All dogs could be insured under dangerous breeds plans

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by Jenny_Dabber, Mar 9, 2010.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Do you think this is justified? Or is this just another act to gain extra votes?

  2. No its another generate tax revenue and create more civil servant jobs for labour scheme. A lot of owners already chip the dogs that they own. Tackle the mindless idiots that have dangerous dogs on leads, and please if anyone things those that are involved with dog fighting take their dogs to vets or will comply with new laws needs needs their heads testing.
  3. Typical fuckwit government overresponse to a what in reality is media hyped gibberish. Instead of targeting those who own the dogs that are poorly trained and attacking people, everyone is punished regardless of blame. Having grown up with a potentially aggressive, dangerous dog (rottweiler) if not properly trained which never once growled at anyone in the family and having been bitten by a German Shepherd after it's scally owner set it on me in a fight I've had both ends of the spectrum. Here's an idea, instead of forcing law abiding people to piss yet more money away on retarded, spur of the moment kneejerk reactions, how about properly vetting owners and cracking down on dodgey dog breeders.

    Edited to add that its this presumption of guilt legislation that really winds me up in regards to the current government.
  4. Since the relevant authorities are unable to enforce the current dangerous dogs legislation how on earth do the government expect to enforce an act which applies to all dogs?
  5. Will this apply to the Wokingham dogs?
  6. Seems to me like a well thought out law….

    If you have a docile breed that is well domesticated …..the insurance will be cheap or at least reasonable….
    If you are one of those tossers that have to boost their egos by having a dangerous breed…then the premium will be sky high…..

  7. Remind me; is this the same halfwit Government that introduced tax on insurance premiums?
  8. Will there be Government assistance for little old ladies who keep a dog for company but use up half their pension to feed it and probably couldn't afford the insurance as an extra expenditure?

    What about yappy little rat-dogs who are not defined as dangerous breeds but are the worst offenders for violent behaviour when I take my well-behaved 12 year old border collie for a walk?

    No, IMHO this is just a load of uselsss ill-thought out garbage proposed by a government that ran out of ideas a long, long time ago.
  9. janner

    janner War Hero Book Reviewer

    I'm sure that read somewhere a while ago that most people are bitten by labradors, it would figuare as its one of the more popular breeds.

    Do they honestly think that Pikeys and Chavs are going to bother with insurance.
  10. So if they propose mandatory insurance on people who have kids on the off chance they beat someone up, steal something or commit vandalism you'll back that too? As I said in my OP this presumption of guilt is eroding civil liberties as the tabloid rags and the Daily Cnut bully the government into making ill thought out, rushed laws to appease the plebs who believe the lies that every Muslim is a terrorist, every other stranger a kiddie fiddler and every kid wearing a hooded top is a knife wielding thug.
  11. Before you dog lovers and human being haters go to far off on a tangent

    Read This

    seems even the dog owners need protection....

  12. You've misunderstood me if you think that I'm some animal loving hippy. I'm fully in favour of animal testing and fcuking love a good steak. My main concern with this law is that it punishs everyone for crimes that 'might' be committed and as such sets an unpleasant if not dangerous precedent. I'm all in favour of having more stringent methods of evaluation to ensure dogs are only sold to those who can train and care for them properly. As I've said before I've a nice scar on my right thigh from where a pikie cnut used his dog as a weapon and I blame him not the dog. Very rarely will dogs suddenly turn Cujo (in the same way humans very rarely go psychotic for no reason) its a net product of poor training and abuse.
  13. No tangent, it is obvious and has been obvious for a very long time that some dog owners (and parents) should not be trusted to run a bath. Dogs, cats, Parrots, in fact any pet or any animal with teeth, claws or other offensive capability can inflict harm but that does not mean that all the thousands and thousands of responsible owners should be penalised by the government of the day imposing an ill-thought-out and frankly unworkable scheme.

    There is a law staing that all motor vehicles should be insured - there are thousands that are not. There was a national dog licensing scheme before that was abondoned because it was not workable. There was a radio licence scheme that was abandoned because it was not workable.

    Before penalising the responsible members of the community the government should be exploring who the real offenders are and applying common sense solutions to the problem rather than just going for headline policies that are inane and miss the point.
  14. OK …fair enough…but under this new legislation the next time you are bitten you can sue ….probably using one of those no win no fee organisations ….you end up with £5000 to ease the pain….it is paid for by the owners insurance but his insurance goes through the roof….that is if he can get anyone to take him on……
    When they bring this in ….as a victim you end up with compensation …whereas at the moment all you get is a scar…..

  15. To be honest I'd rather the bastard never been allowed a dog in the first place :lol: . As has been stated by Broadside, scum like that will not bother with insurance and as the prisons are pretty much full he'll only be fined but as he'll be on benefits that won't affect him either.
  16. When I was a kid, out neighbor had a boxer, they rarely exercised it and there was no obedience. My brother was 7 at the time and playing in the neighbor's garden with their kid, playing tug-of-war with a rope. My brother fell to the ground and their boxer jumped him and covered my brother's bottom half of his face, with it's mouth.

    My brother had 5 of the dog's teeth rip through his face and into his gums. The owners said he fell on glass :roll: forgetting that myself and another neighbor witnessed it. My parents made a formal complaint, nothing came of it. 2 - 3 months later, the same dog escaped from their garden and attacked another kid in the park, who had worse injuries. It was only then that the dog was sanctioned to be put down.

    Personally, people should be put through a stricter application process before being allowed a dog, IMO.
  17. IF he has obeyed the legislation and is insured!!!!

    At the moment if I get hit by an uninsured driver it is MY insurance policy that gets hit - I get no compensation from the toerag who crashed into me. Why should it be any different if the insurance policy is based on dog ownership rather than car ownership?
  18. That depends on wether the insurance premium is cheaper than the fine

  19. My opinion of all this .Is they should be insred and licensed like they used to be .Sve except old peoples dogs
  20. Seaweed

    Seaweed War Hero Book Reviewer

    The reason the dog licence scheme was abandoned was that the licence fee at 7/6 (37 1/2p) was not increased in line with inflation because Govt didn't want to lose the dogs' vote. So there was virtually no revenue for recording, let alone enforcement. It is high time dogs were compulsorily insured and as pointed out above the cost would be proportionate to risk. The insurance could be recorded as part of e-govt just as car insurance is and any dog unchipped, or chipped but lacking insurance could be impounded. The problem now is that anyone can have an unchipped, uninsured dog and until someone suffers grievous injury the dog owner gets away with it. This could be one of the few things (like free bus travel for OAPs and invading Iraq) that this ghastly Govt gets right. Bet Cameron hasn't got the bottle for it though.

Share This Page