Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Charlottie93)
    the dog was a working dog and was a disabled childs only companion
    (Original post by Charlottie93)
    the parents seem like reliable honest people not the chav scum that you see who purposefully breed dogs to kill
    I know, but you can't simply discriminate between dogs just because you're prejudiced about the owners. Imagine it. "He's from a middle class family, he can have his dog. However I think you're chav scum and so I'm going to kill your dog". It has to be consistent.

    (Original post by Charlottie93)
    You also need to remember that not all dogs are pets you do have working dogs what would the armed forces and the police use instead of dogs and what about those who are blind and deaf?
    This has nothing at all to do with what I've said in this thread, but whatever. What about police dogs? The armed forces have MP5 submachineguns, should we let everyone have them just because the police do?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Selkarn)
    Dangerous dogs are put down. Get over it.
    Dangerous dogs should be put down.
    Harmless dogs that physically resemble dangerous dogs when measured in 20 seconds with a dressmakers measuring tape, should not.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by annie_123)
    I find it hard to believe that you think that some dogs are not more dangerous than other, they are. These dogs themselves are built very differently and are a lot stronger and they were bread for fighting.

    I have a border collie now and these dogs where bread to be herders, my dog has strong heading instincts and it’s not because I the owner have trained my dog to be that way it’s just part of her instinct. Certain types of dogs naturally have aggression in their nature, just as my dog has a natural herding instinct.
    I agree, not all of these dogs will not attack people, but I don’t think it’s worth the risk. Why do people have to own these dogs when there are plenty of other options?

    There is of course a correlation between bad owners and dangerous dog, no doubt, but not all dog attacks are because of bad owners.

    I just want to add that the dog that attacked my dog was not trying to hurt me it was after my dog, I just got in the way.
    Of course some dogs are naturally more aggressive than others. This applies to most mammals.

    So basically that dog got destroyed because it was fighting with another dog (hardly an uncommon and unnatural behavior) and you just happened to get in the way? The dog didn't even go for you...

    Come on, let's not pretend that certain breeds of dog have some sort of dormant gene that once activated whips them into an insatiable blood thirst.

    Dogs should be looked at based on their temperament relative to their breed.

    Understand that we're not talking about dogs in general here. We're talking about a dog coming from a non dangerous breed and showing absolutely ZERO inclination that he will ever attack anything let alone a human. Lennox is loved by his owners and more specifically the little disabled girl that relies on him for fun and comfort.

    The council crudely used a tape measure, a classification system they are not authorized to use and most of all they did this in the absence of any professional guidance. They literally measured the dog and said "looks like a pitbull, must die". This is the council that gave the thumbs up to Lennox's brother Diesel who comes from the exact same litter. :confused:

    The council in this case are beyond unprofessional and simply wrong. It's pretty disgraceful to be honest.

    e: And just throwing this out there. When I was about 9 I was "ravaged" by a dog on the back of both of my legs. For quite a long time after I wouldn't go near any dog for fear of the same happening.

    Eventually an officer (from the RSPCA?) came around and I had to go round and identify the dog that did it so it could be destroyed. When the owner dragged the dog to his front door by the collar I actually started crying because I was looking this dog in the eyes and could see that the fault lies one million percent with the owners (they were disgustingly terrible). I tried to lie and say that wasn't the dog in order to spare it but they knew it was the dog.

    This dog wasn't born a little savage was it? I can guarantee you if I brought that dog up it would have been a saint but it was raised in a violent environment. Much like a human if all you know is violence then it's going to stick with you.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Selkarn)
    Dangerous dogs are put down. Get over it.
    I am more of aware of that fact, the trouble is you have spent hour and hours on here spouting absolute rubbish about a topic you clearly know nothing about. Why you feel the need to do this is actually beyond me but i guess only you know the reasons.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    i feel bad for this family and that dog, what they are doing to both parties (human and dog) is cruel
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trigger)
    I am more of aware of that fact, the trouble is you have spent hour and hours on here spouting absolute rubbish about a topic you clearly know nothing about. Why you feel the need to do this is actually beyond me but i guess only you know the reasons.
    You're not making a point, so I need not retort.

