# Let's just kill them!



## Johnderondon (Jul 6, 2009)

The Metropolitan Police, in their zeal to protect the public from the scourge of dangerous looking dogs, have 490+ seized dogs in kennels awaiting trail (bear in mind that only 28 of these dogs have actually behaved dangerously). Now they're whingeing about the costs and have hit upon a marvellous idea for reducing their bill.



> Scotland Yard has been urged to kill thousands of seized dangerous dogs because of the high cost of taking care of them.





> Supt Julia Pendry, who is responsible for the Met's status dogs unit, said "It would be absolutely fantastic if we could destroy these dogs,"


Article: BBC News - Met urged to destroy dangerous dogs to save money

Six minute debate with DDAWatch and Lord Harris from the Met. Police Authority BBC News - Today - Weapon dogs 'kept at public expense'

Edit to add:

Please write to our new Home Secretary and ask her to oppose this heartless policy. Sample letter to use/amend as you like is below:



> Dear Theresa May
> 
> It is reported in the media that Kit Malthouse, Deputy Mayor for London, has written to you requesting special powers to fast track the destruction of dogs seized by police in order to save kennelling costs.
> 
> ...


Contact details here: http://www.tmay.co.uk/contact


----------



## Fleur (Jul 19, 2008)

I can't believe what she says 


> It would be absolutely fantastic if we could destroy these dogs," she said.
> 
> "Unfortunately it is a criminal offence because the property belongs to other people.
> 
> "Secondly, the RSPCA would probably prosecute me, and people like Defra and the national press would have a field day *if we started killing dogs that were people's pets*," she added.


She's acknowledging they are pets - but wants them destroyed anyway.

These laws need seriously reviewing - surely the government would want to safe millions, changing the law they will do this with out killing family pets.


----------



## SpringerHusky (Nov 6, 2008)

That's disgusting :scared:


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

It is a difficult one. The dogs that are definitely illegal are going to be put down at some stage anyway and why should the taxpayer pay to keep them for all that time while it goes through the legal process. At the same time they tend to grab a lot of totally innocent cross breeds and if they were put down it would be criminal. 
This is not something new, it has been happening ever since the DDA came into force. Dogs have even been taken from cars as apparently your car counts as a public place.
Sadly, if you have an unregistered staffie or a cross breed with bull features you are at high risk of losing your dog - yet more and more are being bred and largely ending up in rescue kennels.
Basically the law has not worked in the way it should have done and is being policed by individuals that do not understand dogs.


----------



## Tigerneko (Jan 2, 2009)

I think it would be absoloutely fantastic if we could destroy that fecking woman


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Blitz said:


> It is a difficult one. The dogs that are definitely illegal are going to be put down at some stage anyway and why should the taxpayer pay to keep them for all that time while it goes through the legal process. At the same time they tend to grab a lot of totally innocent cross breeds and if they were put down it would be criminal.
> This is not something new, it has been happening ever since the DDA came into force. Dogs have even been taken from cars as apparently your car counts as a public place.
> Sadly, if you have an unregistered staffie or a cross breed with bull features you are at high risk of losing your dog - yet more and more are being bred and largely ending up in rescue kennels.
> Basically the law has not worked in the way it should have done and is being policed by individuals that do not understand dogs.


An illegal breed can be put on the exemption register and returned to the owner with restrictions, so killing them isn't inevitable.

It's a shame the radio article was so short and don't think she had fair airtime.


----------



## LostGirl (Jan 16, 2009)

well what a delightful lady she is Not!


----------



## Johnderondon (Jul 6, 2009)

K9 article

What Will The New UK Government Do About Seized Dogs: How About, Kill Them All?


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

That's disgusting. They're acknowledging they're pets not evil "status" dogs and are still going to shoot them .


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Snoringbear said:


> An illegal breed can be put on the exemption register and returned to the owner with restrictions, so killing them isn't inevitable.
> 
> It's a shame the radio article was so short and don't think she had fair airtime.


of course it can, but those that are an illegal breed are supposed to be neutered and muzzled and registered - their owners know that so are not keeping them responsibly so they should not be returned.

BUT very many of the dogs in the kennels will not be an illegal breed but a cross with bull breed characteristics who have been wrongly seized. It should be fairly easy to prove that they are not illegal and they should never have been taken. Provided the dog has not attacked anyone (in which case its breed is irrelevant) why can they not be left with their owners while the case is investigated.

The idea behind the DDA is a good one but it has never been thought out properly or policed sensibly.


----------



## Arlani (May 9, 2010)

Verbatim said:


> I think it would be absoloutely fantastic if we could destroy that fecking woman


Amen to that!!!!


----------



## dodigna (Feb 19, 2009)

It' s a terrifying thing to be afraid to walk your dogs in busy areas and in the middle of the day in case some macho policeman/woman decides they are breed expert, want to get some target met for the month and decide to seize your dog to be checked over, brought to a stranger, in a foreign place, handled while stressed and confused, probably and very likely badly handled while stressed and confused, then dumped in a kennel with poor condition, not to be walked for months or at the very least weeks, ignoring special diets, ignoring medications, ignoring the dog! Welcome to the life a bull mix owner 

The sooner they address this joke of a law the better.
Miss Pendry should also consider the feeling of the many family whose dogs have already been destroyed by police clerical errors or for being kept poorly or for being wrongly labeled before coming up with silly statements like that.

And why are they paying that much for much for each kenneled dog, why not address the kennel owners that are enriching themselves with tax payers' money instead. The police authorities ought to shop around a bit more since they bring so much business to kennels.


----------



## LadyLoraella (May 3, 2010)

I hate hate hate people like this.


