New Competition: Which Country Can Write the Worst Dangerous Dog Laws?
It’s a battle of the Auld enemy: England v Scotland, with Wales joining the English in this particular showdown.
The aim, it seems, is to see which country can write a dangerous dogs law which is actually worse than the one we’ve already got now. Worse than one of the worst, most derided laws in all of British legislation. Worse than a law which has captured THOUSANDS of innocent dogs in its discriminatory claws. Worse than a law which is virtually impossible to enforce.
The contenders:
The Scottish Bill (see our thoughts on it here)
Versus: The newly pitched Control of Dogs Act (see thoughts on that here)
Let’s take a look who’s doing and saying what…
PLANS to slap “dog ASBOs” on vicious mutts and their owners have won the backing of Scotland’s posties.
More than 6000 postmen and women are victims of dog attacks in Britain each year.
CWU health and safety officer Dave Joyce said: “We are calling for cross-party backing for the Bill and we want the rest of the UK to follow Scotland’s lead.
“We’re not anti-dog or anti any particular breed of dog. The overwhelming majority of dogs cause no problem at all.
“But there are significant numbers of aggressive dogs and irresponsible owners, and they need to be dealt with.”
The Control of Dogs Bill, due to be launched next year, is the brainchild of the SNP’s Alex Neil.
Neil said: “The support of the CWU demonstrates that the Bill will make a real difference.
“Innocent dog owners have nothing to fear from it.
“But some people use dogs as weapons and breed and train them to be aggressive and there is no law to protect people or other animals from them.”
Dog ‘ASBOS’? We’re really ’selling’ this as ‘dog ASBOS’? Hmm, I thought this was about punishing owners NOT dogs?
Never fear, let’s see what England and Wales has got to offer…
The Kennel Club has welcomed a Bill tabled today in the House of Lords by Liberal Democrat Peer, Lord Redesdale, which would repeal the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 and Dogs Act 1871.
The Kennel Club, which runs the secretariat for the Dangerous Dogs Act Study Group (DDASG), has long been calling on the government to repeal the current legislation and believes that it is the breed specific nature of current legislation that has caused it to fail.
^^Emphasis is mine.
I would like to pay tribute to the work of the Dangerous Dogs Act study group, which the Minister mentioned. It has produced some detailed proposals, which I hope he will consider carefully, because that serious and responsible group has sought the common ground between the interests of dog owners and the public and put forward proposals that respect the concerns of both. The group has rightly pointed out the flaws in breed-specific legislation, but has not called for the repeal of the Dangerous Dogs Act, which I think would be a mistake. Although it does not support a return to licensing, it supports the creation of a database containing the details of those owners found to be in breach of the Act.
^^Emphasis is mine.
Speaking about his original (now highly criticised law) Lord Baker is sticking by it. Further more he seeks to emphasise just who it was that supported its introduction:
I had support for my proposals from the Kennel Club, the RSPCA and a body of vets.
So, are you able to keep score of who’s position is most consistent? Because I sure as hell can’t!
Back the original DDA then distance from it. Don’t call for a repeal of the DDA then state you have been calling for a repeal all along. And for the record, just so our position doesn’t ever get ‘confusing’ for any one, the new control of dogs act proposal – in its current form – is an unmitigated disaster. If you’d like to know why – read here (and feel free to have your say!)
So in the battle to come up with a worse piece of legislation to an already terrible piece of legislation, who’s your money on – England and Wales or Scotland?
Highly Recommended: What dog owner wouldn’t want a piece of THIS action? – Get FREE dog food!
Related posts:
Loading ...
I would hazard a guess at the result being a draw as the legislators from both sides (England & Wales) and Scotland use the same 'advisors', namely organisations and animal charities that do not have to work at the sharp end of animal control. Although the RSPCA/SSPCA deal with animal cruelty etc, they do not deal with stray dog enforcement, dog fouling enforcement or taking people to court because their dog(s) have attacked somebody.
Due to the fact that numbskull advisors are working behind the scenes on both pieces of legislation, it will certainly be a no-score draw as in there will most certainly be no winners anywhere.
PART TWO FOLLOWS
Reply
PART TWO
Fancy getting a Liberal Democrat Lord to put the Private Members Bill through the House of Lords for the proposed Dog Control Bill, what maniac thought that by bringing this in they could scrap the Dogs Act 1871, this act has always enabled a control order to be brought on a lesser degree of evidence that would be benefical to public safety and ultimately to the dog.
With the Scottish legislation, I was stunned to see that a major charitiy had carried out a soviet style coup and taken the thoughts of Mr Cuthbert Jackson and reinvented them as their own, if they cannot even give credit where it is due, what hope for openess and democracy?
Sadly it is now confirmed that the lunatics have taken over the asylum!
Reply