|
…the smokers, then they came for the dog owners:
The Lib Dems are backing a cert this week in their demand for a review of dog legislation. Nothing is more guaranteed to raise the nation’s hackles, provoke unhinged opinions, eventually resulting in colander-like laws. While there are 11 million dog owners – a powerful lobby – I’d bet these are equalled if not exceeded by dog-haters. Now the tobacco ban has routed the smokers, the doggy folk are next in line. The outraged and self-righteous have changed focus. Every new terrible dog attack becomes a conduit for wider prejudice: ban more breeds, bring back licences, castrate the lot – and their owners! And here I’m quoting the genteel readers of Times Online.
That’s the problem with bansturbation; it never stops, is never sated, always it seeks another victim, another offender of public morals and sensibilities. And, always, it is “someone else” who is the target of the self-righteous outrage.
Gun owners, huntsmen and smokers have all been targeted successfully. Now it is drinkers, motorcyclists and dog owners. How long before the silent, sleeping majority wake up and realise that sooner or later they will be in the targeted group? And will it be too late?
|
Salt, bottled water, patio heaters, alcohol, motorbikes, freedom of speech, men who visit prostitutes …
Mark Wadsworth’s last blog post..“Sovereign wealth investment is a force for stability”
I don’t think dogs should be banned but there is a case for their possesion being licensed. The Dangerous Dogs Act got it completely the wrong way around, in that it saw the dogs rather than their owners being the problem. I would borrow the concept of ‘good reason’ from the 1920 Firearms Act and say that any prospective dog owner should be required to show ‘good reason’ for the possession of the dog. E.g. working dog, family pet, guide dog, etc. Allied to this would be a test of being a fit and proper person to be in possession of a dog. I have no objection to people possessing large powerful breeds of dog provided that they have the ability control the dog. For those who object to the ‘bureacracy’ of this, I would respond that we are dealing with a living sentient creature, the dog, so it is reasonable to expect people to go to some trouble to demonstrate that they are able to look after it. If people reject this as ‘too much trouble’ then it puts a big question mark over their suitability to own a dog. Will it also be ‘too much trouble’ to exercise the dog, or train it or send it to the vet?
We’ve had licensing before and, frankly, it was a farce. My parents used to have a licence for their dogs – they paid 37p and that was it. I’m not convinced that a licence will in any way demonstrate that someone is fit and proper or will look after the animal appropriately. To do that would require a level of intrusive policing that is impracticable and undesirable. One of two things will happen; undesirable people will simply pay for the licence and carry on as before – or they will ignore it – and carry on as before. The problem of bad owners will remain unresolved.
The vast majority of dog owners are responsible people who look after their animals appropriately. To bring in more bureaucracy to punish them for the misdemeanours of the minority who either will not or cannot behave properly is disproportionate.
My parents used to have a licence for their dogs – they paid 37p and that was it
Quite. A system analogous to the Gun Licence Act of 1870, where there was no test of suitability of the applicant. My proposal is for a test of suitability. It dos not require intrusive policing as it will the responsibility of the applicant to demonstrate on application for a dog licence that they are suitable. The test could be quite simple to start with. “You are applying for a licence for an Irish Wolfhound and you live in a studio flat on the 15th floor?” Not much of a life for the dog and that at bottom is what we should be considering. Not the rights of the owner but the rights of the dog to have a decent life. I don’t see how responsible owners would consider it a ‘punishment’ to demonstrate fitness for owning the dog. And if it discourages irresponsible owners from getting a dog then good, that’s the reason for it.
I’m having difficulty reconciling “It dos not require intrusive policing” with the second half of the sentence “it will the responsibility of the applicant to demonstrate on application for a dog licence that they are suitable.”
It’s all very well to set up a straw man extreme example, but it’s just as easy to come up with counter-examples. What’s more important is that we already know very well from our historical experience that any scheme such as you propose, where the citizen has to _justify_ their desire or need to a committee presents an irresistible opportunity for bureaucratic prying into private lives. There would be inevitable function creep. In short, it would start intrusive and work up from there.
Shouldn’t there actually be a problem before people start touting round solutions? Or is that too old-fashioned an idea?
Pete in Dunbar’s last blog post..Thickipedia
No, I don’t think that responsible owners will regard a simple test of suitability as a punishment – and that wasn’t really what I was getting at. Irresponsible owners will carry on regardless. Unless such a system was particularly vigorous, it would be a relatively simple matter to either lie or ignore it completely. So, responsible owners will jump through the hoops and the irresponsible ones will either lie their way through it or not bother to register with the system. That’s why I referred to it as a punishment.
Seriously, just how big a problem is this? Not very, I suspect. And that, surely is the crux of the matter.
One day they’ll ban masturbation at the computer and use webcam to get you.
jameshigham’s last blog post..[human chemistry] vno and other explanations
“Gun owners, huntsmen and smokers have all been targeted successfully. Now it is drinkers, motorcyclists and dog owners. How long before the silent, sleeping majority wake up and realise that sooner or later they will be in the targeted group? And will it be too late?”
Can I read from this, that you think everything should be legal? I don’t know if anyone has ever pointed this out to you before, but that argument is complete bollocks. Everything has a consequence, everything causes some harm or inconvenience to someone – even not banning something. Can’t we just weigh up everything individually on its merits? Some things need banning, others made legal. Surely that is the sensible way to look at things. Not just relying on some simplistic high faluting theory that legal=good, illegal=bad.
Neil Harding’s last blog post..The Evening Standard – Untrustworthy, Corrupt And Not Fit For Purpose – In Fact It Is Just Like Boris Johnson!
That argument is not complete bollocks. Clearly you have no understanding of the common law principle that underpins our legal system. But, then, no surprise there…