts discretion as to how to deal with dogs instead of automatic death. It is one of many issues ministers are worrying about.
"Has hand-gun control stopped the illegal use of hand-guns? Og course not. So why should insuring dogs against 3rd party attack make any difference?"
It has limited it and it will limit dangerous dogs, a dog is harder to hide and if a cop catches someone with one and no insurance papers then its no dog. Thats how.
- Dan, London, 09/03/2010 13:25
Report abuse
Dogs are filthy, stupid animals. Most owners get one as a passing fad, then regret it. They are selfish and don't care about their dog urinating and excreting everywhere. Re-introduce the licence and make it £500 to dissuade the less responsible from getting a dog and use the money to clear up the dog mess left on every street pavement, public fields and sports pitches.
- D, N London
We have a Staffy that is chipped, insured, loved very much and is very well behaved. He runs from every other dog including small fluffy ones let loose in the park.
He is part of our family, and we clear up any mess where ever we take him.
Look at the owner's not the poor dogs.
- Candy Lee Williams, Southend-on-Sea Essex, UK, 09/03/2010 13:19
Report abuse
to Jonathan London, i think you are right this gv does seem to hate dogs and responsible dog owners, they have done absolutely nothing to penalise irresponsible abusive owners.Remember the panorama docu where they followed that low life woman and the low life men from northern ireland, they killed and abused 100's of dogs over a year or so and then they got minimal sentences, they should have got 15 years minimum FUL STOP.Gordon Brown does not like dogs so what chance with a muppet at the helm does mans best friend have ? seems dogs are a mans best friend and many a man is a dogs worst enemy. This gv will never do anything positive for responsible owners and their furry companions, apart from fleece us for more money, many people will not be able to afford these proposals so even more dogs will be dumped into the rescues and dog pounds only to be destroyed again and again. I have also heard that about 80% of people involved in any way in dog fighting will sexually abuse kiddies. A friend of mine is a social worker in south london and they are made aware of this in their child protection training, i think that anyone who abuses animals is more than capable of abusing children. Why cant the gv promote cheap neutering and crack down on greedy breeders. These proposals by the loony left penalise the just and caring and wil only allow the doughnuts and abusers to get away scott free. Liebore only care about the money they can gain for their city cronies, what an uncaring disgrace.
- Sean O'Leary, Walthamstow London, 09/03/2010 13:10
Report abuse
I had a staff who was the sweetest dog you could meet. Even my niece who was petrified of dogs loved her. She lived until she was 14.5 and never caused any harm, yet as loving and placid as she was (and I had two young children at the time), I would never have left her alone with a baby, because you never know. I now have 2 staffs who again, would not hurt a fly, my sister had 4 staffs at one time, again, all well trained, and well behaved right up to their deaths, and she now has another again well behaved, my daughter, who has 2 young children also had a staff which unfortunately had a brain tumour and had to be put down at 10 years old, she now has 2 others, again well behaved. Perhaps it is that we are all responsible owners, who love our animals treat them well, train them, microchip them, and discipline them,yet also know what not to do too i.e leave them alone with a young baby or toddler.
- E Sullivan, L, 09/03/2010 13:08
Report abuse
Its about time, and a step forward. These people dont want a pet, Its about fashion, like the hoodies they wear. They need a dog to make them look tougher than they actually are.
- Mike, London, 09/03/2010 13:06
Report abuse
- Richy, Hackney, London
"I have a Staffordshire Bull Terrier and he is one of the most loving, affectionate creatures you could meet. Why? Because he is well loved and well trained."
Yes we've all heard that one before, right up till the moment when it sinks its teeth into someone. And of course then its not the dogs fault but the stupid person for getting in its way. All dogs are unpredictable and need to be kept on a lead, publc parks are for people and children to play, not for exercising dogs. If you want to let your dog of its lead do it in your own garden. If you don't have a garden you should not have a dog.
