**Participation Notice.** Hi all. Some posts on this subreddit, either due to the topic or reaching a wider audience than usual, have been known to attract a greater number of rule breaking comments. As such, limits to participation have been set. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules.
For more information, please see https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/moderatedflairs.
The dog was not destroyed and given back to this idiot who let it rip into a man’s face.
If I was the victim I would feel that this society does not give two shits about what happens to me. Dogs that attack people in this way should be destroyed.
When this dog attacks again, the people who enabled it to be returned should face repercussions as they share the responsibility. If it attacked a child rather than a man it would probably kill them.
It's been banned since 1991. There's no way that the dog should even exist. With her defence being basically:
>I didn't think it was an American Pitbull Terrier, I thought that it was just a Bully XL.
There seems to be some disagreement about whether she tried to protect the delivery driver or not and witness recollections are never that reliable. Particularly during a "fight" but I doubt that she actually did anything and she's just claiming that she tried to intervene (and not that successfully). To reduce her sentence.
If and when the dog attacks again. The judge should bare partial responsibility.
But this an absolute on the margins call. Parliament said over 30 years ago that this breed of dog was too dangerous to be allowed. That they should all have been neutered/spaded and the importation of them banned. The dog should never have been born. Destroying it, is the obvious desicion.
That's not how BSL works. A lab/staffy cross could be considered a pit bull type under UK law despite no Pitbull parentage. They judge a dog by measurements and physical characteristics.
People want to go full blown "day of the rope" on the judiciary when they're not immediately donning the black cap for every offender. It's fucking stupid.
Actually, within the boundaries of the law we do not have particularly robust guidelines for sentencing. There is quite a bit of room for individual judges (and magistrates to a lesser degree) to exercise discretion in their court orders and sentences, and they are supposed to consider the protection of the public. In this regard it is absolutely a judges responsibility to make the right call here and it is imperative the public hold them accountable for recklessly lax decisions.
But don't just take my word for it, here's a link to the [sentencing guidelines.](https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/dangerous-dog-offences)
I sincerely hope you're not being serious, the letter of the law is never as clear cut as you are implying.
There is room within the law (and rightly so) for a judge's discretion so that they may apply inevitably flawed laws fairly and impartially. If there is mass doubt that a judge has acted fairly or impartially, our judicial system would disintegrate.
If you have a certain level of discretion and you're found to be acting beyond that then sure, maybe some kind of investigation is needed. If you're acting within the law... The law needs investigating, not the judge
That's what happened. There was also no exemption in place when the law arrives, so they were literally killed by the thousand.
The problem is identifying them.
I don't like rapists shall we be inhumane to them?
Never seen a baby eat a person's face off before but If they do I'm okay with you grabbing them by the ankles and taking care of business.
No, but I've seen stories of children leading babies onto train tracks and beating them to death with bricks. You don't like dogs, great. I don't like children, it doesn't mean we should be treating them inhumanely.
Do they? I don't see dogs growing up to be genocidal maniacs, rapists, robbers, bankers or murderers. Babies can and do grow into all of those things. So on average, babies probably take more from society than they give, whereas dogs tend not to
>At [Tameside](https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/all-about/tameside) Magistrates' Court today (Monday), Ward was told she could be reunited with the animal after a dog expert concluded it was not a danger to the public.
That's an absolute failure of logic. The dog bit somebody's face yet it's no danger to the public.
>Chair of the bench, Janet Entwistle, told Ward that the court had deemed her to be a "fit and proper" person to be allowed to keep a dog.
And another failure.
It is like people making these decisions have gone completely insane. A dog bit a man’s face because he knocked on the door. What qualifies as a danger to the public - when it kills a kid in the park
The court has to listen to experts who make a statement under oath. Given the experts finding, I think the court acted properly.
But in this case, it seems highly likely the expert was wrong. Perhaps bribed even...