    (Original post by screenager2004)
    Dangerous dogs should be put down.
    Harmless dogs that physically resemble dangerous dogs when measured in 20 seconds with a dressmakers measuring tape, should not.
    We cannot simply wait until a dog has ripped out a child's throat to punish it. We must be pre-emptive. And to be pre-emptive requires rules. Unfortunately for the dog in the OP, it broke those rules. Indeed, it was close to the "line", but as everyone with a shred of intelligence knows, you cannot simply move the "line", there must be a break off point.


    (Original post by Kaykiie)
    It clearly isn't about the breed of dog. Why don't you actually read the information given?

    The dog was judged to be dangerous due to it being a bit too tall, it's brother (from the same litter as him) was not deemed to be dangerous. Where is the logic in that? It isn't because of it's breed at all.

    Oh and for your information : Most dangerous dog breeds would you class a chihuahua as a dangerous dog?
    The dog broke the rules, unfortunately. It is unfortunate for the dog and the family but rules are rules. I am angered that the dog has been kept in such a bad state for such a long time, but maybe the family are to blame. If they hadn't pointlessly appealed so much then the dog would have had a quick and painless death.

    And to answer your question - if a chihuahua ran up to a small child in the street with the intention of killing her, it would be laughed at. So no.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Selkarn)
    We cannot simply wait until a dog has ripped out a child's throat to punish it. We must be pre-emptive.
    This is not how the UK legal system works. We do not arrest people 'pre-emptively' without reasonable doubt that they intended to commit a crime. Pre-emptive arrests contradict principles of democracy and the universal right to be considered innocent until proven guilty.

    And to be pre-emptive requires rules. Unfortunately for the dog in the OP, it broke those rules. Indeed, it was close to the "line", but as everyone with a shred of intelligence knows, you cannot simply move the "line", there must be a break off point.
    Can you please point out where this dog broke any 'rules'?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by screenager2004)
    This is not how the UK legal system works. We do not arrest people 'pre-emptively' without reasonable doubt that they intended to commit a crime. Pre-emptive arrests contradict principles of democracy and the universal right to be considered innocent until proven guilty.
    Dogs aren't people. Didn't read the rest of your post after you used the word "people" in the second sentence. I'll repeat. Dogs are not people.

    (Original post by screenager2004)
    Can you please point out where this dog broke any 'rules'?
    Clearly it broke height requirements.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    You'll often find that hamsters can be more dangerous than a 'dangerous' dog breed. You shouldn't be able to seize a dog just because of it's height, that doesn't make it dangerous. We don't go around arresting 6/7 foot tall people just because they're bigger than everyone else.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by annie_123)
    I used to think that dogs weren’t born aggressive and it was irresponsible owners that made the dogs bad, that was until my golden retriever cross was attacked by a neighbour’s dog. This dog was the exact same bread as the OPs dog and had played together with my dog for five years, before it attacked and killed my dog and left me needing stitches in my arm.

    I also know for a fact that this dog was well cared for and had never shown and signs of aggression previously.

    So i am completely biased but Imo the dog should be put down.
    this makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. if the two dogs were the same breed but were raised and lived with different people and one of them attacked and killed something else. why would this lead you to believe that it was born aggressive because of its breed.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Selkarn)
    Dogs aren't people. Didn't read the rest of your post after you used the word "people" in the second sentence. I'll repeat. Dogs are not people.
    The point is not about what the dog is. It's about what we deem legal and what we deem ethical. I accept that animals and humans are different. But humans conceptualisations of what is justice, is universal.

    If we start to say that "appearance plays a role in aggression and environment doesn't" or if we start to say that "appearance is more valid than all proven past history" - we are making some pretty big generalisations about how we understand all biology, psychology and the law.

    Clearly it broke height requirements.
    There are no 'height requirements' for dogs - great danes and wolfhounds are far far taller than Lennox was, yet they are legal.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kiss_me_now9)
    My next door have a staffy *****.

    She's the funniest, bounciest cutest thing ever.

    They also have a 5 year old daughter...