----------



## Fleur (Jul 19, 2008)

Johnderondon said:


> K9 article
> 
> What Will The New UK Government Do About Seized Dogs: How About, Kill Them All?


There's a link in this article so you can contact the newly appointed Home Sec, Theresa May.
Contact - Theresa May MP
Please take a moment to contact her.


----------



## xshelly_stanliex (May 4, 2010)

Well what an evil women to say that, she should not be working with dogs if she thinks they should be killed just because of how they look.

The whole law to do with dogs as far as im concered is a load of s***, its the person at the end of the lead at the end of the day that has made the dog the way it is and has not controlled it. 

I think its discrimination and a form of racism to label a dog because of how it looks, grrrrrr makes me so mad.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Blitz said:


> of course it can, but those that are an illegal breed are supposed to be neutered and muzzled and registered - their owners know that so are not keeping them responsibly so they should not be returned.


You can't voluntarily have a dog put on the exemption list. This can only happen if the dog is seized or for some insane reason you volunteer your dog. Many people probably own dogs that could be deemed as type but don't even realise it as it is quite broad.



Blitz said:


> BUT very many of the dogs in the kennels will not be an illegal breed but a cross with bull breed characteristics who have been wrongly seized. It should be fairly easy to prove that they are not illegal and they should never have been taken. Provided the dog has not attacked anyone (in which case its breed is irrelevant) why can they not be left with their owners while the case is investigated.


They aren't looking so much for a breed but a type. An animal only has fulfill 70% of the old ADBA APBT standard to be deemed pitbull or pitbull type which has no reference to ears, colour, height or weight. So it is not that easy to prove at all and puts bullbreed crosses seized in a very dangerous position.



Blitz said:


> The idea behind the DDA is a good one but it has never been thought out properly or policed sensibly.


You support BSL?


----------



## Johnderondon (Jul 6, 2009)

Blitz said:


> those that are an illegal breed are supposed to be neutered and muzzled and registered


Nah. Only those on the exemption register. There is no legal cost or benefit to leashing and/or muzzling an unregistered dog.


----------



## Johnderondon (Jul 6, 2009)

Snoringbear said:


> An animal only has fulfill 70% of the old ADBA APBT standard to be deemed pitbull


>60% is enough


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

Johnderondon said:


> >60% is enough


Has it changed? I thought they had to score 70 out of the 100 marks available.


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

Verbatim said:


> I think it would be absoloutely fantastic if we could destroy that fecking woman


my thoughts exactly :thumbup:


----------



## Johnderondon (Jul 6, 2009)

Definitely 60.

I'm not aware that it has changed. Certainly not in recent years.



> Identification
> 
> Under Section One of the DDA a dog becomes a pit bull type if it has a substantial number or most of the characteristics of an American Pit Bull Terrier as described by the ADBA standard. Substantial or most is normally a dog that scores more than 60 percent. Once an accusation has been made it is up to the defence to prove otherwise, not the prosecution to prove the dog is a pit bull type. The burden of Proof is reversed and although challenged through the courts, this still stands.
> 
> ...


DDA 1991 | Detail and practice.


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

Blitz said:


> The idea behind the DDA is a good one but it has never been thought out properly or policed sensibly.


Shouldn't it be *Blame the Deed, Not the Breed?
* 
your more likely to be bitten by labrador or cocker spaniel but you don't see them on the DDa list do you?


----------



## Johnderondon (Jul 6, 2009)

Thoughts on this innovative cost-cutting proposal can be given to our new Home Secretary here...

Contact - Theresa May MP

or directly to Lord Harris here...

Malthouse unleashed - new Home Secretary to be asked to authorise extermination of dangerous dogs - Lord Toby Harris


----------



## sequeena (Apr 30, 2009)

What a heartless bunch of c*nts!!!!!


----------



## xshelly_stanliex (May 4, 2010)

Starlite said:


> Shouldn't it be *Blame the Deed, Not the Breed?
> *
> your more likely to be bitten by labrador or cocker spaniel but you don't see them on the DDa list do you?


Totally agree, we dont judge a race on the actions of one so we shouldn't do it with dog breeds.
I for one am against dda, having 2 non kc reg i fear some ignorant t*** will say they are of type.

At this moment in time all 3 are snuggled up on the bed and they dont have a viscious bone in there body. love everyone and thing including there cat brother who sleeps cuddled up with them.


----------



## katiefranke (Oct 6, 2008)

this is just terrible - its makes me feel sick just thinking about it!


----------



## simonsays (Apr 29, 2010)

******* bitch


----------



## lorilu (Sep 6, 2009)

The worst part is, while all those family pets are kept kenneled and treated who knows how, by the time they are released, if they are, even the sweetest dog may be scarred and damaged beyond recovery, so it becomes a self fulfilling endeavor.

Disgusting. I am weeping over those poor dogs taken from their loving homes.


----------



## Johnderondon (Jul 6, 2009)

lorilu said:


> The worst part is, while all those family pets are kept kenneled and treated who knows how, by the time they are released, if they are, even the sweetest dog may be scarred and damaged beyond recovery, so it becomes a self fulfilling endeavor.
> 
> Disgusting. I am weeping over those poor dogs taken from their loving homes.


Very true. There are many like Missey










_As soon as the family were reunited it became apparent that Missey was suffering deep trauma and psychological damage from her time in police care. She had developed extreme anxieties which worsened despite intervention from veterinary and behavioural experts. Her anxiety ruled her life, according to the Tipples, and worsen until they felt compelled to end her suffering. Missey was euthanized on Sunday 17th February 2008.