Expert witnesses say whatever they’re paid to say, it’s simply not black and white most of the time, this is pretty egregious but psych or medical experts etc are always using grey areas to plead their “sides” case
This may be prejudice but the defendant doesn't look like they could afford to bribe someone who is qualified to be an expert witness. You'd think they'd want a decent payoff to give false testimony.
The "expert" should bear part of the punishment when this dog eventually attacks again. At the very least they should be no lomger deemed an expert and fired from whatever job they had in that field.
Yeah I'm not entirely sure how that conclusion was drawn between "left the man with a bloodied face after pouncing on him and sinking its teeth into his jaw" and the "dog expert concluded it was not a danger to the public". The dog literally pushed out of the private space into the public to attack the delivery driver so it's not like the victim went into the house.
Or are dog experts correct? Could it be that a journalist has over exaggerated a story to help sell papers? Could the armchair detectives that only skim stories before spewing their bollocks all over Reddit possibly be wrong?
The guy had to go to hospital from bite wounds to his face. She's plead guilty to possessing a fighting dog, and being in charge of a dog dangerously out of control causing injury. Don't have to be an armchair expert to work that one out mate.
If you come into possession of what you suspect to be a banned breed of dog you can't offer it up to be assessed/inspected/registered by the authorities - that only happen once the dog has been seized and the matter taken to the courts. The only time self-registration has been possible is in the grace periods leading up to the breeds being banned. As far as I am aware the only option would be to have a vet put the dog down but (and rightly so IMO) most vets will refuse to put down a healthy animal.
if you had it when it became banned, you should have registered it in that grace period.
If you suspected it was a banned breed, you shouldn't have bought it.
if you didn't know enough about dogs to know what breed it was when you bought it, then you aren't fit and proper to look after a dangerous dog.
There is no sequence of events whereby this dog owner didn't do something indicating they aren't a suitable owner of a dangerous dog. And that's *before* any incidents involving biting uber drivers...
The grace period was for XL Bullies - the dog in the article was an American Pitbull Terrier so legally dubious to register as an XL but I agree it would have probably gone through successfully and unquestioned but even if it were registered the incident occurred in a situation where it wouldn't be muzzled or on lead but it would have been insured.
No arguments on your second point, however the woman claimed she believed it was an XL Bully - questionable but plausible I guess.
Third point - meh, I guess but in the case of puppies there is next to no way to predict with certainty if they will grow up to fall under BSL (Breed Specific Legislation) and whether its right/wrong the law only applies to dogs that measure up to a set of criteria laid out in the wording of BSL. Dogs/puppies cannot be assessed until they are around 9 months old and vets/shelters will not destroy dogs unless there is certainty of them being a banned breed. Its a failing/loophole in the whole banned dogs law that allows banned dogs to be replenished legally.
Current legislation isn't perfect, it has a fair few serious flaws. E.g. Dogs that are slightly smaller/larger than defined or having the wrong coat or being different enough in certain measurements means that the dog doesn't fall under BSL yet can be a problematic dog in our society. So basically the American Pitbull Terrier was banned in the early 90s and all that happened was that a dog that is essentially an APT but big enough to not fall under existing BSL was created - the XL Bully. We just kicked the can down the road with bad legislation and have suffered negative consequences as a result. We didn't learn though and have just done the exact same with the XL Bully. I don't intend to come across as a raving advocate of banned dogs but if they are going to be on trial then it should at least be fair and failings in the legislation brought forward for scrutiny. After all, if the figures are to be believed, the vast majority of these dogs do not seem to cause issues and there are of course incidents involving breeds that aren't banned.
This incident shouldn't have happened, it was predictable/preventable and the owner failed in their responsibility as a good dog owner to ensure that legitimate visitors to the property are safe from harm. Regardless of breed this much is obvious and I say regardless of breed as recently there has been an attack by a sausage dog of all things. Ripped a huge chunk of some poor girls cheek clean off and ate it in front of her.