- Dc, London, 09/03/2010 13:00
Report abuse
Just BAN these types of dogs, only IDIOTS have them anyway.
- Fred, London, 09/03/2010 12:55
Report abuse
I really can't see this working - as fast as dogs are seized there are plenty of people breeding replacements.
For some it's an unregulated, unlicenced cottage industry bolstering benefits - and they really don't care who buys the dog as long as they get paid.
- Shona, Dagenham, Essex, 09/03/2010 12:54
Report abuse
eh, don't people here get it? This will allow the Law to stop these thugs and demand proof of insurance. If they don't have it they can take action instead of just walking on by waiting for a crime to happen.
It will not solve all problems but it should help with some.
- Mark, St Albans, 09/03/2010 12:37
Report abuse
I do believe all dog owners should have to purchase an annual licence, as was the case some years ago. You have a licence for a car, even to get married, so why not for keeping a dog? It's the owner not the dog that's usually behind ill-disciplined animals, and they should have to undergo several weeks of training as a condition of renewing the dog licence.
- Cheyenne, Doncaster, UK, 09/03/2010 12:24
Report abuse
Those that complain that it’s penalising honest responsible dog owners, how do you know this? Is it because of the way these owners look? and whose judgement are we choosing? The problem is you can’t label most Dog owners as honest when there is nothing out there proving that they are.
Although we can all find cause to find areas where we can prove owners are dishonest or cruel. So at least something sensible is being done and it’s no point moaning about the baddies, when the areas helping those to be responsible owners isn’t clear & exact.
- Jack, London, 09/03/2010 12:19
Report abuse
Is the dog in the picture at the top of this story, being aggressive or, as I suspect, just yawning ?
- John Bloomfield, Twickenham, 09/03/2010 11:55
Report abuse
Behind any dangerous dog is a dangerous and irresponsible owner, these stupid ideas from Labour will not solve the problem. How many poodles or spaniels attack people - have these got to be insured? Remember also that these laws have to be enforced to be effective and I can`t see the police checking people`s papers, are we going to extend stop and search to dog owners!!
As with speed camera`s, everyone gets punished but its the law abiding folk who pay up, why not call it a tax and be done with it.
- Nickspurs, London, 09/03/2010 11:41
Report abuse
I have a Staffordshire Bull Terrier and he is one of the most loving, affectionate creatures you could meet. Why? Because he is well loved and well trained.
I do take him off the lead in public parks but he is far more occupied with playing with his ball than he is in anything else.
I clean up after my dog, take good care of him and he has never threatened anybody.
I agree with the other responsible dog owners here... this is a money making exercise and us normal caring people will pay, and not the narrowminded fools who I will not even refer to as dog owners.
It will still be the uninsured uncaring TINY minority that will cause the problems, and all of the money that the responsible owners will have to pay will only go to line the pockets of the insurance company share-holders and will not be used to treat those attacked by complete idiots.
- Richy, Hackney, London, 09/03/2010 11:36
Report abuse
As usual, Labour's answer to an anti-social problem is a form of tax. Rather than tackle the yobs and their killer dogs, make everyone else pay.
Just as with the proposed chewing gum tax, the government has no idea how to fix the broken society it has created, so screwing the law-abiding citizen is the solution.
- Nobby Clark, Perth, the Scottish one, 09/03/2010 11:33
Report abuse
how will this help anyone!?
The illegal aggressive dogs will still be attacking people all it will do is to pay the costs. I would rather not have those dogs allowed at all than seeing one knowing when it attacks me, I'll be insured! what a load a rubbish!
Yet another scam of the government so they don't have to deal with anythign themselves.
- Josh, London, 09/03/2010 11:31
Report abuse
Like the handgun laws, the legitimate pay (with their sport), the illegals carry on as usual.
All dogs must be chipped, and their owners recorded.
Any found unchipped or ownerless must be destroyed immediately.