Letting her go was the hardest thing we have ever done but we couldnt watch her suffer any more, said Donna while Mark added We have all been punished because of how she looks and Missey paid the biggest price of all._


----------



## dodigna (Feb 19, 2009)

Every time, I go on those pages I forget we are supposed to live in a civilized society, it breaks my heart and it makes me wish that all of those who supports this stupid act of ignorance called the DDA would go through what these dogs and families have gone through, maybe then they could get some sense of the enormous injustice it has brought and would agree it is time to stop the killing, the abusing, the torture they are causing.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

That site is so sad those poor dogs and Britain claims to be a nation of dog lovers yet they do that to innocent friendly animals.


----------



## dodigna (Feb 19, 2009)

Nicky10 said:


> That site is so sad those poor dogs and Britain claims to be a nation of dog lovers yet they do that to innocent friendly animals.


This is nowhere near a nation of dog lovers, it is a nation whose people love the company of dogs as long as they fit into the strict criteria it has been set to them. That they can't look a certain is one of those things.

Pretending to love dogs doesn't justify the incredible ignorance about dogs that I see in this country, they are expected to put up with everything we throw at them, if they don't they are not fit for society.


----------



## Johnderondon (Jul 6, 2009)

Momentum grows



> Special courts to speed up destruction orders for dangerous dogs could be set up in London.
> 
> Deputy Mayor Kit Malthouse is lobbying ministers over courts that would force dogs to be destroyed within 72 hours of being seized.


Calls grow to set up dangerous dog courts after schoolgirls savaged | News

If you haven't yet written to express your dismay, please do.


----------



## tafwoc (Nov 12, 2009)

I don't understand how they can see them merely as weapons! Some are purely innocent, yet they still want to kill them and view them as a possession. It disgusts me that they are allowed to hold such positions in our country. :crying:


----------



## Scarlytt (May 14, 2010)

I feel sorry for the dogs that have been trained to be aggressive so the owner can use them as a status symbol. The poor things are threatening and pretty intimidating don't get me wrong and they can hurt people and other animals but they are only doing what they have been taught is right ...... imagine it, being taken off and killed for doing something your parents told you to do, I guess people don't think about it like that though..... shame more people don't huh


----------



## Johnderondon (Jul 6, 2009)

Scarlytt said:


> I feel sorry for the dogs that have been trained to be aggressive so the owner can use them as a status symbol. The poor things are threatening and pretty intimidating don't get me wrong and they can hurt people and other animals but they are only doing what they have been taught is right ...... imagine it, being taken off and killed for doing something your parents told you to do, I guess people don't think about it like that though..... shame more people don't huh


Of the 498 dogs currently being held by the Met. only 28 have displayed any dangerous behaviour.

This is not about aggression or training. It's just about how the dog looks.


----------



## katiefranke (Oct 6, 2008)

Johnderondon said:


> Momentum grows
> 
> Calls grow to set up dangerous dog courts after schoolgirls savaged | News
> 
> If you haven't yet written to express your dismay, please do.


was just thinking, could maybe someone who has written in already post up a response here so people can use and amend? lots of people may want to but not really be good at writing etc to actually do it?

and then perhaps if you could post this bit in your original post in this thread cos then people would see this straight away? :thumbup:


----------



## Jasper's Bloke (Oct 30, 2009)

Nicky10 said:


> That site is so sad those poor dogs and Britain claims to be a nation of dog lovers yet they do that to innocent friendly animals.


I agree totally with Dodigna, we are living in a nation of ignorance and that includes many owners as well as the law.

In my opinion it is the owners who should be registered and licenced, not the dogs, and by that I mean ALL dog owners. There are no dangerous dogs, only dangerous owners. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Licencing should also involve some demonstration of basic competency and understanding of the animals, which can only be a good thing. Perhaps then we might see an improvement in pet welfare and less dogs cast aside in already overflowing rescue centres.


----------



## dodigna (Feb 19, 2009)

katiefranke said:


> was just thinking, could maybe someone who has written in already post up a response here so people can use and amend? lots of people may want to but not really be good at writing etc to actually do it?
> 
> and then perhaps if you could post this bit in your original post in this thread cos then people would see this straight away? :thumbup:


That would be lovely! I have started to write and cannot keep it to point  I have a tendency to go a bit :lol: and would like to keep it short, strong and to point! Then again, it has to have a certain degree of personal view to make it genuine and not just another petition.... will have to have another few gos...


----------



## happysaz133 (Jun 5, 2008)

That is shocking. I do hope she gets a lot of complaints and is forced to apologise for what she said. What a heartless bi*ch.


----------



## goodvic2 (Nov 23, 2008)

What an interesting topic!

As an avid dog lover with a penchant for rescue's, I have to say I sort of agree.

Most of these dogs who are seized are NOT family pets, but dogs who are owned by status motivated morons. I am not saying that you won't find a much loved family pet, but most of the time these dogs are not as such.

At the moment these dogs are seized, put into kennels, not walked, not given much human contact (because they are deemed dangerous) and await a probable certain death. 

Forget about the tax payer, think about the dog....... 

For those dogs who are much loved family pets and get returned to their home, then yes, this latest announcement is awful. But for most of the dogs they are either going to add to the rescue crisis (lets face it, if they look like a pitt bull then how many people are going to give them a home) or get put down.

The DDA and the legislation around morons owning dogs needs serious review.

But I do happen to agree that a large proportion of these dogs should end their misery with a quick injection, rather than be subjected to months of isolation and frustration.......


----------



## dodigna (Feb 19, 2009)

goodvic2 said:


> What an interesting topic!
> 
> As an avid dog lover with a penchant for rescue's, I have to say I sort of agree.
> 
> ...


And you know this for a fact? 
Only saying because you read stories of the ones put down by mistake, the ones that actually were not pitbull mixes, the ones that *were* family pets!