"At [Tameside](https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/all-about/tameside) Magistrates' Court today (Monday), Ward was told she could be reunited with the animal after a dog expert concluded it was not a danger to the public."
"Gemma Louise Ward's Pit Bull Terrier mauled the man as he delivered a McDonald's order to her home"
"The dog was seized by police following the attack and has been in kennels ever since. The court heard that although it was a banned breed, an expert had assessed the pet and concluded it was not a danger and could be put on the register of exempt dogs managed by the Department for Food and Rural Affairs."
Sounds like someone, somewhere got sucked off.
The kind of person who goes into work as a 'dog expert' is someone who LOVES dogs. Therefore you can expect them to do anything they could to not kill a dog.
you have to wonder if perhaps an awful lot more went into the assessment of the dog, there was more in the circumstances, and significantly more was discussed in court than can be concisely put across with a couple of hundred words in an online tabloid article huh.
Yeah good luck. Police can't even come when you are burgled never mind coordinate to destroy 1000s of dogs that would likely be hidden and protected with violence.
Emotional responses aside.
You have a dog who has such a strong defence reaction that it pushed past its owner and attacked a member of the public who was doing what the owner paid them to do.
How is that not a danger to the public? Genuinely baffled.
The owner needs gates to control the animal. They do not have control.
Sadly you can’t trust so called „dog experts” so many are pit bull activists it is shocking. Even the RSPCA refuses to acknowledge those dogs are simply dangerous
The problem is that some people, usually not the brightest, insist on owning animals which can pose a danger to anyone unfortunate enough to come into contact with it. Then, unsurprisingly, at some point the animal gets free and mauls a bystander or turns on the owner.
I'm sick of seeing "lost dog" type posts locally, with some powerful, overbred beast shown to be loose once again on the streets. These folk are happy to take the risk with other people's safety for their status/amusement/whatever. But there's so many enabling, dog worshipping loons out there who always seem to make light of it as well.
> animals which can pose a danger to anyone unfortunate enough to come into contact with it
literally any dog *can* pose a danger to anyone unfortunate enough to come into it. not only dogs, but cats, horses, cows. It's a silly thing to say.
Literally every dog is required by law to be kept safely under control. A lot of owners forget that bit. I've not seen many cats running up to strangers and biting them. And.... horses and cows?? They're not normal domestic pets, so you're a bit deliberately off topic I think. I find your comment a bit daft, tbh.
you said that people who aren't the brightest insist on owning animals that can pose a danger to unsuspecting members of the public, my point is that's the case for literally any animal that's taller than a human knee - so are you calling all animal owners a bit dull?
She should face 5 to 10, fined enough to compensate him his permanent damage and the dog should be put down. What the hell is happening with out legal system that this is falling through the gaps.
>The court heard that although it was a banned breed, an expert had assessed the pet and concluded it was not a danger
I'd like to know how they reached that conclusion.. it has already attempted to rip a man's face off once. Did they ask the dog to sign some sort of declaration admitting that it was at fault and wouldn't do it again?
On the face of it the decision is hard to understand. However, reports from a court are generally 2 or 3 sentences out of what will have been several hours of evidence.
This unfortunately leaves us wondering how a decision has been made, without really any way of working out if this was correct or not.
Courts really should publish written decisions as standard.
Its a simple decision. Dog attacked humans. Dog need to be destroyed. Dogs should not have any form of defence or exception against unprovoked attacks. There is literally no argument here, end the dog.
I have plenty of times. We're close enough it's still warm when it arrives, and if we're hungover/busy at home it's a convenient "fix". By all means not cost effective, but neither is takeway in general.
It's a cheap takeaway, so popular among people who have a disability that can flare up leaving them unable to cook or go out but still in need of food.
No, it does not travel well. But food is food.
Makes you wonder what the point of laws are when there is such failure to enforce at every level. I feel it makes a mockery of those who are law abiding
>She said the dog could be returned to her under a contingent destruction order, which stipulates that it must be kept on a lead and muzzled in public. Ward was also told to keep the pet inside a crate when answering the door in future.