Muzzling and leads in Public would help, at the expense of legitimate owners.
- Cap, London, 09/03/2010 11:16
Report abuse
Makes me sick another knee jerk reaction. I am a responsible dog owner with two dogs that would not hurt a fly. I already pay £40 a month in pet health insurance.
Yet again paying for the scum that treat dogs in an appalling way.
What about all the dogs that will be dumped when people cannot afford it.
How the hell do they intend to police this?
I don't know what the answer is in regard to status dogs but hit the people that are causing the offenses.
Government hasn't got a clue. Pathetic
- Liberty Benedict, London, 09/03/2010 11:11
Report abuse
Those who should be targeted will not take out the insurance. Why avoid the problem, deal with the trouble makers head on and stop penalising the responsible majority.
- Mark H, London England, 09/03/2010 11:05
Report abuse
vote labour for lifetime of face-stamping taxes and regulation
- Jules_London, london, 09/03/2010 10:59
Report abuse
A typical tactic from this malignant Government.Let's punish the majority to TRY to hit the minority, even though it's not "Rocket Science" to work it out that the "tatoo'ed" won't fork out for Dog Insurance anyway. Oh but of course, it's just another stealth tax isn't it?
- Mike Coventry, Hertford GB, 09/03/2010 10:57
Report abuse
Dogs are filthy, stupid animals. Most owners get one as a passing fad, then regret it. They are selfish and don't care about their dog urinating and excreting everywhere. Re-introduce the licence and make it £500 to dissuade the less responsible from getting a dog and use the money to clear up the dog mess left on every street pavement, public fields and sports pitches.
- D, N London, 09/03/2010 10:39
Report abuse
I agree with Sue from Kent. I love dogs and believe there are just too many people out there not fit to own them. The government would do a lot better devising a law whereby people would have to pass rigorous tests to prove their fitness before they could acquire a dog. That would solve not only the vicious attacks but the problems of cruelty and neglect perpetrated by these hideous, ignorant people, with probably the luckiest dogs ending up amongst the thousands in rescue centres up and down the land.
- Sarah Bradshaw, Enfield, Middx, 09/03/2010 10:31
Report abuse
This will go the same way as dog licences. Law abiding, decent dog owners will pay through the nose whereas criminal gangs breeding pit bulls and staffies for fights and aggression, will not pay and will probably be forced to raise dogs in awful conditions to keep them out of sight of the authorities. In the end the dogs will suffer.
- London Cyclist, London, 09/03/2010 10:28
Report abuse
Has hand-gun control stopped the illegal use of hand-guns? Og course not. So why should insuring dogs against 3rd party attack make any difference? And it's not only low life with attack dogs who behave anti-socially; there are many ostensibly mild-mannered and sane dog owners who allow their animals to roam off a lead, onto private farmland to there chase sheep, etc., or in parks or on beaches to chase the human population, which can be terrifying for small children or those of a nervous disposition.
You can't legislate against such behaviour; peer pressure and common sense to educate dog owners to look after their animals is the way to go. Labour, though, only understands authoritarian control as its solution to every problem.
- Jon Kent, Hertford. UK, 09/03/2010 10:25
Report abuse
The people who use so called status dogs (generally the type of dog that is more likely to attack) are not going to get insurance - aside from the fact that the insurance on the more dangerous dogs will be prohibitively expensive presumably these are some of the same people who drive without insurance!!
Whilst something most definitely has to be done these 'status' dogs and their owners are a menace - insurance is not workable.
- Andy, london, 09/03/2010 10:15
Report abuse
You also have to pay an "insurance tax premium" on all insurance already, so it's yet another way to raise revenue, yep more tax.
Even if every dog was covered which they won't be, all this law is about is suing and cost, not preventing any attacks.
- P Staker, London, 09/03/2010 10:14
Report abuse
Another chance for Labour to create a new set of amazingly over-complex tax rules and a new huge administrative overhead. I sure it will go the same way as car tax, family tax credits etc. The dog licence was far too simple to manage.
