Forum menu
i just read through this swapping the word 'dog' for 'child'. Both arguments still seem fairly valid.
He’ll then blather on about a dog can be destroyed for not being controlled on a cycle path etc its pretty tedious tbh.
While I get your point, the Law does state this, but (guidance on) sanction MUST depend on outcome I would imagine, so quite possibly nothing short of a bite would warrant destruction.
Its not a very good analogy as speeding can be life threatening
So can being bitten by a dog!
edit: removed formatting.
You’ve been shown evidence of what the Law says
Yes, and how do you think that law applies to the scenario we are talking about? Again, I'm forced to repeat myself, but:
Small/medium sized trained dog, on a lead, under control, 50 yards from someone, calmly walking along. Not barking. This scared someone. From 50 yards away. TJ is telling us that this is illegal.
Its not a very good analogy as speeding can be life threatening
So can being bitten by a dog!
We were talking about being scared not bitten...well I was anyway
That depends angeldust, which scenario are you talking about?
A dog under control on a lead 20 feet away can bark in the opposite direction and scare someone who is afraid of dogs.
Page 2, Yes in breach according to the Act.
He wasn’t barking. Just walking along.
Page 3. No not in breach according the the Act.
AA, yes if we aren't talking biting then its a bad analogy, as licking his hand and biting aren't the same action. What I was getting at though is, say, doing 35mph in a 30 is going to get a warning/points/fine. Doing 80 in a 30 would get a ban. but both are the same act, just to differing magnitudes!
edit: angeldust's point, I am only going on the evidence posted on this thread. I haven't read the Act itself, or any guidance. I could be wrong in that this scenario is dealt with within supporting documents and it clarifies what the Act says.
Violence against animals is illegal and imprisonable.
I'm guessing you don't know how to behave around judges.
I do know some of them are happier when being controlled proper;y in a collar and leash.
That depends angeldust, which scenario are you talking about?
Lol, the one I copied in the very post you replied to. Here is it again:
Small/medium sized trained dog, on a lead, under control, 50 yards from someone, calmly walking along. Not barking. This scared someone. From 50 yards away. TJ is telling us that this is illegal.
I can copy and paste this all day if I really have to, but it's getting a bit tedious I'm sure you would all agree.
Sometimes it’s pragmatic to modify your behaviour, even if you shouldn't have to
Just to close this one off; of course I lock my house in order to protect my possessions from theft, despite the fault lying entirely with burglars. I modify my behaviour in order to mitigate the risk.
The reason the suggestion that we modify our behaviour is a bit irritating, and I am not suggesting the writer is doing this - he clearly is not - is that some dog owners seek to place the onus on the victim to avoid the dog's poor behaviour.
This is like being told; well of course I burgled your house, leaving that upstairs window open, you was asking for it..
lol I think you might be scraping around a bit now. So the situation above...
Which has little to do with your general mistaken belief that your dog is always under your control.
It's the same arrogance you display in your first post, and in trying to apply your common sense to the law.
Dogs bite people. You can lessen the chances but you cannot remove them.
Which has little to do with your general mistaken belief that your dog is always under your control.
Ah, I wondered what you were on about. Nothing to do with this thread really then. Still, knock yourself out.
Dogs bite people. You can lessen the chances but you cannot remove them.
Which is my first post on this thread summarised into a sentence. Glad we agree on something.
is that some dog owners seek to place the onus on the victim to avoid the dog’s poor behaviour.
This is the problem but its like blaming all cyclists for red light jumping not all dog owners ate idiots but sme/many are. IME very few actually have bittey dogs roaming free to bite.
This is the problem but its like blaming all cyclists for red light jumping not all dog owners ate idiots but sme/many are. IME very few actually have bittey dogs roaming free to bite.
Yeah. You'd think on a cycling forum people would understand the bad egg cyclist analogy, but apparently not.
Ah, I wondered what you were on about. Nothing to do with this thread really then.
Well it was a direct reply to something you wrote in this thread, so yes.
Which is my first post on this thread summarised into a sentence.
No it doesn't, but if you agree with me that you can't stop dogs from biting people then it looks like you're agreeing with me that an owner is never fully in control of their dog. Well done, have a biscuit. 🙂
Dogs bite people. You can lessen the chances but you cannot remove them.
Muzzles, innit?.
Muzzles, innit?.
Ah, but what if the muzzle breaks, or the dog suddenly develops opposable thumbs and removes it himself? Don't you know an owner is never fully in control of their dog? Literally anything could happen.
Or when you remove the muzzle to feed the dog it bites you as it doesn't like being muzzled.
That would be a sensible suggestion that kept the conversation on topic and in the realms of reality, which would be of benefit to all.
Of course if you want to carry on in your direction we could always discuss whether or not you extend your god complex to controlling your wife or spouse, and whether the abuse is physical as well as mental.
Best not though eh, as that would be taking the piss. 😉
Of course if you want to carry on in your direction we could always discuss whether or not you extend your god complex to controlling your wife or spouse, and whether the abuse is physical as well as mental.
🙂 I can feel the anger and rage from the other side of the internet. Do I need evidence for this one, or is it obvious enough?
is that some dog owners seek to place the onus on the victim to avoid the dog’s poor behaviour.