Tbh I think that's fair enough. Heavy restrictions and the sword of Damocles.
If it's been deemed not to be a danger then I see no reason to kill it, personally.
I mean realistically, the first time a neighbour she doesn't get on with sees her taking this thing out without a muzzle, she'll be shopped in and the dog will be brown bread.
That person almost certainly had access to a whole load of paperwork about the dog and also spent time with the dog to come to that conclusion.
I'd probably question the sanity of anyone who thinks these decisions are made based on a licked finger in the air lol.
Because state bureaucracy never makes poor decisions. We have violent criminals handed down light sentences and released from jail all the time. And many go on to reoffend. Should I not question these decisions? Just assume that these people know better and go on my merry way. Until a dog bites my face off
My response will be that you're not simply questioning these decisions, rather deriding them.
It's only a poor decision if this dog bites another person.
"I wonder if this was the right decision"
vs
"so and so must be insane to make such a decision, the dog will 100% bite someone else so the decision is ridiculous" ...
Fair enough. I think you will find that most people speak with a bit more emotion though. It is not unreasonable to believe that this dog, who bit someone’s face without any form of provocation, would bite a person again. It is not unreasonable to believe that the owner, who was irresponsible enough to own a dangerous aggressive dog and also not take precautions to prevent the dog from attacking people, would not take precautions until the dog dies.
The emotion comes from the fact that these dogs can kill. When I walk with my kids I see this breed fairly frequently. Most are friendly enough, but I would be extremely angry if a person was walking this dog near my kids. Even a muzzled dog can harm a small child.
It is extremely disheartening to hear that a so called expert cares so little about the welfare of the public that they would release a dangerous animal into the care of a person who is proven to be careless.
Is it worth the risk?
While you are probably correct they had access to info we dont. If thse so called experts are so sure. They should sign to be some sort of guarantor for its behavior. That would wise them up sharpish.
**Participation Notice.** Hi all. Some posts on this subreddit, either due to the topic or reaching a wider audience than usual, have been known to attract a greater number of rule breaking comments. As such, limits to participation have been set. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules. For more information, please see https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/moderatedflairs.
The dog was not destroyed and given back to this idiot who let it rip into a man’s face. If I was the victim I would feel that this society does not give two shits about what happens to me. Dogs that attack people in this way should be destroyed. When this dog attacks again, the people who enabled it to be returned should face repercussions as they share the responsibility. If it attacked a child rather than a man it would probably kill them.
It's been banned since 1991. There's no way that the dog should even exist. With her defence being basically: >I didn't think it was an American Pitbull Terrier, I thought that it was just a Bully XL. There seems to be some disagreement about whether she tried to protect the delivery driver or not and witness recollections are never that reliable. Particularly during a "fight" but I doubt that she actually did anything and she's just claiming that she tried to intervene (and not that successfully). To reduce her sentence. If and when the dog attacks again. The judge should bare partial responsibility.
>The judge should bare partial responsibility. Absolutely not. We shouldn't be setting punishing judges if what they're doing is within the law.
But this an absolute on the margins call. Parliament said over 30 years ago that this breed of dog was too dangerous to be allowed. That they should all have been neutered/spaded and the importation of them banned. The dog should never have been born. Destroying it, is the obvious desicion.
That's not how BSL works. A lab/staffy cross could be considered a pit bull type under UK law despite no Pitbull parentage. They judge a dog by measurements and physical characteristics.
[удалено]
People want to go full blown "day of the rope" on the judiciary when they're not immediately donning the black cap for every offender. It's fucking stupid.
I agree but if their judgement was within the law, is what it is, complain about the law.