- Rob, East Grinstead England, 09/03/2010 10:06
Report abuse
This is one of the most sensible things this government has done in 10 years. Those of us who who genuinely have a dog, either for exercise or company, will support this move. There are far too many so called dog owners who purchase or acquire a dog for all the wrong reasons, and not just the 'dangerous' breeds. Not only do they do so on a whim but their actions encourage and sustain irresponsible and unregulated 'puppy farms' to thrive. Responsible owners already keep their dogs under control and look after them in a way that causes no physical or health problems to the general public. These proposals should be brought in as a matter of urgency, along with the proper enforcement of agreements between councils/housing associations and their tenants regarding the presence or ownership of dogs in their properties. Only by strictly regulating and enforcing such measures will unsuitable people be denied dog ownership.
- Pete, croydon, 09/03/2010 10:02
Report abuse
Mrpk
there is no current requirement for dogs to be muzzled and or on a lead in public, unless local authorities pass a by-law.If you possess a potenially lethal weapon,a dog, you should be licensed and require insurance, with punative pentlties,as with vehicles etc. Unfortunatley many members of our current society seem to be imune from believing that they should comply with the law.
- Town Boy, Sunny Sussex by the sea, 09/03/2010 10:00
Report abuse
This is Labour's big policy for the election is it?
- St, London, 09/03/2010 09:58
Report abuse
brown's crowd has thought of another way to do stealth tax along with global warming tax this one would be taken out by descent people and the yobs's would just ignore it.they just roll alan johnson out to come out with the stupid idea's making him look dafter than he is
- Anon Leicester, england, 09/03/2010 09:57
Report abuse
Penalise responsible, loving, unbreeding for easy money, dog owners and hey presto with 10 million dogs in the uk the government has extorted a billion pound, for its friendly insurance industry, NICE!. What a responsible caring government should do is crack down on all breeders especially ones that advertise in the papers and people who put boards outside their properties saying 'pups now ready'Pounds and rescues are being over run as careless, greedy breeders now dump their unsellable litters on them.Battersea is over run with bull breeds and i've heard they are being PTS and had to shut their doors as just to many dogs. We want breeders strictly licenced, others advertising on boards in the street and papers/internet/vets to be tracked investigated and penalised for not having a breeders licence with all the follow up these must entail.Insurance/licences should be free for private owners that have had their dogs neutered/microchipped. Their should be a 2 or 3 year ban on the breeding of all bull breeds (their are lots of bull breeds and mixes, so please media stop reffering to all storied dogs as 'dangerous staffy's)for any unregistered breeders that have litters, it should be made illegal for them to sell the dogs for money. Another thing this government should be aware of is the fact 75 to 80% of people involved in dog fighting go onto sexually abuse children, its the same control&abuse mindset, this is well known in the U.S. and sth Africa, GIVE RESPONSIBLES A BREAK
- Sarah Ackland-Snow, Surrey England, 09/03/2010 09:55
Report abuse
Excellent idea. Perhaps some of the money can also be used to clear up the plastic bags full of dog do which people leave. Its about time dog owners where held to account.
- Chris, Rochester, 09/03/2010 09:50
Report abuse
The people who this legislation is really aimed at don't even insure their cars, so the idea that they're suddenly and obediently going to insure their dogs is laughable.
- Steve, London, UK, 09/03/2010 09:48
Report abuse
Loony tunes Gordon the Clown and his cartoon has beens…
"The vast majority of dog owners are responsible, but there is no doubt that some people breed and keep dogs for the sole purpose of intimidating others, in a sense using dogs as a weapon. It is this sort of behaviour that we will not tolerate; it is this sort of behaviour that we are determined to stop."
