Up to 18 months prison sentence for owners who allow/entice their dogs to attack.
Good.

Like it will make any difference, over the current 12 months… 🙄

Not long enough. 12 months to 18 months! why not 2 years or more.

When I’m king all dog owners will be against the wall anyway. My time is coming.

Never had you down as a fanatic CK…

I don’t want a tougher dog!

Up to 18 months prison sentence for owners who allow/entice their dogs to attack.

Happy for that as long as it is applied to all dogs/owners. A nip on the ankle from granny’s poodle and she’s going down for 18.

anyone know how many people are prosecuted under current legislation? As it sounds like a CallMeDave PR stunt again, sorta like the get caught three times for benefit fraud thing, which they had to admit that no-one in the UK had ever been caught doing, so was just a headline grabber with no real content.

Only real thing which would worry me, is that if someone breaks into your house and you try to get them out and your dog helps you, you could end up going to prison for 18 months……..

Never had you down as a fanatic CK…

It’s been building in me over time. Every day I don’t snap and kill them all (at least the local ones) is a good day 😀

Never had you down as a fanatic CK…

Good job you shouted up there

They were going to call it TJs law but they may have to revisit that decision now you’ve come out

Happy for that as long as it is applied to all dogs/owners

Mate at work’s kid was attacked by his mum’s dog, does that mean she’d go to prison?

only after she is flogged, and rolled in salt.

Mate at work’s kid was attacked by his mum’s dog, does that mean she’d go to prison?

If the law says so, yes. Or do we only apply the law to those that we consider to be undesirable?
Wasn’t there a little ‘un who was attacked by a dog in Liverpool and his chavvy uncle sent down?
Why should family be treated differently?

Not long enough. 12 months to 18 months! why not 2 years or more.

Might it be anything to do with convictions never becoming spent over a certain term? Ie, it would be tough on someone trying to get a job but struggling because 15 years ago their dog bit someone.

No idea what the term is though – thought it was around 2 or 2.5 years????

Not long enough. 12 months to 18 months! why not 2 years or more.

Why stop at 2 years, why not 1 million years!

Not long enough. 12 months to 18 months! why not 2 years or more

Up to 18 months prison sentence for owners who allow/entice their dogs to attack.

and it’s up to 6 months for drinking and driving and 14 years for causing death by ……… never happens though.

Instead of stating ‘up to’ it should be ‘typical penalties’ that are quoted

Why should family be treated differently?

I dunno, but it doesn’t seem right someone get put away when they’ve already suffered their own grandson’s distress and agony.
I’ll ask him if he thinks it would have been justified to not only have his kid in hospital, face cut up, but also his mum in jail…

This dog is actualy thinking of ripping your face off and eating your liver with some fava beans and a nice cianti.

If the law says so, yes. Or do we only apply the law to those that we consider to be undesirable?

So following that logic, if your family dog (joint owned) bites your child, both parents should be sent to jail for 18 months and the child put into care? ……. sounds reasonable 🙄

This is why TJ’s law(s) would never work in the real world, as he only deals with absolutes, where in reality there is a lot of grey. Is he now advising Theresa May, so they can be wrong together?

Why not kill the dog-owners entire extended family? Ultimately its more humane

its a fair point

So following that logic, if your family dog (joint owned) bites your child, both parents should be sent to jail for 18 months and the child put into care? ……. sounds reasonable

Well, of course, it depends on the situation. But the absolute rejection is equally as bad as TJ. If the law, notice the law and not me, considers that a parent or parents were responsible, then why shouldn’t they be punished in accordance with the law? Often I’ve seen custodial sentences for a single mother leaving the child alone while she goes on holiday.
There shouldn’t be any special treatment for family, should there.
This place really is funny at times.

If the parents of a child encouraged or allowed the dog to rip Timmy’s face off he would be better off in care. If it was an unavoidable accident I am sure it would be taken into consideration when sentence was passed.

I guess the point everyone is trying to make, whilst taking the piss out of you is this; to say that all dog owners should get 18 months if their dogs attacks someone is very black and white, and whilst it makes a good headline UK law is much more sensible than this and takes into account many factors, so in summary the headline is retarded and should be ridiculed.

Did Theresa May announce this? or are we just taking about the change in guidelines?

Surely the point the people are trying to make is “families elederly arthritic spaniel eats aunties anti depressants by mistake and rips tolders face off” is a different kettel of aquatic vertebrae to “todler left in in room alone with hungry pitbull”.

Good job you shouted up there

They were going to call it TJs law but they may have to revisit that decision now you’ve come out

😀

Why not kill the dog-owners entire extended family? Ultimately its more humane

Well, if you say it’s more humane then….I guess we’ll have to. Suppose it leaves more food and fuel for the rest of us!

Perhaps we can hunt them with packs of foxes followed by old gentlemen on push irons.

All for tougher dog laws, but its not just attacks its potentially dangerous dogs.