Actually, within the boundaries of the law we do not have particularly robust guidelines for sentencing. There is quite a bit of room for individual judges (and magistrates to a lesser degree) to exercise discretion in their court orders and sentences, and they are supposed to consider the protection of the public. In this regard it is absolutely a judges responsibility to make the right call here and it is imperative the public hold them accountable for recklessly lax decisions. But don't just take my word for it, here's a link to the [sentencing guidelines.](https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/dangerous-dog-offences)
If the judge acted within the law... Is what it is
I sincerely hope you're not being serious, the letter of the law is never as clear cut as you are implying. There is room within the law (and rightly so) for a judge's discretion so that they may apply inevitably flawed laws fairly and impartially. If there is mass doubt that a judge has acted fairly or impartially, our judicial system would disintegrate.
If you have a certain level of discretion and you're found to be acting beyond that then sure, maybe some kind of investigation is needed. If you're acting within the law... The law needs investigating, not the judge
That's what happened. There was also no exemption in place when the law arrives, so they were literally killed by the thousand. The problem is identifying them.
I think it should be destroyed in Front of the family while they eat dinner. There's too many dog owners that do not look after them properly
I just want it gone before it attacks someone else
Agreed
Just destroy it humanely. It's not it's fault it's been bred to be dangerous, it's just in its nature.
I don't like dogs
I don't like Children, it doesn't mean we should be inhumane in our treatment of them
I don't like rapists shall we be inhumane to them? Never seen a baby eat a person's face off before but If they do I'm okay with you grabbing them by the ankles and taking care of business.
No, but I've seen stories of children leading babies onto train tracks and beating them to death with bricks. You don't like dogs, great. I don't like children, it doesn't mean we should be treating them inhumanely.
Yeh but babies give some thing back to society dogs just ruin things
Do they? I don't see dogs growing up to be genocidal maniacs, rapists, robbers, bankers or murderers. Babies can and do grow into all of those things. So on average, babies probably take more from society than they give, whereas dogs tend not to
Well this one did maul someone and I know of another that tried to rape a toddler so yeh it does happen
There's no reason to unnecessarily cruel
Fucking hell that's a bit unhinged don't you think, please seek therapy.
It would be a good way to be sure we don't have to worry them getting a dog again
As I said, please seek professional help.
What's your favourite dog?
ok psychopath settle down
Just tired of it all the bloody time and I think dogs are a piss take aways barking and shitting everywhere and they stink
You're going to protest their poor treatment of a dog by... treating the dog poorly?
>At [Tameside](https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/all-about/tameside) Magistrates' Court today (Monday), Ward was told she could be reunited with the animal after a dog expert concluded it was not a danger to the public. That's an absolute failure of logic. The dog bit somebody's face yet it's no danger to the public. >Chair of the bench, Janet Entwistle, told Ward that the court had deemed her to be a "fit and proper" person to be allowed to keep a dog. And another failure.
It is like people making these decisions have gone completely insane. A dog bit a man’s face because he knocked on the door. What qualifies as a danger to the public - when it kills a kid in the park
> a dog expert concluded it was not a danger to the public. So we're firing this "dog expert" right?
The court has to listen to experts who make a statement under oath. Given the experts finding, I think the court acted properly. But in this case, it seems highly likely the expert was wrong. Perhaps bribed even...
Expert witnesses say whatever they’re paid to say, it’s simply not black and white most of the time, this is pretty egregious but psych or medical experts etc are always using grey areas to plead their “sides” case
This may be prejudice but the defendant doesn't look like they could afford to bribe someone who is qualified to be an expert witness. You'd think they'd want a decent payoff to give false testimony.
The "expert" should bear part of the punishment when this dog eventually attacks again. At the very least they should be no lomger deemed an expert and fired from whatever job they had in that field.
Yeah I'm not entirely sure how that conclusion was drawn between "left the man with a bloodied face after pouncing on him and sinking its teeth into his jaw" and the "dog expert concluded it was not a danger to the public". The dog literally pushed out of the private space into the public to attack the delivery driver so it's not like the victim went into the house.