    The most aggressive dogs in the UK:
    Dachshunds
    Chihuahua
    Jack Russell
    Australian Cattle Dog
    Cocker Spaniel
    Beagle
    Border Collie
    Pit Bull Terrier
    Great Dane
    English Springer Spaniel

    http://www.dogbiteclaims.co.uk/dangerous-breeds.html
    I'd agree with the Jack russel. My Auntie had one, that dog was bloody evil. A friend of mine has a border collie, wouldn't agree that the dog is dangerous.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    When I was a child, the old lady next door had a Yorkshire terrier, and it was bloody mental. She took it for a walk every day, the moment her front door opened you could hear it YAP-YAP-YAP constantly growling, thrashing itself around on the lead. When you were playing outside in the street, you could hear her coming from 100m away because you could hear it screaming and barking constantly. She never trained it, it did this every day, for about 10 years, then we moved house :P

    People don't take it seriously because it's so small, but it could take a nasty chunk out of your heel with it's nashers, and could quite easily scar a child for life.

    Anyway, today I was posting leaflets through doors, one door had a little yappy dog inside it that was throwing itself against the front door and ripped the leaflet out of my hand as I put it through the letterbox. I could tell it definitely wasn't a bull terrier, it's little voice was too high pitched!

    When a stranger knocks on our door, our dogs let out one or two loud "Roww roww"s, to alert us that there's someone there. Then they shut up. They don't throw themselves at the door though! That's psychotic!

    All owners should train their dogs, irrespective of breed.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Absolute joke, yet they don't seem to do anything about anyone who actually does have a dangerous dog and walks around with them threatening people.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by .snowflake.)
    I'd agree with the Jack russel. My Auntie had one, that dog was bloody evil. A friend of mine has a border collie, wouldn't agree that the dog is dangerous.
    Same, I have yet to find a JRT that I like. My friend was mauled by her g'parents JRT when she was a kid, and I know a few people who've had more than a little nip from them.

    I think Collies can just get a bit over the top and snappy?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    This is pointless. The dog is being destroyed, and rightly so. I'm sickened by the trash who have e.g. physically threatened the authorities and joined the facebook group. Here's what the OP forgot to mention, and I will be reporting the post to see if a mod can edit the post so that all here can get an unbiased, truthful report:


    "A DOG expert says a family pet sentenced to death earlier this week is “one of the most unpredictable” animals he has come across in over 20 years.

    Speaking to the News Letter yesterday, dog expert Peter Tallack, who had testified for the council at court, said Lennox was “an accident waiting to happen”.

    On Tuesday, Belfast Magistrate’s court ordered that pitbull terrier-type dog Lennox be destroyed.
    After examination, Mr Tallack said there was “no other safe option” than putting Lennox down. “Yes the dangerous dogs legislation is controversial and it’s upsetting,” he said. “But it’s there for a reason — it’s there to protect lives.”

    “Lennox is within a handful of dogs of the thousands I have seen over the years that would be that unpredictable,” he said.

    Mr Tallack said the animal had “lulled him into a false sense of security” by appearing friendly, but when he released the dog after examining him, the dog had turned and lunged at him.

    He said: “I would challenge anyone to show me another dog that can do the same damage to a person than a pitbull-type dog. Their agility and strength of bite is something else — the injuries they can inflict are truly horrific.

    “Lennox is simply not able to be a domestic pet. The risk is not worth it.”"


    "The pitbull terrier-type dog was seized by council officials in May last year after it was reported for snarling and barking at wardens. He ruled that the dog’s “total unpredictability” made it a danger to the general public under the Dangerous Dogs (NI) Order. The court heard that officials were warned by Miss Barnes’ partner at the time that the dog would “rip your head off” if approached.
    Lennox was seized by Belfast City Council wardens and has been impounded in kennels since May 2010 under the Dangerous Dogs (NI) Order 1991. Miss Barnes initially denied her pet was a banned breed, saying it was a cross between an American bulldog and a Labrador crossed with a Staffordshire bull terrier. She later accepted that Lennox was classed as a pitbull terrier-type, but insisted he was not a danger to the public."
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Selkarn)
    "A DOG expert says a family pet sentenced to death earlier this week is “one of the most unpredictable” animals he has come across in over 20 years.