My understanding is you have just a few weeks to come up to court and accept the conditions of keep of an "illegal" breed. If you don't show the documentation within the given time the dog gets put down, so it is not bearing as a cost or just waiting in a kennel...
The waiting dogs are (to my understanding) the dogs whose owners are fighting for through the courts, not your average "status dog" owner, therefore, pets. Do correct me if you have more precise information.


----------



## goodvic2 (Nov 23, 2008)

I don't have facts. It would be nice to think that all those dogs which are kept in kennels waiting for a court day, are the result of poor, responsible owners. But I don't believe that is the case. 

Call me sceptical, call me cynical. Unfortunately I am in a job
where I don't see the best in people. 

So no, I don't have facts. But a busy job working in London where it appears that the decent owners of these status dogs, are few and far between....


----------



## dodigna (Feb 19, 2009)

I doubt very much most of the dogs seized are actually status dogs.. just crosses looking like of type. Dogs are seized because of looks, not temperament or for having shown signs of aggressions, nor are seized because of what the owners look like or what they do with their dogs. They are seized on looks alone, to say it would be better if they were put down is just silly, would you feel the same if one of your dogs was seized tomorrow? Would you rather he/she was put down asap rather then attempt to prove he is not an illegal cross? What makes you think you are immune to such fate?

It happens every where, they have been sitting in my local park of late with their van, looking at dogs, asking questions, makes me cringe they have nothing better to do with their time.


----------



## Johnderondon (Jul 6, 2009)

Speaking with Sgt. McParland, who runs the Met's status dog team, he has conceeded that about 70% owners are successful in applying for the Index - this can only happen where the court is satisfied that the owner is responsible and the police raise no objections (on the basis of scumbag boyfriend, for example). DDAWatch estimate the number to be considerably higher.

To my mind, this indicates that most of the dogs are, indeed, family pets whose owners are prepared, at the very least, to fight for their dog through the court process.

The others - the remaining 30% - represents a sizeable minority but we cannot assume these are all dangerous or owned by scumbags because their number will include not only those whose owners are unprepared (for whatever reason) to engage with the justice system but also dogs seized from local authority kennels (no owner = no application for the Index) and also any litters seized (registered dogs cannot be gifted or sold and the courts aren't about to return a whole litter to one owner.)

Very few seized dogs will ever make the rescue system. If a dog is deemed 'type' then it will either be registered and returned with no transfer of ownership therafter allowed or they will be killed. The only dogs that might hit rescue are dogs found not to be 'type' - the ones who were mistakenly seized like Karma and Amber, two AmBulls held for eighteen months before being found to be 'not type'.

I certainly agree that we are spending ludicrous sums and causing a welfare scandal but fast-tracking dogs to a death sentence is not the way to save them. It doesn't make us safer and it is a measure intended purely to save money. Money that could be saved anyway by more widespread use of the 'leave at home' policy.

Here's another thought - many, if not most, seized dogs are now dealt with under 4B and the turnaround time is about 9 weeks, iirc. This requires the owner to co-operate and not contest the 'typeness' of the dog whereas those owners who believe their dog is not 'type' can look forward to a protracted legal process. My question is - when looking to save the most money (because that's what this proposal is about) which dogs are most likely to be targeted? The ones who will soon be returned or the ones that will cost many months of kennelling? We already have a situation that presents welfare minded owners with immense pressure to roll over to the allegations in order to minimise stress on their pet. Will we be creating a situation that effectively says 'Don't deny the allegation or your dog will die'? I think that is a very real risk. I think that Supt. Pendry, in saying how "fantastic" it would be, has displayed a bias. She'd rather they were killed. I'd not be happy to allow that bias to be enshrined into law.

We need smarter laws.


----------



## cleancage (Jan 23, 2010)

I am not sure that the police are very good when it comes to dogs, as last year a police dog died in a police car.

So I would be doubtful about any dog being in police hands, let alone thousands awaiting trial.

Surely they can't just go and put all these dogs down. Its rediculous!!!!!


----------



## MerlinsMum (Aug 2, 2009)

Johnderondon said:


> Will we be creating a situation that effectively says 'Don't deny the allegation or your dog will die'? I think that is a very real risk.


I think that's more than a possibility. We also need more people from a knowledgable dog background qualified to ID 'type' dogs, not delivered as a short training course to those who don't know a Min Pin from a Chihuahua.


----------



## Johnderondon (Jul 6, 2009)

posted in error


----------



## Johnderondon (Jul 6, 2009)

katiefranke said:


> was just thinking, could maybe someone who has written in already post up a response here so people can use and amend? lots of people may want to but not really be good at writing etc to actually do it?
> 
> and then perhaps if you could post this bit in your original post in this thread cos then people would see this straight away? :thumbup:


Good idea. I've added the following letter to the OP



> Dear Theresa May
> 
> It is reported in the media that Kit Malthouse, Deputy Mayor for London, has written to you requesting special powers to fast track the destruction of dogs seized by police in order to save kennelling costs.
> 
> ...


Contact - Theresa May MP

Please do write to oppose this heartless policy and, if you write, please post here because - so far - the Home Office is not responding and it would be good to get an indicator of how many people they are ignoring.

If you get a reply, post that too!


----------



## dodigna (Feb 19, 2009)

I am also still waiting on a response from the Home Office.
Like John said, the more of us write the harder it will be for them to ignore us.

They might not reply, but they def read! 
As soon as I get a reply I will post it here.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Printed that off I'll sign and post it tomorrow


----------



## Johnderondon (Jul 6, 2009)

Well done, Nicky!

Incidentally DDAWatch have released a new video of Karma and Brandy with an exclusive soundtrack from Maria Daines!

YouTube - Not guilty! - Taking the fight for repeal to the Home Office


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

They're so skinny . I'm glad at least those 2 were saved.


----------



## dodigna (Feb 19, 2009)

Johnderondon said:


> Well done, Nicky!
> 
> Incidentally DDAWatch have released a new video of Karma and Brandy with an exclusive soundtrack from Maria Daines!
> 
> YouTube - Not guilty! - Taking the fight for repeal to the Home Office


18 months!!! and these girls are the lucky ones!

It could be your dog next!!!! And he/she might not be as lucky as them and get out if they get it their way.
BBC News - Met urged to destroy dangerous dogs to save money

Please people take a moment to watch the video and take another moment to write an e-mail, this is theft and cruelty, it could happen to that friendly dog you see down the park that greets you wagging his tail all the time... 

These are not dangerous dogs, they just look wrong, it's plain discrimination and now they also want to take the owners' right to argue their case! What next? Shooting them on site to save on transport costs? There is no humane reason for killing a dog that has done nothing wrong.

Please write!!


----------



## dodigna (Feb 19, 2009)

From Alison from a different PF thread:



> Some of those who have written to the home sec have had a response stating its not a matter for her and their emails are being forwarded to defra...we beg to differ! If you do get a similar response please email them back,,, a suggested template is below
> 
> To whom it may concern,
> Thank you for your quick response to my email however I must insist that my initial correspondance be fowarded to Ms May. You will note that Kit Malthouse, Deputy Mayor of London is stated as contacting Ms May requesting powers to destroy dogs prior to a court hearing and a fair trial. It is therefore, a matter for Ms May to issue a response too.
> ...


----------



## katiefranke (Oct 6, 2008)

dodigna said:


> 18 months!!! and these girls are the lucky ones!
> 
> It could be your dog next!!!! And he/she might not be as lucky as them and get out if they get it their way.
> BBC News - Met urged to destroy dangerous dogs to save money
> ...


Good post! I have written and emailed - yet to have a response. Will update you when I do and use the suggested text (or similar) if I get the duff response about DEFRA!


----------



## dodigna (Feb 19, 2009)

I have just received this reply from the Home Office



> Thank you for your e-mail of 18 May to the Home Secretary about new powers to deal with dangerous dogs seized by the police. As I am sure you will appreciate, the Home Secretary receives a large amount of correspondence and is unable to respond to each item personally.
> *
> The increase in problems associated with dangerous and status dogs are a public safety issue which the Government takes seriously.
> *
> ...


Will reply in the form suggested from Alison


----------



## Johnderondon (Jul 6, 2009)

> The increase in problems associated with dangerous and status dogs are a public safety issue which the Government takes seriously.


So seriously that it is refusing to discuss the issue raised.

Ye Gods! What a sidestep.

Please keep writing folks.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

If you have time to fill in this questionnaire about BSL, it's worthwhile to put what you think about targetting specific breeds, I submitted my *thoughts* earlier.....

DEFRA BSL Questionnaire

The closing date for submissions is 1 June, so get typing, I only just spotted it on another forum earlier, so don't know whether it's something that's been posted on this forum yet....


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

I did that questionnaire I think they'll ignore my answers though I may have gotten a bit carried away something about genocide


----------



## Johnderondon (Jul 6, 2009)

dodigna said:


> I have just received this reply from the Home Office


I got the same reply today and have responded.

Please keep writing, folks! :thumbup:

It is unbelievable that they are even considering this.


----------



## dodigna (Feb 19, 2009)

Johnderondon said:


> I got the same reply today and have responded.
> 
> Please keep writing, folks! :thumbup:
> 
> It is unbelievable that they are even considering this.


I have replied :thumbup:


----------



## Border Collie 1991 (Jan 31, 2010)

I wouldn't expect anything more from a conservative Government, even if there are 55 Liberal Democrats in this supposed coalition. 

Come on, the Conservatives would rather cut £6 billion out of public funds than maintain inheritance tax, which accounts for over a billion in Government income; then they complain about not having enough funds to pay for kenneling. 

Cameron is also strongly in favour of getting rid of the fox-hunting ban.


----------



## Johnderondon (Jul 6, 2009)

Border Collie 1991 said:


> I wouldn't expect anything more from a conservative Government, even if there are 55 Liberal Democrats in this supposed coalition.
> 
> Come on, the Conservatives would rather cut £6 billion out of public funds than maintain inheritance tax, which accounts for over a billion in Government income; then they complain about not having enough funds to pay for kenneling.
> 
> Cameron is also strongly in favour of getting rid of the fox-hunting ban.


This proposal comes from the Met. Police Authority. We've yet to hear a response from government but, for them to respond as we want, we have to tell them what we think.

Please write to the Home Secretary and also write to your MP. Template letter below.

_Dear <your MP>

It is reported in the media that Kit Malthouse, Deputy Mayor for London, has written to the Home Secretary requesting special powers to fast track the destruction of dogs seized by police in order to save kennelling costs.

One need only look at the recent cases of two American Bulldogs, Brandy and Karma (www.ddawatch.co.uk) to realise that such a policy would needlessly destroy innocent family pets that present no danger to the public and may deter owners accused of offences from disputing the charges for fear of their dog's life.

If the Metropolitan Police wish to save kennelling costs they should apply their 'Leave at Home' policy more widely or, better yet, campaign to replace Breed Specific Legislation with something that actually works to make us safer without sweeping up hundreds of non-dangerous, but wrong-looking, pets.

I hope you will join me in opposition to Mr. Malthouse's ill-considered request and will convey the same to our Home Secretary, Theresa May.

Yours sincerely,_

Your MPs contact details are here:
MP (TheyWorkForYou.com)


----------



## Snuggles (Nov 17, 2008)

Done, I'll post if I get a response.


----------



## Johnderondon (Jul 6, 2009)

Well done, Snuggles!:thumbup:

Did you do your MP as well? It would be interesting to see how many MPs get canvassed and their responses. I've written to my new MP, Zak Goldsmith, but yet to get a response.


----------



## Snuggles (Nov 17, 2008)

Yes, I've written to my local MP too. Mr Nigel Adams.


----------



## dodigna (Feb 19, 2009)

Johnderondon said:


> Well done, Snuggles!:thumbup:
> 
> Did you do your MP as well? It would be interesting to see how many MPs get canvassed and their responses. I've written to my new MP, Zak Goldsmith, but yet to get a response.


I wrote to my MP Glenda Jackson (no response as yet) and also to the mayor of London, I would have thought at least Boris's office would have replied by now... One can only hope he is busy kicking his deputy's back side now :lol:


----------



## Johnderondon (Jul 6, 2009)

Well done, Guys!:thumbup:

That's three MPs lobbied so far just from PF!

Adams, Nigel - Snuggles
Golsmith, Zak - Johnderondon
Jackson, Glenda - Dodigna


:thumbup:


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

Johnderondon said:


> we have to tell them what we think.
> 
> _Dear <your MP>
> 
> ...


This is the canine equivalent of Guantanamo Bay and the legislation denies those detained the protection of animal rights.
I have always maintained that the reality of the DDA has nothing to do with dogs at all. I always will. Its about a minority of people the system failed to manage appropriately. Labelling dogs as dangerous and applying policies to regulate them by number is merely the diversion to disguise incompetence and complacency.


----------



## dodigna (Feb 19, 2009)

Zaros said:


> This is the canine equivalent of Guantanamo Bay and the legislation denies those detained the protection of animal rights.
> I have always maintained that the reality of the DDA has nothing to do with dogs at all. I always will. Its about a minority of people the system failed to manage appropriately. Labelling dogs as dangerous and applying policies to regulate them by number is merely the diversion to disguise incompetence and complacency.


the DDA was an emergency procedure poorly thought and put in place because of pressure from the public, or so I understand it to be as I didn't live here at the time; seems only natural that public pressure is needed to have it replaced by a more well thought act.

Only by writing to the ones who make the decisions and expressing our feeling at the number of dogs killed unnecessarily and the numbers of dangerous people left to train dogs to be aggressive that we can have something done.
Do write to them.

Breed legislation is merely a witch hunt comparable to dark ages legislation and crusade cruelty.


----------



## Johnderondon (Jul 6, 2009)

Has anyone else written?


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

I got basically the same as everyone else nothing to do with us talk to DEFRA. I'll send back the other reply.


----------



## Nonnie (Apr 15, 2009)

Johnderondon said:


> Has anyone else written?


I have.

Sent an email to my local MP too.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

I'm not entirely sure my MP actually sits in Westminster  fairly sure at some point they were refusing to so not sure that would help


----------



## Johnderondon (Jul 6, 2009)

Nonnie said:


> I have.
> 
> Sent an email to my local MP too.


:thumbup:

Who he? Who he?



Nicky10 said:


> I'm not entirely sure my MP actually sits in Westminster  fairly sure at some point they were refusing to so not sure that would help


Lol!

That could be a problem.


----------



## Nonnie (Apr 15, 2009)

Johnderondon said:


> :thumbup:
> 
> Who he? Who he?


She.

Ann Milton Anne Milton /// MP for Guildford


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Just a little problem don't think I'll bother writing to him


----------



## smskar (Apr 7, 2009)

I've emailed my local MP. I'll let you know what he says.


----------



## Sophiex (Jul 27, 2008)

Johnderondon said:


> Very true. There are many like Missey


I sat reading that site with tears in my eyes. Just horrible.


----------



## Johnderondon (Jul 6, 2009)

That's five MPs now.

Cool!:thumbup:

Adams, Nigel - Snuggles - awaiting reply
Golsmith, Zak - Johnderondon - awaiting reply
Jackson, Glenda - Dodigna - awaiting reply
Milton, Anne - Nonnie - awaiting reply
? - smskar - awaiting reply


----------



## kazschow (Oct 23, 2008)

I'm waiting on a reply from Anne Maguire, Stirling JD


----------



## katiefranke (Oct 6, 2008)

Johnderondon said:


> Has anyone else written?


I still havent had a response from Home Secretary.

But have written this morning to my local MP Michael Gove - will update you when I received a response.


----------



## Johnderondon (Jul 6, 2009)

Excellent.:thumbup:

We're up to seven MPs!

Adams, Nigel - Snuggles - awaiting reply
Golsmith, Zak - Johnderondon - awaiting reply
Gove, Micheal - Katiefranke - awaiting reply
Jackson, Glenda - Dodigna - awaiting reply
Maguire, Anne - Kazchow - awaiting reply
Milton, Anne - Nonnie - awaiting reply
Unknown - Smskar - awaiting reply

Please keep writing, guys.:thumbup:


----------



## kazschow (Oct 23, 2008)

Just got this in JD..

Dear Ms Gourlay

Thank you for your email to Anne which is receiving attention.

Yours sincerely


Aileen Robb
Parliamentary Assistant to Rt Hon Anne McGuire MP Parliamentary Advice Office


----------



## Johnderondon (Jul 6, 2009)

Ta for the update, Kaz.