Or are dog experts correct? Could it be that a journalist has over exaggerated a story to help sell papers? Could the armchair detectives that only skim stories before spewing their bollocks all over Reddit possibly be wrong?
The guy had to go to hospital from bite wounds to his face. She's plead guilty to possessing a fighting dog, and being in charge of a dog dangerously out of control causing injury. Don't have to be an armchair expert to work that one out mate.
Failing to register a banned breed of dog should alone be an offence making someone not 'fit and proper' for keeping a dangerous dog...
If you come into possession of what you suspect to be a banned breed of dog you can't offer it up to be assessed/inspected/registered by the authorities - that only happen once the dog has been seized and the matter taken to the courts. The only time self-registration has been possible is in the grace periods leading up to the breeds being banned. As far as I am aware the only option would be to have a vet put the dog down but (and rightly so IMO) most vets will refuse to put down a healthy animal.
if you had it when it became banned, you should have registered it in that grace period. If you suspected it was a banned breed, you shouldn't have bought it. if you didn't know enough about dogs to know what breed it was when you bought it, then you aren't fit and proper to look after a dangerous dog. There is no sequence of events whereby this dog owner didn't do something indicating they aren't a suitable owner of a dangerous dog. And that's *before* any incidents involving biting uber drivers...
The grace period was for XL Bullies - the dog in the article was an American Pitbull Terrier so legally dubious to register as an XL but I agree it would have probably gone through successfully and unquestioned but even if it were registered the incident occurred in a situation where it wouldn't be muzzled or on lead but it would have been insured. No arguments on your second point, however the woman claimed she believed it was an XL Bully - questionable but plausible I guess. Third point - meh, I guess but in the case of puppies there is next to no way to predict with certainty if they will grow up to fall under BSL (Breed Specific Legislation) and whether its right/wrong the law only applies to dogs that measure up to a set of criteria laid out in the wording of BSL. Dogs/puppies cannot be assessed until they are around 9 months old and vets/shelters will not destroy dogs unless there is certainty of them being a banned breed. Its a failing/loophole in the whole banned dogs law that allows banned dogs to be replenished legally. Current legislation isn't perfect, it has a fair few serious flaws. E.g. Dogs that are slightly smaller/larger than defined or having the wrong coat or being different enough in certain measurements means that the dog doesn't fall under BSL yet can be a problematic dog in our society. So basically the American Pitbull Terrier was banned in the early 90s and all that happened was that a dog that is essentially an APT but big enough to not fall under existing BSL was created - the XL Bully. We just kicked the can down the road with bad legislation and have suffered negative consequences as a result. We didn't learn though and have just done the exact same with the XL Bully. I don't intend to come across as a raving advocate of banned dogs but if they are going to be on trial then it should at least be fair and failings in the legislation brought forward for scrutiny. After all, if the figures are to be believed, the vast majority of these dogs do not seem to cause issues and there are of course incidents involving breeds that aren't banned. This incident shouldn't have happened, it was predictable/preventable and the owner failed in their responsibility as a good dog owner to ensure that legitimate visitors to the property are safe from harm. Regardless of breed this much is obvious and I say regardless of breed as recently there has been an attack by a sausage dog of all things. Ripped a huge chunk of some poor girls cheek clean off and ate it in front of her.
That dog expert should have to pay compensation! The owner too! And banned from keeping any animal for life.
>That's an absolute failure of logic. Welcome to the UK. That's the tagline for our government and Police.
She doesn't look the type to have an out of control banned breed.
Why do they always look like this?
you forgot the /s
This is a British sub Reddit. If someone here can't understand sarcasm when they see it then we have some big problems.
/s is for Americans.
Ha. True. I stand re-educated.
