# What Will The New UK Government do to dangerous Dogs?



## Purrrrfect (Sep 10, 2008)

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

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

I copied and pasted this from a yahoo group.
This is Not my opinion. Before i get hung drawn and quartered lol


----------



## andeehunt (May 17, 2010)

If the government are going to kill all the innocent dogs, I am hoping the government will face tribunals and will be severely punished for the slaughter of these victims of injustice. If the government kill all imprisoned dogs I hope all Brits will refuse to pay taxes. Money will not sponsor killings of the innocent.


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

andeehunt said:


> Money will not sponsor killings of the innocent.


But it has and it continually does. Why should animals be viewed any different to human beings in that respect. I deplore the new legislation attached to dogs and I despise the authors. I also fear for the day that our dogs appear on the Dangerous dogs register and all because of a handful of imbeciles who think the dog can carry their image of being Mr macho man because his own spine is too decrepit to hold him upright! 
The innocent are being penalised because the law can't adequately deal with the guilty!


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

I can't believe what is happening. How can they even justify that any dog seized should be killed immediately? I worry about the minds of the people in charge of the animal welfare and dangerous dogs department, because they are not doing at all well at the moment. 

i feel even more sorry for the dogs that have to be kept in police kennels for months, even years on end, being abused and mistreated, and then the court case fails and its pts anyway. it's so sad.

why can't they ban young people from owning or walking dogs? but oh no, that would be discriminating wouldn't it? but they discriminate against dogs of type, so why not discriminate people?


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

SEVEN_PETS said:


> I can't believe what is happening.
> 
> why can't they ban young people from owning or walking dogs? but oh no, that would be discriminating wouldn't it? but they discriminate against dogs of type, so why not discriminate people?


Discrimination. Such a dirty word. But practiced very heavily in all walks of life and societies.
Actually you are being discriminated against SEVEN. You own a dog.


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

SEVEN_PETS said:


> I can't believe what is happening. How can they even justify that any dog seized should be killed immediately? I worry about the minds of the people in charge of the animal welfare and dangerous dogs department, because they are not doing at all well at the moment.
> 
> i feel even more sorry for the dogs that have to be kept in police kennels for months, even years on end, being abused and mistreated, and then the court case fails and its pts anyway. it's so sad.
> 
> why can't they ban young people from owning or walking dogs? but oh no, that would be discriminating wouldn't it? but they discriminate against dogs of type, so why not discriminate people?


How young Seven ???? My Nephew has had a working dog since he was about 8 and he is one of the most responsible dog owners i know.

Regretfully the Government will deal with problems in the easiest and most "cost effective" way :frown: They simply do not see these lives the way we do. The best thing you can do is join a legitimate protest group and e mail your local MP and the PM and the person whose ultimate job it is to make these decisions :frown:


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

I know, I'm 19 and would be discriminated against. I am discriminated against. Young people are discriminated against for everything that goes on. But its true, owners who are the issue here with using dogs as weapons are usually young males, sometimes young females. Everyone says its the owner not the dog, so something needs to be done against young people. But what.


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

SEVEN_PETS said:


> I know, I'm 19 and would be discriminated against. I am discriminated against. Young people are discriminated against for everything that goes on. But its true, owners who are the issue here with using dogs as weapons are usually young males, sometimes young females. Everyone says its the owner not the dog, so something needs to be done against young people. But what.


Actually i think you will find that is a minority and making blanket rules against a minority always impacts badly on the majority. You can't have a legal system that sais, you can drink, vote, have sex and get married but you can't own a dog. The majority of hoodies with status dogs that i have seen are late teens early 20s so under that "law" you would not be allowed to walk Ollie, still think that's the way to solve it ????.


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

RAINYBOW said:


> Actually i think you will find that is a minority and making blanket rules against a minority always impacts badly on the majority. You can't have a legal system that sais, you can drink, vote, have sex and get married but you can't own a dog. The majority of hoodies with status dogs that i have seen are late teens early 20s so under that "law" you would not be allowed to walk Ollie, still think that's the way to solve it ????.


well, the government make blanket rules to kill dogs of type, when it is only the minority that are the problem. if they want blanket rules against dogs, why haven't they thought about blanket rules against people?

i personally don't want it to come in, but the government don't discriminate against people, because its seen as bad, and you can't possibly do that. but they are allowed to discriminate against dogs, and this is seen as perfectly alright. what's the difference?


----------



## Captain.Charisma (May 24, 2009)

I see the Torys started this problem and are now going to make it worse :S


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

SEVEN_PETS said:


> well, the government make blanket rules to kill dogs of type, when it is only the minority that are the problem. if they want blanket rules against dogs, why haven't they thought about blanket rules against people?
> 
> i personally don't want it to come in, but the government don't discriminate against people, because its seen as bad, and you can't possibly do that. but they are allowed to discriminate against dogs, and this is seen as perfectly alright. what's the difference?


I am not saying its right i am saying how it is. Humans will always be valued more highly than animals, sad but true. When you consider in the eyes of the law pets are considered no different to buying a washing machine or fridge freezer you can see why they are treated with such little regard. They are considered a commodity.


----------



## Colette (Jan 2, 2010)

Personally I think we should ban certain people from owning or "being in control of" dogs. IMO that would include anyone who commits ANY animal welfare offense, anyone who falls foul of the DDA (not the BSL part but allowing their dog to attack someone), and (and here is the controversial part) anyone with a conviction for violent crime or threatening behaviour, ie the morons who keep dogs as weapons. 

I also think improving animal care / welfare laws would help. For example, banning the sale of dogs through pet shops, getting rid of the puppy farms, and bringing in decent minimum standards for breeders would make it much harder for the idiots to get dogs in the first place as "good" breeders wouldn't sell to them anyway.


----------



## mitso (Apr 30, 2010)

hopefully the new government will realise that any breed when raised and socialised correctly is fine,its the idiots that buy a dog with the "look at my dog i feel so hard" attitude that should be banned from owning a dog.:thumbup:


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

Colette said:


> Personally I think we should ban certain people from owning or "being in control of" dogs. IMO that would include anyone who commits ANY animal welfare offense, anyone who falls foul of the DDA (not the BSL part but allowing their dog to attack someone), *and (and here is the controversial part) anyone with a conviction for violent crime or threatening behaviour, ie the morons who keep dogs as weapons. *
> 
> I also think improving animal care / welfare laws would help. For example, banning the sale of dogs through pet shops, getting rid of the puppy farms, and bringing in decent minimum standards for breeders would make it much harder for the idiots to get dogs in the first place as "good" breeders wouldn't sell to them anyway.


I don't think its controversial, I think it's pretty sensible


----------



## Colette (Jan 2, 2010)

Thanks.
Seemed logical to me - I mean, if a person will happily use fists / knife / gun / bottle etc as a weapon then they could easily use a dog. Not to mention if they can threaten, frighten, assault and abuse their fellow humans then they would most likely do the same to animals. Stop them keeping dogs and you reduce dog abuse and dog attacks in one hit.

I guess the controversial point is a punishment that seems in no way related to the crime.


----------

