Once again, this truly appalling government resorts to mass punishment to resolve what is, in fact, a small problem that is already illegal.
All dog owners in England and Wales would have to insure against their pet attacking someone, under Labour proposals to tackle dangerous breeds.
Police and local authorities could also be given powers to force owners of dangerous dogs to muzzle them, or even get them neutered.
So, because some dog owners are irresponsible, all dog owners have to be punished. Timmy asks the money question.
There are pet insurance companies. They would clearly benefit from the passing of such a law.
Someone should start tabling questions in the House. Which Ministers have met representatives of such companies? Which such companies have made donations to which political parties? Who knows who?
Indeed. After all, the vast majority of dogs do not attack people and the vast majority of owners keep them responsibly. Why, therefore, should they pay unnecessary insurance, if not to benefit the insurance industry?
Another part of the proposal is compulsory microchipping.
All dogs are to be compulsorily microchipped so that their owners can be more easily traced under a crackdown on dangerous dogs to be unveiled today.
Sigh… The people who keep pit-bulls in defiance of the existing dangerous dogs act – a stupid and ill-conceived piece of legislation – will be equally likely to ignore this new piece of equally ill-conceived legislation. Responsible owners already microchip their animals or otherwise identify them so that if they do stray, they can be reunited with them.
So, one more, we have a failing government making up silly laws on the basis of tabloid headlines.
Sounds like a job creation scheme to me.
.-= My last blog ..How to dissect a feminist =-.
So many people have already pointed out the inherent flaws in this that I’m surprised iDave hasn’t made a statement outlining his pl…
Wait. No I’m not. I’m not surprised at all.
He probably can’t see anything wrong with it, can he?
Trenchant one…
This sort of thing makes me despair. Recently down my way a bichon frise had its head ripped off by a pitbull owned by the local chaverazzi, and tonight there is a local meeting to sign a petition campaigning for these rules to be put in place. The “something must be done” culture.
That local chav will just go out and buy another wild animal, ignore the law, won’t be tackled by the law while we have to pay. It’s so bloody obvious, but still there are too many useful idiots wanting to play along… So now my border collie, more likely to lick you to death than to bite you, is going to cost that little bit more. It is a Battersea dog… do you think they know the impact of these measures? More expensive dogs, less take-up, more dogs not homed.
One only has to look at their available dogs on line to see the breed that is most prevalent…
.-= My last blog ..Quite Quiet =-.
They don’t think – that’s the problem. The tabloids highlight a “problem” and politicians’ knees jerk in response. The level of the “problem” isn’t relevant. “Something must be done”. So they do something, anything as long as it appeases the tabloids – and in this case, possibly the insurance industry too. They don’t care about the unintended consequences and they don’t give a hoot for the law-abiding majority because the law-abiding majority will grumble under their breath and cough up.
“They don’t care about the unintended consequences and they don’t give a hoot for the law-abiding majority . . ”
Why should they? If the polls are anything to go by, the law-abiding majority is shortly to return Labour to power. This is not to condemn the law-abiding majority since – as JuliaM implies – voting for the “opposition” would make little difference.
They’re running out of groups to hit.
.-= My last blog ..Staying on top of it =-.
First they decide to “chip” dogs.
Perhaps we are next…no, sorry, that’s too daft for words, so 1984.
They wouldn’t……………………?