Geoffrey Robinson MP in dangerous dogs debate

[Conrod]

All I will say though is that we seem to have a new thread about a new staffy attack every week on this forum. That alone clearly shows that staffy attacks on children are so widespread that something needs to be done, and the most rational course of action would be to ban the breed responsible.

Perhaps an even more rational course of action would be to stop exaggerating.

 

A search for the word ‘Staffie’ or 'Staffy' for the last month reveals:

 

One thread about a dog attack – this one

One thread about naming staffies

Eight threads for missing/found staffies

One thread discussing their temperament (positively)

[Murphy Jnr]

All I will say though is that we seem to have a new thread about a new staffy attack every week on this forum. That alone clearly shows that staffy attacks on children are so widespread that something needs to be done, and the most rational course of action would be to ban the breed responsible.

 

 

Obsessions aside it is clear that your supposed factual chatter is flawed in just about every area. The majority of instances brought up on this forum involve dog on dog biting, some of these are quite plainly exaggerated more so if there is a staffy involved.

The average child fatality through dog attacks is 5 per year http://www.dognews.co/dog-bite-statistics/ which is 5 too many but a long way off one a week which you blindly state.

[Fine line]

I think there should be far more stringent controls on dog breeders. They should be partially responsible for who they sell to.

 

If, as you say, licencing will only punish the responsible dog owners and is therefore a non-starter, what makes you think that the idea of having "more stringent controls" on dog breeders will work??

[Murphy Jnr]

If, as you say, licencing will only punish the responsible dog owners and is therefore a non-starter, what makes you think that the idea of having "more stringent controls" on dog breeders will work??

 

Personally I don't see dog breeders as a problem providing they are a legitimate concern and not a lock up on a council estate or the rear garden of some upper class oik dabbling in breeding Shar-pei's etc but as dealing with indiscriminate breeding and un neutered/spayed dogs and bitches is a problem too far and too expensive for local governments to address i guess we're stuck with it.

I've said it before but for me a huge part of the problem is rescues. All the time we have them covering the arse of local councils and dealing with strays; as an example, they have no serious need to do anything. The very least they could do if we're to maintain this circle of too many to rehome is subsidise in some way.

[upinwath]

nope and its only evidence that occasionally dogs attack. no-one is disputing that!

 

So how many dead kids or kids with their faces chewed off do you need before you admit these dogs are dangerous?

You are now freely admitting they're known killers but you still defend them.

 

Sounds more than a bit daft to me.

[Conrod]

So how many dead kids or kids with their faces chewed off do you need before you admit these dogs are dangerous?

You are now freely admitting they're known killers but you still defend them.

 

Sounds more than a bit daft to me.

Are you dangerous? To the point that you should not be left unsupervised with children?

 

Far, far more people than dogs are child killers - must we assume that all people kill kids, and ban people?

[llamatron]

So how many dead kids or kids with their faces chewed off do you need before you admit these dogs are dangerous?

You are now freely admitting they're known killers but you still defend them.

 

Sounds more than a bit daft to me.

 

See post above, that about sums it up! Do you think all men are paedophiles, all women are sluts, all muslims are suicide bombers?

 

All dogs can be dangerous if they are trained for it, it works the other way round though.

[llamatron]

If, as you say, licencing will only punish the responsible dog owners and is therefore a non-starter, what makes you think that the idea of having "more stringent controls" on dog breeders will work??

 

Because the owners are the problem and the breeder meets the initial owner. A chip could then ensure the owner does not pass it on but is pointless until the breeders take some responsibility! Anyone can breed dogs and sell them without a care for who they are selling too that is the problem!

[upinwath]

Far, far more people than dogs are child killers - must we assume that all people kill kids, and ban people?

 

Only the ruddy stupid ones.

Perhaps we could set up a benchmark. The sort of criteria could be:

 

Do they speed when there are speed cameras and go on to moan on forums about it?

Do they keep dangerous dogs that are known killers but call them nanny dogs?

Do they defend ownership of known dangerous dogs when there is clear evidence the said animals are dangerous?

[llamatron]

Only the ruddy stupid ones.

Perhaps we could set up a benchmark. The sort of criteria could be:

 

Do they speed when there are speed cameras and go on to moan on forums about it?

Do they keep dangerous dogs that are known killers but call them nanny dogs?

Do they defend ownership of known dangerous dogs when there is clear evidence the said animals are dangerous?

 

you are definitely having a generalisation problem!

 

Do people keep dangerous dogs that are known killers? Clearly not, if the dog was a known killer it will have been put down won't it!

 

Do they defend ownership of known dangerous dogs when there is clear evidence the said animals are dangerous? or are they disagreeing that they are in fact dangerous as most of the breed are well behaved and a small minority have been trained to attack.

 

You are ruining your own points with this tripe though making it less necessary for me to disagree:hihi: