A family pet killed for the way it looks...

I'm going to get a lot of hate from dog-lovers but I don't care, because it's what I believe in.

In this case, I trust the law. Although I resent the conditions the dog has been kept in, if it's a proven dangerous breed then it should be put down, as the law says. A dog's track record/history proves nothing. All dogs can snap at any point, and if the dog is e.g. a staff, i.e. extremely muscly, powerful and basically a killing machine, then it is a danger to all.

Also, if I ever see a dog attack a human, I will kill it there and then, and save the courts some cash.

Maybe you shouldn't trust the law so blindly:

1. There is no such breed of dog as a 'pit bull' - it's a collective term for a wide variety of dogs.

2. There is no official guideline as to what constitutes a 'pitbull type' dog. Two vets can have opposite subjective judgements as to whether a dog is a pitbull or not.

3. The 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act was hastily put together in reaction to a couple of bad attacks in the newspapers, and has very fragile foundations.

4. This dog was legal, legally registered and had been insured and seen by a vet every year, and no one had said mentioned that it looked like an illegal breed.

5. Lennox's brother, Diesel, born of the same litter of puppies was deemed to be a safe breed. How can one litter have two different breeds of dog?

6. The Wardens that seized Lennox were unqualified to inspect or handle dogs.

Most of these points seem irrelevant. Are you trying to say that the dog was seized for no reason at all? I obviously don't know the details of the case, but there are obviously reasons for seizing the dog. And if you ask my opinion, from the picture provided, the dog should be destroyed (put it this way, if that dog was running around without a leash, if I had a small unleashed dog with me, or if I had young children with me and one of them walked up to the dog to pat it, I would be scared for their safety)

I'm not denying that keeping the dog in such conditions is quite horrible and unnecessary, but for **** sake, look at the dog, it looks absolutely lethal and it could probably kill me if it wanted to.

Most of these points seem irrelevant. Are you trying to say that the dog was seized for no reason at all? I obviously don't know the details of the case, but there are obviously reasons for seizing the dog. And if you ask my opinion, from the picture provided, the dog should be destroyed (put it this way, if that dog was running around without a leash, if I had a small unleashed dog with me, or if I had young children with me and one of them walked up to the dog to pat it, I would be scared for their safety)

I'm not denying that keeping the dog in such conditions is quite horrible and unnecessary, but for **** sake, look at the dog, it looks absolutely lethal and it could probably kill me if it wanted to.

Most of these points seem irrelevant. Are you trying to say that the dog was seized for no reason at all? I obviously don't know the details of the case, but there are obviously reasons for seizing the dog. And if you ask my opinion, from the picture provided, the dog should be destroyed (put it this way, if that dog was running around without a leash, if I had a small unleashed dog with me, or if I had young children with me and one of them walked up to the dog to pat it, I would be scared for their safety)

I'm not denying that keeping the dog in such conditions is quite horrible and unnecessary, but for **** sake, look at the dog, it looks absolutely lethal and it could probably kill me if it wanted to.

Cars are potentially lethal too but are you suggesting all cars should be destroyed too?

If a person was arrested for no reason and tortured in the way this dog is being tortured would you think this acceptable?

If the dog has done nothing to deserve this, he should be at home with his family, not sitting in his own crap waiting for a deadly injection. It's like ethnic cleansing of dogs, it's vile and disgusting and I cannot believe the council have decided to destroy the dog based on it's breed alone.

You're unbelievable. In saying this you are no better than the people who say they avoid Black people at night because 'they look dangerous'. Don't be ridiculous, of course it wouldn't kill you, there are hundreds of thousands of these dogs in the UK that do no harm to anyone. It's about as accurate as saying that a bodybuilder should be imprisoned because he might snap your neck in a fit of 'roid rage. It's just plain stupid. You can't judge someone by their appearance.

It is the ignorance and stereotypes of people like you that cause the slaughter of thousands of innocent housepets every year at the taxpayers expense.

Considering your sig claims you're against 'the subjugation of the working class' you have sure as hell bought into the middle class media propaganda. It's classism. The bull terrier is a traditional working dog.

Ever wonder why the police, the army and the rich are allowed to keep Police dogs, war dogs or private guard dogs, but 'chav dogs' are demonised and culled?

Possibly the stupidest thing I ever read. Cars, unlike dogs, do not have a mind of their own.

PEOPLE drive them you idiot, and they have minds of their own, and PEOPLE use them as weapons, just like PEOPLE use their dogs as weapons and teach them to be aggressive.

This dog has done nothing wrong, and clearly you have no argument that doing the same thing to a human would be repugnant. Take your vile opinions else where because they certainly aren't welcome here.

I currently have a small lamp on my desk. I could use this lamp as a weapon. HURRRRRRRRRR LETS BAN LAMPS!1111111!

Fool.

The dog has done nothing wrong. Correct. However, the dog is a dangerous breed, and therefore should be put down.

Going by your logic everything that could potentially harm you should be banned, I however think they should not be because I'm not a moron who is frightened of a dog that isn't even dangerous.

You are suggesting everything that could potentially harm should be banned, not me, so what are you even talking about you idiot.

Who says that this dog is dangerous hmm? The Dangerous Dogs Act? The same act that was scrambled together in haste with little thought that maybe dogs aren't all aggressive just because they are in one particular breed?

OWNERS teach their dogs to be aggressive, not the dogs themselves.

And if you really think this is about class, you're crazy.

I currently have a small lamp on my desk. I could use this lamp as a weapon. HURRRRRRRRRR LETS BAN LAMPS!1111111!

Fool.

The dog has done nothing wrong. Correct. However, the dog is a dangerous breed, and therefore should be put down.

Btw, the title of the thread is misleading and a poor attempt at engaging the reader with a biased viewpoint - it's not how the dog looks, it's what breed the dog is, which goes a lot further than simply how it looks.

Its not fair that people have to walk down the street worrying about whether they will be attacked by the next vicious dog they see.

This is totally about class. The Bull terrier undeniably has a long history as a working class dog, it always has been since the 1800's - this remains the case today - it's seen as a 'chav dog'.

Why is it then, although other breeds of dog are seen as dangerous, and other breeds of dog are responsible for attacks on humans and other dogs, they are not banned but bull terriers are? Why the state can keep dogs and train them to attack people, but citizens are not allowed to even own certain breeds of dog for fear of doing the same thing?

As I have said many times. This dog is not a dangerous breed. It has no parentage from dangerous breeds. It is DNA registered as being a safe breed.

This dog was sentenced to death because of the way it looks. Not its breed.

Aggression has nothing to do with it. Face it:

The dog could snap at any point in time.
The dog could rip out a childs throat within a matter of seconds.

I, and clearly the government, and many other people, have decided that it's a risk that we are not willing to take. Therefore the dog is put down.