This is the problem but its like blaming all cyclists for red light jumping not all dog owners ate idiots but sme/many are. IME very few actually have bittey dogs roaming free to bite.
Key word is 'some'.
My experience of actual dog owners in the wild is positive, bar the odd dickhead, pretty representative of people generally.
Or when you remove the muzzle to feed the dog it bites you as it doesn’t like being muzzled.
I sense a business opportunity, after the muzzle sales obviously. Dog soup. Not made of dogs, that would be K9nibalism, obviously...
I can feel the anger and rage from the other side of the internet. Do I need evidence for this one, or is it obvious enough?
Nope, not obvious. It's a debate, using exactly the same tactics that you've been using for the last 5 pages. It doesn't automatically follow that someone who disagrees with you is angry, raging or bitter.
I think this is taken pedantry to uncharted levels, even for STW. Are we now saying to have a dog 'fully under control' it has to be under mind control to make sure it doesn't make any unexpected movements? Perhaps we could also have some sort of minority report future crime squad initiative as a back up.
Are we now saying to have a dog ‘fully under control’ it has to be under mind control to make sure it doesn’t make any unexpected movements?
No. HTH.
There are legal definitions of under control and under close control IIRC
The jist is from what I remember is "under control" means within sight and will return immediately when called. Under close control means at heel or with 2 m of the owner / controlling adult.
A friend of mine had a well trained dog that never went on a lead. Always under either control or close control
I am not sure England has the "close control" option - which is a legal requirement in scotland for any dogs around livestock. A dog not under close control around lifestock can be shot by the landowner. 2 friends of mine watch over their lambing fields with a shotgun to hand
Ta onewheel - its nice to know someone can see it.
Nope, not obvious. It’s a debate, using exactly the same tactics that you’ve been using for the last 5 pages. It doesn’t automatically follow that someone who disagrees with you is angry, raging or bitter.
Sure. Accusing someone of spousal abuse out of the blue on a thread about dogs, does start my anger and bitterness sense tingling a smidge though.
The jist is from what I remember is “under control” means within sight and will return immediately when called. Under close control means at heel or with 2 m of the owner / controlling adult.
Yeah but what if it conforms to all that but still scares someone? That's against the law, right?
That’s against the law, right?
Yes, it appears so.
Your dog is considered dangerously out of control if it:
-
makes someone worried that it might injure them
Yes, it appears so.
🙂
...and if someone has a dog phobia?
My mum can train a labrador to sit alone in a room whilst holding a cooked sausage in it's mouth without eating it for 15 minutes.
That's close control.
Hope this helps.
Sure. Accusing someone of spousal abuse out of the blue on a thread about dogs, does start my anger and bitterness sense tingling a smidge though.
But no such accusation was made. Perhaps your anger and bitterness against people who claim the right not to be terrified or attacked by dogs causes you to see things that are not there.
…and if someone has a dog phobia?
Then they should avoid dogs.
Then they should avoid dogs.
Yes, we agree again.
But no such accusation was made. Perhaps your anger and bitterness against people who claim the right not to be terrified or attacked by dogs causes you to see things that are not there.
It is there though, isn't it?
Of course if you want to carry on in your direction we could always discuss whether or not you extend your god complex to controlling your wife or spouse, and whether the abuse is physical as well as mental.
It's bizarre, but it is there.
But it's not. There is no accusation there that you abuse your spouse.
Yes, very good. I guess the bling fury is making you.....blind. I award you my top pedant sticker. Could we at least keep this interesting?
Hiding behind could's and whether's is at best weaselly words, at worst exactly what we blast the Brexiters, the Trumpers and more recently the likes of May and Rudd for.
If there wasn't a veiled accusation there, why even create that impression? And don't use the words to hide behind. Quack.
angel dust - really - invoke hattersleys rule - "when in a hole stop digging"
Hi TJ. I'm still waiting to be informed about how my dog was breaking the law? You dug the hole, left it, and other people starting digging another one some distance off, for some unknown reason. I've just stayed at the edge looking down, slinging mud :-).
Bizarre thread is bizarre. Someone needs to set terms of reference for this discussion, because it appears that people are arguing over different things. Honestly, there’s more agreement than disagreement here.
Could we at least keep this interesting?
Haha!
there’s more agreement than disagreement here..
No there's not.
If there wasn’t a veiled accusation there, why even create that impression? And don’t use the words to hide behind. Quack.
Go and look at the context in which it occurred. sbob was making a point about angeldust's debating technique. He was not accusing, or implying that any spousal abuse had taken place.
I saw the context, there was a veiled but pretty clear accusation of a god complex, and then a firm implication that could extend to controlling behaviour which could be physical as well as mental
we could always discuss whether or not you extend your god complex to controlling your wife or spouse, and whether the abuse is physical as well as mental
If that wasn't intended then it should be retracted and apologised for. Hiding behind 'clever' wording and saying that isn't what was meant is the sanctuary of the politician.
Sbob appears to be trolling, plain and simple. He’s taken a fairly extreme position on one side of the debate and has then proceeded to bait angeldust. I can’t evidence it, but I don’t feel that his position is a genuine opinion, unlike Teej. I could be wrong, of course.
Doesn't really help conclude the dog discussion, but I can confirm I am neither a God, or a wife beater. I'm quite happy to occupy the middle ground between the two.