The dog in the 2009 attack was reported to police before the event who said they could do nothing. It transpired that it was a dangerous breed so the police did have powers.

I hope it changes things but many many dog owners need educating. Also many people should not be allowed to keep dogs. Again the 2009 attack the house the dog lived in was a standard terrace with a yard so the dog, inn my opinion had inadequate space to exercise, ie no garden.

The existing dog laws are too weak.

The sentence should be 10 years as unfortunately occasionally it can result in deaths.

The dog in the 2009 attack was reported to police before the event who said they could do nothing. It transpired that it was a dangerous breed so the police did have powers.

I hope it changes things but many many dog owners need educating.

And the police it seems based upon your statements?

All for tougher dog laws, but its not just attacks its potentially dangerous dogs.

Can you just pop down the lottery numbers too?

br Maybe the police do, I did not say that but certainly they always need more resources. But yes perhaps they do.

Don Yeah it is very difficult but, although I am a dog owner, I think we can agree there are occasions where not enough is done when the “family pet” is not well adjusted and potentially dangerous. Its a good move but wont change a great deal just the few that are prosecuted get longer sentences, I dont think it will deter people.

The law currently covers all dogs but names a few specific banned breeds, however after the 2009 incident there was a dangerous dog amnesty in the area which resulted in 80 dogs, probably destroyed not sure. How many others are still out there, mostly in the hands of irresponsible dog owners.

Like probably most things with policing there is just so much of it that its almost impossinble to police so some slips under the radar.

No amount of legislation will stop the knobsac in the tiny 2 up 2 down house at the bottom of our lane from having a Rottweiler (sp?) along with his wife, 3 kids and no garden because it’s big and fierce and makes him look hard.

my dog knocked someone over in the park earlier, he walked backwards into her.
she was fine, i helped her up.
does that constitute doggy assault?
do i have to go to prison?
im too pretty for prison!

No amount of legislation will stop the knobsac in the tiny 2 up 2 down house at the bottom of our lane from having a Rottweiler (sp?) along with his wife, 3 kids and no garden because it’s big and fierce and makes him look hard.

Why should it? Which law has been broken? Mildly affronted isn’t a law!

the change to the law is to be welcomed but it seems like putting the cart before the horse as it is better to stop dog attacks in the first place.

would’nt be the first person to suggest that dogs should be muzzled. so are there any valid reasons why such a step should not become compulsory (apart from lack of political will)?

So you are outside a pub, dog needs food and water after a long walk. Would you get done for taking off its muzzle!? What about dogs used for retrieving on land crossed by bridleways? What about dogs that need to play retrieve on walks in order for them not to get bored? Great!

People should stop speeding before they complain about dogs.

People should stop speeding before they complain about dogs.

This.

Dogs bring a huge amount of happiness to a large number of people.

People are **** wet ninnies these days.

I totally agree with tougher sentencing, I completely agree with compulsory training lessons for certain types of dogs eg German Shepards and I completely agree that dogs that do not pass say a test of sociability should be muzzled. I entirely agree that all dogs should be leashed and perhaps muzzled if there are likely to be children around.

However muzzling all dogs regardless of the situation is going to far, it’s like banning paintball guns after a man goes on a rampage with a 7.62 automatic rifle.

People are spending their lives worrying about things that most likely will never happen to them. How likely are you to have your face torn off by a psychotic cocker spaniel even though some of the show ones are diagnosed with rage syndrome, when say compared to the chances of getting mown down on the road? If in the off chance one does come and nip your leg then kick the **** out of it and stop being such a ponce.

Size isn’t really even the issue, have you ever heard of a brutal St Bernard attack? No. They are more likely to happily greet an armed intruder with a slobbery welcome, let alone actually attack someone. Certain types of dogs just need a licence.

don simon – Member
No amount of legislation will stop the knobsac in the tiny 2 up 2 down house at the bottom of our lane from having a Rottweiler (sp?) along with his wife, 3 kids and no garden because it’s big and fierce and makes him look hard.

Why should it? Which law has been broken? Mildly affronted isn’t a law!

No it’s not. But the point I was clearly failing to make was that some people’s need to have a status dog overrides the needs of the breed of dog. Or, indeed, any dog.

if it was up to me (ha!), dogs would be muzzled by law, with some latitude to allow for the above circumstances.

though I would also make it compulsory for dog owners to insure their pets in a third party kind of way…your car is insured because even though you put the handbrake on theres no guarantee that it would not roll down the hill, etc.

likewise, you take your dogs muzzle off to feed it, theres no guarantee that it would not bound off somewhere. so muzzling and third party insurance go hand in hand.

if you felt confident that your dog could be unmuzzled at said pub, the insurance would handsomely compensate anyone inconvenienced by said pooch.

though as for dogs playing ‘fetch’, i guess that its unrestrained dogs behaving in this manner that are the bane of most cyclists…one mans pleasure can be anothers ‘negative externality’.

plus, muzzled dogs represent a vast reduction in unnecessary barking!