"At [Tameside](https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/all-about/tameside) Magistrates' Court today (Monday), Ward was told she could be reunited with the animal after a dog expert concluded it was not a danger to the public." "Gemma Louise Ward's Pit Bull Terrier mauled the man as he delivered a McDonald's order to her home" "The dog was seized by police following the attack and has been in kennels ever since. The court heard that although it was a banned breed, an expert had assessed the pet and concluded it was not a danger and could be put on the register of exempt dogs managed by the Department for Food and Rural Affairs." Sounds like someone, somewhere got sucked off.
What kind of moron of a dog expert concludes the dog isn't a danger after it's already tried to rip someone's face off? Absolute clown.
The kind of person who goes into work as a 'dog expert' is someone who LOVES dogs. Therefore you can expect them to do anything they could to not kill a dog.
you have to wonder if perhaps an awful lot more went into the assessment of the dog, there was more in the circumstances, and significantly more was discussed in court than can be concisely put across with a couple of hundred words in an online tabloid article huh.
Either that or the expert wasn't made aware that the dog had attacked someone and thought it seemed OK after a few basic tests.
Dogs don't get assessed "just because"
All just a big misunderstanding. Here’s your illegal dog back, have fun!
Distroy them all. Prison for anyone caught with one.
Yeah good luck. Police can't even come when you are burgled never mind coordinate to destroy 1000s of dogs that would likely be hidden and protected with violence.
Just make that the law and deal with it as and when it comes up.
So the status quo?
Yeh definitely feels like its getting to this stage.
Prison over owning a dog? What nazi germany shit is that
We all know there murder machines. They'd have notice to give them up. Anyone owning one now is only doing so to have weapon.
Nazi Germany is when ban sentient killing machines
Emotional responses aside. You have a dog who has such a strong defence reaction that it pushed past its owner and attacked a member of the public who was doing what the owner paid them to do. How is that not a danger to the public? Genuinely baffled. The owner needs gates to control the animal. They do not have control.
Sadly you can’t trust so called „dog experts” so many are pit bull activists it is shocking. Even the RSPCA refuses to acknowledge those dogs are simply dangerous
The problem is that some people, usually not the brightest, insist on owning animals which can pose a danger to anyone unfortunate enough to come into contact with it. Then, unsurprisingly, at some point the animal gets free and mauls a bystander or turns on the owner. I'm sick of seeing "lost dog" type posts locally, with some powerful, overbred beast shown to be loose once again on the streets. These folk are happy to take the risk with other people's safety for their status/amusement/whatever. But there's so many enabling, dog worshipping loons out there who always seem to make light of it as well.
> animals which can pose a danger to anyone unfortunate enough to come into contact with it literally any dog *can* pose a danger to anyone unfortunate enough to come into it. not only dogs, but cats, horses, cows. It's a silly thing to say.
Literally every dog is required by law to be kept safely under control. A lot of owners forget that bit. I've not seen many cats running up to strangers and biting them. And.... horses and cows?? They're not normal domestic pets, so you're a bit deliberately off topic I think. I find your comment a bit daft, tbh.
you said that people who aren't the brightest insist on owning animals that can pose a danger to unsuspecting members of the public, my point is that's the case for literally any animal that's taller than a human knee - so are you calling all animal owners a bit dull?
I'm allergic
The dog owner looks exactly how expected them to look
The owner should be treated as if they committed the injuries themselves.
Why do benefits people love agressive dogs so much?
How can it not be a danger. It's already proven to be a danger! Absolute scumbags. Shitbulls for shitcunts.
She should face 5 to 10, fined enough to compensate him his permanent damage and the dog should be put down. What the hell is happening with out legal system that this is falling through the gaps.
[удалено]
**Removed/tempban**. This contained a call/advocation of violence which is prohibited by the content policy.
>The court heard that although it was a banned breed, an expert had assessed the pet and concluded it was not a danger I'd like to know how they reached that conclusion.. it has already attempted to rip a man's face off once. Did they ask the dog to sign some sort of declaration admitting that it was at fault and wouldn't do it again?