Adams, Nigel - Snuggles - awaiting reply
Golsmith, Zak - Johnderondon - awaiting reply
Gove, Micheal - Katiefranke - awaiting reply
Jackson, Glenda - Dodigna - awaiting reply
Maguire, Anne - Kazchow - acknowledged, response pending
Milton, Anne - Nonnie - awaiting reply
Unknown - Smskar - awaiting reply


----------



## dodigna (Feb 19, 2009)

well, mine was kinda of acknowledged, but it was a standard reply. I got an e-mail today from writetothem.com asking if I had received a reply (I wrote through them...) as it has now been two weeks. 

I said no, but then I made a mistake and put that I had written before to the same MP... so a whole questionnaire popped up with more details of the MP and the reason I got in touch in the first place, so it got me thinking. These questionnaires will form statistics about parties.

I give a week and will write to my MP again!


----------



## smskar (Apr 7, 2009)

Johnderondon said:


> Ta for the update, Kaz.
> 
> Adams, Nigel - Snuggles - awaiting reply
> Golsmith, Zak - Johnderondon - awaiting reply
> ...


Hiya

My local MP is Danny Alexander. Still awaiting for a reply.

Thanks

Maria


----------



## snoopydo (Jan 19, 2010)

Do any of you know any owners or have knowledge of American Bulldogs and Are They Classed as Dangerous/Risk Dogs? Your advice would be appreciated Thank you.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Ambulls aren't classed as dangerous although the media would love them to be from some of the reports. Some might fall under type though like those two that got released after 18 months


----------



## snoopydo (Jan 19, 2010)

Thanks It's a Subject that We've been Discussing American V English OR WHY are all the so called Dangerous Amerian i.e British Bulldogs 'Friendly' Am.Bulldogs supposed to be Dangerous our Staffy/English 'Bull Terriers' Friendly Am.Pitbulls 'Dangerous' It's an interesting Discussion.

Same names Different Breeds but with American in front of their titles.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Ambulls are very different dogs to the english/british dogs much larger and can be dog dominant but generally people friendly. A lot of english bulldogs would struggle to move fast enough to attack you. Staffies and amstaffs/pitbulls are different breeds too


----------



## dodigna (Feb 19, 2009)

any more replies?
any more have written?


----------



## katiefranke (Oct 6, 2008)

no replies to any of mine yet, not even to acknowledge my emails etc!!!


----------



## katiefranke (Oct 6, 2008)

I received this just now in response to my email to Michael Gove, my local MP - so thought you might want to update your list to 'acknowledged, response pending':



> Dear Katie,
> 
> Many thanks for your email to Michael Gove MP. This matter will receive attention and a full response will be sent to you in due course.
> 
> ...


----------



## smskar (Apr 7, 2009)

I haven't heard anything from my local MP, not even to acknowledge the receipt of the email...


----------



## Johnderondon (Jul 6, 2009)

I haven't heard from mine yet although my old MP used to take about four weeks to respond. I'll ask for a meeting if I haven't heard from him in the next couple of weeks.

Well done, peeps. :thumbsup:

Adams, Nigel - Snuggles - awaiting reply
Alexander, Danny Smskar - awaiting reply
Golsmith, Zak - Johnderondon - awaiting reply
Gove, Micheal - Katiefranke - acknowledged, response pending
Jackson, Glenda - Dodigna - acknowledged, response pending
Maguire, Anne - Kazchow - acknowledged, response pending
Milton, Anne - Nonnie - awaiting reply

Please keep writing, guys. Don't let them devalue dog's lives like this.


----------



## dodigna (Feb 19, 2009)

I friend of mine got a reply from DEFRA, the Home Office asked them to reply on their behalf... passing the ball?


----------



## Nonnie (Apr 15, 2009)

Finally got a reply 



> Dear *****
> 
> Many thanks for your email. Please provide your full postcode so that Anne can respond.
> 
> ...


They have my full postcode, as my address was in the email they sent me.


----------



## Johnderondon (Jul 6, 2009)

Nonnie said:


> They have my full postcode, as my address was in the email they sent me.


It is such that we entrust to skillfully steer the ship of state. (Small wonder we so often hit the rocks)


----------



## Nonnie (Apr 15, 2009)

Johnderondon said:


> It is with such that we entrust to skillfully steer the ship of state. (Small wonder we so often hit the rocks)


I pointed out their error in my reply. Can't believe it took them that long to ask for my postcode.

I did get a reply from the other woman too, with the standard "this is DEFRA business" rubbish.


----------



## Johnderondon (Jul 6, 2009)

I've just got a reply from the Mayor's Office.



> Dear Mr xxxxxx
> 
> Thank you for your letter to the Mayor dated 17th May who has asked me to reply to you on his behalf.
> 
> ...


Lol.

Looks like a some weasel words with a dose of backpedalling thrown in ("It weren't me, guv. I weren't even there!"). I have replied and tried to pin them down a bit more.



> Dear Ms Monks
> 
> Many thanks for your response on the Mayor's behalf.
> 
> ...


----------



## dodigna (Feb 19, 2009)

Johnderondon said:


> I've just got a reply from the Mayor's Office.
> 
> Lol.
> 
> Looks like a some weasel words with a dose of backpedalling thrown in ("It weren't me, guv. I weren't even there!"). I have replied and tried to pin them down a bit more.


snap!!!
I checked my e-mail and here it is:



> Dear Ms xxxx
> 
> Thank you for your letter to the Mayor dated 18th May who has asked me to reply to you on his behalf.
> 
> ...


----------



## Nonnie (Apr 15, 2009)

Why did i email Theresa May again?

This is what i got..



> Ms ***** ***,
> 
> Reference : T9481/10
> 
> ...


----------



## Snuggles (Nov 17, 2008)

I recieved the following reply yesterday:

Dear, 



Mr. Adams has asked me to thank you for your email about the destruction of dogs which have been seized by the police. He will certainly take up the issue and will let you know when he receives a response to his representations.



