“No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property”.

According to the legal dictionary one of the definitions of arbitrarily is:

1: depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by standards, rules, or law

The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 as amended in 1997 states in section 1A
“Nothing in subsection (1) (a) above shall require the court to order the destruction of a dog if the court is satisfied—
(a) that the dog would not constitute a danger to public safety;”

This means that the judge has the sole discretion to place the dog on the list of exempted dogs or to have the dog destroyed. There are no standards or rules to dictate what dogs do not pose a danger to public safety or what evidence or how much evidence is required or allowed to prove that the dog doesn’t pose a danger to the public. This means that it is left to the personal opinion of the judge as to which dogs can be registered on the list of exempted dogs. There is no law, rule or standard which says the court has to allow dogs to be registered. This means that if the judge uses his discretion to have the dog destroyed, the dog owner has been deprived of his property arbitrarily. This makes destroying dogs under section 1 of the dangerous dogs act 1991 as amended 1997, a human rights violation as it violates article 17 (2) of the Universal Declaration of human rights.

By signing up to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, this Government promised those rights to every person living in the United Kingdom. This government was never dissented from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, so this government still has to uphold these laws including article 17 sections 2. Protocols 1 article 1 of the European Convention of Human Rights, which this government also signed, cannot be used if it violates article 17 section 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights because this government has promised to up hold this right. This government has signed up to two different human right acts and in doing so has promised to uphold ALL rights from BOTH acts. The government cannot choose which rights to uphold and which ones to ignore for their own purposes. Destroying dogs under section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act as amended in 1997, whilst allowed under protocols 1 article 1 of the European Convention of Human Rights, it is still a violation of article 17 section 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which means that it is still a violation of human rights.

so the dangerous dogs act 1991 as amended 1997, is illegal any way. i hope they relies this and remove it.

I myself own a stafford and I have known people who own pitties and they are more likely to drown you with there tongues than anything else.

anyway good luck to all anti bsl groups and lets hope that we can say goodbye DDA and Hello to all Bull breeds

p.s. I am currently fighting the bsl and dda myself on flickr

Cheers

Bull Terriers Galore!