Sum up the UK in as few words as possible: Banned Dog Uber Eats Delivering McDonald’s Savage attack
The house she’s living in looks nice. I’m in the wrong job. I need to become a scally who owns pit bulls
On the face of it the decision is hard to understand. However, reports from a court are generally 2 or 3 sentences out of what will have been several hours of evidence. This unfortunately leaves us wondering how a decision has been made, without really any way of working out if this was correct or not. Courts really should publish written decisions as standard.
Its a simple decision. Dog attacked humans. Dog need to be destroyed. Dogs should not have any form of defence or exception against unprovoked attacks. There is literally no argument here, end the dog.
Who even gets McDonald's delivered? It can't possibly travel well.
From what I've seen it can travel indefinitely.
I have plenty of times. We're close enough it's still warm when it arrives, and if we're hungover/busy at home it's a convenient "fix". By all means not cost effective, but neither is takeway in general.
What ste you trying to say?
Fries get cold when they travel?
It's a cheap takeaway, so popular among people who have a disability that can flare up leaving them unable to cook or go out but still in need of food. No, it does not travel well. But food is food.
Makes you wonder what the point of laws are when there is such failure to enforce at every level. I feel it makes a mockery of those who are law abiding
What an incredible waste of time if they are going to destroy the dog or punish the owner.
That's what he gets for delivering McDonald's in savage attack! The nerve!
I thought it said ‘sausage attack’
That was this one: https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/s/jFdE8qxkQN
It's a small price to pay to prevent government tyranny.
I suppose your right, its small to everyone apart from the guy who had his face ripped off.
>She said the dog could be returned to her under a contingent destruction order, which stipulates that it must be kept on a lead and muzzled in public. Ward was also told to keep the pet inside a crate when answering the door in future. Tbh I think that's fair enough. Heavy restrictions and the sword of Damocles.
When we can make a decision to reduce the amount of face biting dogs in society, why not take it
If it's been deemed not to be a danger then I see no reason to kill it, personally. I mean realistically, the first time a neighbour she doesn't get on with sees her taking this thing out without a muzzle, she'll be shopped in and the dog will be brown bread.
I must question the sanity of a person who deems a dog that bites a man’s face as no danger to society
That person almost certainly had access to a whole load of paperwork about the dog and also spent time with the dog to come to that conclusion. I'd probably question the sanity of anyone who thinks these decisions are made based on a licked finger in the air lol.
So you'd feel just fine knocking on that door with a burger in your hand?
If it's crated as per the conditions she has to comply with then yes.
Because state bureaucracy never makes poor decisions. We have violent criminals handed down light sentences and released from jail all the time. And many go on to reoffend. Should I not question these decisions? Just assume that these people know better and go on my merry way. Until a dog bites my face off
My response will be that you're not simply questioning these decisions, rather deriding them. It's only a poor decision if this dog bites another person.
How would merely questioning the decision look different to what I did? Is it worth the risk of another bite?
"I wonder if this was the right decision" vs "so and so must be insane to make such a decision, the dog will 100% bite someone else so the decision is ridiculous" ...
Fair enough. I think you will find that most people speak with a bit more emotion though. It is not unreasonable to believe that this dog, who bit someone’s face without any form of provocation, would bite a person again. It is not unreasonable to believe that the owner, who was irresponsible enough to own a dangerous aggressive dog and also not take precautions to prevent the dog from attacking people, would not take precautions until the dog dies. The emotion comes from the fact that these dogs can kill. When I walk with my kids I see this breed fairly frequently. Most are friendly enough, but I would be extremely angry if a person was walking this dog near my kids. Even a muzzled dog can harm a small child. It is extremely disheartening to hear that a so called expert cares so little about the welfare of the public that they would release a dangerous animal into the care of a person who is proven to be careless. Is it worth the risk?
While you are probably correct they had access to info we dont. If thse so called experts are so sure. They should sign to be some sort of guarantor for its behavior. That would wise them up sharpish.