Yours sincerely,



Hazel R. Dales (Mrs)

Senior Parliamentary Assistant to Nigel Adams MP


----------



## lauren001 (Jun 30, 2008)

> bear in mind that only 28 of these dogs have actually behaved dangerously


Surely this is the crux of the matter. Kennelling costs would be solved over night if the others were allowed to stay at home perhaps neutered first or as a condition of, under some sort of supervision order. 
Maintaining that order would be of far less cost than feeding and kennelling said dogs, I would have thought.

As they have admitted they are pet dogs, then apart from their alleged breeding then they are no different to the pet GSD, collie, labrador, or bulldog that are potentially "an accident waiting to happen" which is the reality of ALL dogs in certain situations, no matter what their breed.


----------



## Johnderondon (Jul 6, 2009)

Snuggles said:


> I recieved the following reply yesterday:
> 
> Dear,
> 
> ...


Well done, Snuggles! <applause>

Our first positive response.:thumbsup:

Adams, Nigel - Snuggles - Positive response :thumbup1:
Alexander, Danny - Smskar - awaiting reply
Golsmith, Zak - Johnderondon - awaiting reply
Gove, Micheal - Katiefranke - acknowledged, response pending
Jackson, Glenda - Dodigna - acknowledged, response pending
Maguire, Anne - Kazchow - acknowledged, response pending
Milton, Anne - Nonnie - awaiting reply


----------



## Johnderondon (Jul 6, 2009)

Please keep writing, guys. The government is lookin to save costs wherever they can. If we don't tell them that this is unacceptable they will try to run with it. Killing innocent dogs is not a way to save money.

Most mail to the Home Office is being ignored so please lobby your MP as well. Here's the letter again...
_Dear <your MP>

It is reported in the media that Kit Malthouse, Deputy Mayor for London, has written to the Home Secretary requesting special powers to fast track the destruction of dogs seized by police in order to save kennelling costs.

One need only look at the recent cases of two American Bulldogs, Brandy and Karma ( www.ddawatch.co.uk ) to realise that such a policy would needlessly destroy innocent family pets that present no danger to the public and may deter owners accused of offences from disputing the charges for fear of their dog's life.

If the Metropolitan Police wish to save kennelling costs they should apply their 'Leave at Home' policy more widely or, better yet, campaign to replace Breed Specific Legislation with something that actually works to make us safer without sweeping up hundreds of non-dangerous, but wrong-looking, pets.

I hope you will join me in opposition to Mr. Malthouse's ill-considered request and will convey the same to our Home Secretary, Theresa May.

Yours sincerely,_

Your MPs contact details are here:
MP (TheyWorkForYou.com)


----------



## Johnderondon (Jul 6, 2009)

I think we may have had some success here, folks.

It appears that public outcry has led to the MPA backing firmly away from this idea. Many thanks to all those who wrote - even those who didn't get answered (like several of my letters) your letters still got read and your views were still conveyed.

From the Mayor's Office:



> Dear Mr Robinson
> 
> Thank you for your email dated 10 June 2010.
> 
> ...


My emphasis

This doesn't mean, of course, that the idea might not be resurrected in a similar form or an attempt made to slip it in through the back door but - for now - they have backpeddalled with unbecoming haste.

If we recap, this was an idea that started out with the unanimous support of the members of the Strategic and Operational Policing Committee of the Metropolitan Police Authority and has ended with the Deputy Mayor putting as much clear water as possible between it and himself and the assurance that he will not requesting fast-track culling despite the agreement of the committee.

I think that the 'Tool Award' for this episode assuredly goes to Lord Toby Harris who first made the suggestion that dogs should be killed without trial or assesment to save money and also suggested that the destruction be performed by getting the armed services to shoot the dogs to death.










Toby 'The Tool' Harris.


----------



## dodigna (Feb 19, 2009)

That is a great achievement! The two replies I did receive was also from the Mayor' s office (Ms Monks) and the one that was suggesting it was a matter for DEFRA, they are yet to reply my responses. 
My local MP (Glenda Jackson) has not answered at all save for the acknowledgment.


----------



## katiefranke (Oct 6, 2008)

dodigna said:


> That is a great achievement! The two replies I did receive was also from the Mayor' s office (Ms Monks) and the one that was suggesting it was a matter for DEFRA, they are yet to reply my responses.
> My local MP (Glenda Jackson) has not answered at all save for the acknowledgment.


Same here! but good news about the above! :thumbup:


----------



## Nonnie (Apr 15, 2009)

Well my MP has gone one better and sent me an official House Of Commons Letter (got my name and address wrong, and called me Mrs instead of Miss ).



> Dear Mrs ***
> 
> Thank you for contacting me about dangerous dogs.
> 
> ...


----------



## dodigna (Feb 19, 2009)

Got a second reply from the mayor's office.



> Dear Ms __
> 
> Thank you for your email. I can confirm that Mr Malthouse will not be making a request to fast track the destruction of dogs seized by Police. The objective is to ensure that cases are heard as speedily as possible by the courts to reduce the amount of time that dogs are held in kennels.
> 
> ...


----------



## Johnderondon (Jul 6, 2009)

Nonnie said:


> Well my MP has gone one better and sent me an official House Of Commons Letter (got my name and address wrong, and called me Mrs instead of Miss ).


Interesting response. Not exactly relevant to the issue at hand but not exactly discouraging either.

The Defra consultation now closed, Redesdale's Bill gets it second reading on 9th July, Scotland already extending sec. 3...change is acoming. Can't say I'm optimistic.


----------



## Johnderondon (Jul 6, 2009)

dodigna said:


> Got a second reply from the mayor's office.


Excellent!


----------