    Speaking to the News Letter yesterday, dog expert Peter Tallack, who had testified for the council at court, said Lennox was “an accident waiting to happen”.

    On Tuesday, Belfast Magistrate’s court ordered that pitbull terrier-type dog Lennox be destroyed.
    After examination, Mr Tallack said there was “no other safe option” than putting Lennox down. “Yes the dangerous dogs legislation is controversial and it’s upsetting,” he said. “But it’s there for a reason — it’s there to protect lives.”

    “Lennox is within a handful of dogs of the thousands I have seen over the years that would be that unpredictable,” he said.

    Mr Tallack said the animal had “lulled him into a false sense of security” by appearing friendly, but when he released the dog after examining him, the dog had turned and lunged at him.

    He said: “I would challenge anyone to show me another dog that can do the same damage to a person than a pitbull-type dog. Their agility and strength of bite is something else — the injuries they can inflict are truly horrific.

    “Lennox is simply not able to be a domestic pet. The risk is not worth it.”"


    "The pitbull terrier-type dog was seized by council officials in May last year after it was reported for snarling and barking at wardens. He ruled that the dog’s “total unpredictability” made it a danger to the general public under the Dangerous Dogs (NI) Order. The court heard that officials were warned by Miss Barnes’ partner at the time that the dog would “rip your head off” if approached.
    Lennox was seized by Belfast City Council wardens and has been impounded in kennels since May 2010 under the Dangerous Dogs (NI) Order 1991. Miss Barnes initially denied her pet was a banned breed, saying it was a cross between an American bulldog and a Labrador crossed with a Staffordshire bull terrier. She later accepted that Lennox was classed as a pitbull terrier-type, but insisted he was not a danger to the public."
    I notice you've deleted from your post the part about wishing their 12 year old disabled daughter would have her throat ripped out. That was classy. Wouldn't want people to think lowly of you.

    Do you have any knowledge about dog breeding? It doesn't appear to be so.
    Let me educate you: the term 'pit bull terrier type' is an umbrella term that refers to several characteristics and breeds of dog. It is not the same as declaring the dog a pit bull. The dog was DNA registered as an American Bulldog Labrador Cross.

    Besides, this completely misses the point. The entire point of this thread was that it is immoral to kill innocent animals because they conform to a breed type. Aggressiveness is not a genetically inheritable trait. It's a fallacy to destroy an innocent dog because you perceive it to be dangerous when it has shown no evidence to suggest it was dangerous.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Good news everyone! The group has exceeded 30,000 members, and has had advocacy from Ian Somerhalder (Vampire Diaries actor), Sophie Bush (One Tree Hill), Victoria Stillwell (dog expert from 'Its me or the dog') and Cesar Millan!

    It's been a fantastic turnout so far, thank you for everyone's support. Together we can stop the indiscriminate slaughter of animals in the name of BSL.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Selkarn)
    I know, but you can't simply discriminate between dogs just because you're prejudiced about the owners. Imagine it. "He's from a middle class family, he can have his dog. However I think you're chav scum and so I'm going to kill your dog". It has to be consistent.

    This has nothing at all to do with what I've said in this thread, but whatever. What about police dogs? The armed forces have MP5 submachineguns, should we let everyone have them just because the police do?
    No you can't discriminate but people who cant look after dogs just shouldn't have them its that simple and people like chavs are prime examples of that they give all dog owners bad names.

    No but you mentioned how all dogs should be put down, and I was merely stating that this dog is a working dog much like police dogs which is why it SHOULDN'T be put down. To answer your question no people shouldn't be allowed submachine guns and the reason why is they don't NEED them whereas we NEED working dogs they provide a vital role to many people.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Just to update any people watching this thread: the dog's owners went to court today, the judge granted them appeal.

    The council wanted the family to pay £7,000 for the cost of kennelling the dog for the last 11 months (in those awful conditions) - Judge refused!!!! Result!
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.