Why should the majority who by their own admission are responsible, suffer for the minority how stupid will this lot get? The kind of owner that has this large intimidating dog will most likely not buy insurance any way. And what about the little old lady who has a small dog for company has she got to pay out for this irresponsible behaviour. Why can this lot not see it’s the problem that needs dealing with not the majority of responsible owners?
Why does the dog warden not police these people and earn their pay. Here we go again the criminal element gets away with it and the majority suffer.
- Mike Goodrick, Dereham Norfolk, 09/03/2010 09:44
Report abuse
The answer: EVERY dog should be muzzled in a public place, no "ifs" or "buts", and the penalties for non-compliance must be severe.
Maybe you would like to spend some time with a dog and then you would know that this is totally unnecessary for 99% of dogs. It's irresponsible dog owners who are the problem and they wouldn't comply with any rules anyway.
- Cat, Essex, 09/03/2010 09:43
Report abuse
Typical. Costly for the taxpayer, burdensome for the law abiding and unenforceable against the law breakers who will doubtless ignore it. Only winners: lawyers and bureacrats. Genius.
- Farquhar, London, 09/03/2010 09:42
Report abuse
Once a dog has attacked it's too late.
Training is the answer, not insurance. That's just a lawyers dream. All new dog owners should have to go to a 6 week course to train their dog (and themselves) basic commands. Or maybe it's the breeders who need regulating and be made to be more responsible about who they are selling their puppies to.
- Cat, Essex, 09/03/2010 09:33
Report abuse
Forget dogs, it's unworkable. I like the idea for cyclists though.
- Bj, East London, 09/03/2010 09:28
Report abuse
We need to get back to dog licences for all, and proscutions/fines if you don't. A licensing system enables checks to be made at regular intervals. Strengthen Council dog patrols. And can we also have a license and driving test for these motobility scooters please.
- Dhan Raj, Basildon, 09/03/2010 09:28
Report abuse
TAX TAX TAX.It took me a year to save so I could get my daughter a dog.With any additional cost now,I would not be able to afford this and would be forced to give up the dog.But I understand this,as our MPs need to find the money for their expenses,bless them.
- Dave, london, 09/03/2010 09:28
Report abuse
Why does this government hate dogs and dog owners?
Pehaps parents should be forced to take out insurance against any damage or hurt that their children cause.
This country is in bad shape but all the ministers worry about is dog control!
- Jonathan, London, London, 09/03/2010 09:27
Report abuse
Instead of coming down hard on the yobs with vicious dogs, the responsible owners are being penalised for the few who couldn't care less about owning uncontrollable dogs! Do you think they will bother to buy insurance or have their dogs microchipped, of course not. It'll be the poor dog who'll be put down, instead of putting down the owner and doing us all a favour.
- Sue, Kent, 09/03/2010 09:22
Report abuse
Marvellous idea! ...So the law-abiding dog-owner would buy the necessary insurance, while the thugs would ignore it, just as they do now with car insurance. Insurance companies make even more money, politicians will be seen as having "done" something, and everyone's happy - except the problem isn't solved.
The answer: EVERY dog should be muzzled in a public place, no "ifs" or "buts", and the penalties for non-compliance must be severe.
- Croyboy, Croydon, 09/03/2010 09:20
Report abuse
I own a beautiful staffie bitch who was insured and microchipped the day we got her, as much for her sake as ours. I think insurance and microchipping should be mandatory and also think re-introducing some sort of dog license would be a useful tool in deterring the wrong type of owners who staffies and similar breeds often attract. I don't doubt, however, that the more unsavoury owners whom see repeatedly in the press using their dogs to intimidate and scare others will still flout the law regardless.
- Louise, Burgess Hill, West Sussex, 09/03/2010 09:19
Report abuse
Complete madness, i have seen owners with pitbulls off the lead, with police officers passing by without asking the dogowner to put the lead/muzzle on the dogs.
The police seem to be afraid of approaching these gangs.
- Mrkp, london, UK, 09/03/2010 08:41
Report abuse
