Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Humz7)
    who said I have to ask the council for permission..?
    anyways, I was referring to it as a whole. not just this country. primarily the lower economically developed ones.
    Haha I like it. Yeah good point, I thought you meant just the UK, but there are other countries in much worse situations that need help a lot more than we do right now that's for sure.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NeonSkies)
    Haha I like it. Yeah good point, I thought you meant just the UK, but there are other countries in much worse situations that need help a lot more than we do right now that's for sure.
    haha, not specifically the uk.
    precisely.
    well, nice speaking to you
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Humz7)
    haha, not specifically the uk.
    precisely.
    well, nice speaking to you
    You too
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by djikstra)
    No certain dogs have the capability to be used as a weapon for a reason that is inherent in their genes. When I went on holiday to Turkey, dogs were bred for fighting based on their aggressiveness in a fight. That is what constitutes a dangerous dog. Now if you allow innocent people to have these kind of animals, it will inevitably fall in to the minority of idiots, granted, that wanna set it on other people. Its like guns, if the nice guy has em, you can more than bet that the criminals have them. And if it is allowed by the gov to happen on a large scale, a lot more of the people will have them.
    All dogs have a capability to be aggressive. In the UK, the legal dog statistically most likely to attack humans is the German Shepherd, police use the German Shepherd as police and war dogs. Yet it's bull terriers that are targeted by breed-specific legislation.

    The idea that 'aggressiveness' is inherent in the genes of certain breeds of dog is a myth. The dogs bred for fighting are raised in a violent background and trained to be aggressive and fight from puppies. There's no such thing as a bad dog, just bad owners. These people could train any dog to fight. They pick Bull terriers because of their loyalty and muscular frame, not some 'genetic aggressiveness'.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by djikstra)
    You clearly have not understood what I have written. Firstly I never said angry dog in london>innocent dog in ireland. Dogs are classified as dangerous for a reason, due to their genetic tendencies. Hence they have a potential to be used as weapons. In london they are used as weapons. In ireland, they may not be, but they have the potential to be. Now as this animal had the potential to be dangerous, and was around a disabled child, the authorities acted in the best interest of people.

    Finally, I never said the dog was determined to be dangerous in its will. I said the dog was determined by the gov to be dangerous, and was put down. So again you clearly lack understanding of what I said.
    That's what you're insinuating. Because "dogs in London are used as weapons" this innocent dog should not only be taken away from a family which loves and cherishes it but it should be destroyed? Are you serious?

    And what's the criterion for a dog being "dangerous"? Being of a certain breed? Then why would the very same council claim that the brother of Lennox (born from the very same breed) is not a dog of a "dangerous type"? Without seeking any professional advice they measured his muzzle and rear legs to reach this absurd conclusion. It's also worth noting that Lennox is an American Bull dog Labrador cross. The council also violated copyright laws by using the ABDA system to identify Lennox as a "possible pit bull type breed".

    And for your (very, very limited information) this dog was a crutch for this disabled child. They have grown up together and she (Brooke) relied on Lennox for play and comfort. The separation has caused her significant distress, something echoed by her doctor.

    And what dog or moderately sized animal ISN'T a "danger" around a disabled child? Every dog has the potential to "snap at any moment".

    There is absolutely nothing to suggest that Lennox is a threat in any way, shape or form other than his physical appearance.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I've liked the Facebook page in support of Lennox.He is a Staffie/labrador ffs!!.He is not dangerous at all......in fact I have never in my life met a vicious staffie or labrador, they're always slobbery creatures full of love..This is disgraceful!!!.The family must get their dog back and pronto.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    If anyone took my dogs with the intention of killing them but locked them away in a tiny, cold cell alone for 11 months I'd kill them.

    But this is what we've come to expect from politicians. Retarded with no real aim. What do they hope to gain from torturing this animal, devastating a family, and taking away the rights of a disabled child? There is absolutely nothing but to 'stick to the regulations'. Sad ****s is what they are.

    I say we petrol bomb the council building.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Signed the petition, I would be so devastated if this happened to my pet. Surely the council should realise that their reputation is sinking further and further the longer this goes on? I would have far more respect for a council that can admit they are wrong than one that would rather sacrifice the life of a poor animal than sacrafice their own pride.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by screenager2004)
    Hi all, I thought I'd bring this to your attention today.

    ‘Lennox’ was a loved family pet of the Barnes Family for five years.
    He was also a care dog for their 11-year old disabled daughter, she is unable to play with other children, so Lennox was her best friend.
    His owner is a veterinary nurse, and the family fostered abandoned dogs.
    He was neutered, electronically chipped,licensed, fully trained, kennel club registered, insured and DNA registered. So very responsible owners.

    Most importantly of all: Lennox had never shown any signs of aggression, had never attacked another dog or human in his life. He was just a regular house pet.

    On May 19th 2010, Belfast City Council ordered for him to be seized and destroyed.
    The reason why: they got a tape measure out and he was too tall (from the floor to his shoulder), and was therefore deemed to be a 'dangerous breed' - despite the fact that the dog wardens said that his brother, born from the same litter of puppies was not dangerous. :confused:

    So obviously the family took the Council to court get their pet back, the council wouldn't tell them where Lennox was being held. After 6 months of separation, the council ‘kindly’ sent the family this harrowing picture to show that the dog was still alive and well at Christmas.
    Spoiler:
    Show




    If anyone else had kept an animal in these conditions they would be imprisoned for animal abuse. This is what your tax pays for. This dog has been confined to a tiny concrete room for 11 months now. Separate from his family, with just sawdust and his own excrement to sleep on.

    The Barnes family have been in the papers and the radio a lot. The Council know how unpopular they are because of this – so they can't admit they were wrong.
    The first two times the Barnes family took the Council to court to try and get their pet back, the Council kept on having the court hearing postponed and postponed. it's not about the dog anymore, but the Council trying to recover their reputation.

    Today it is the 29th of March, and this morning the courts ruled in favour of Belfast City Council. The Barnes family have launched an appeal. I am so upset about this. That poor dog must be so lonely/scared, I hope the appeal succeeds, I don't want that dogs last 11 months of its life to be spent in that prison.

    Save Lennox
    I bet a lot of people on here will say things such as: "It's just a dog." - To them, that may well be so, but it's still a life, and I bet if someone randomly imprisoned a member of their family for being an inch too tall, they would feel as strongly as us animal lovers on here.

    This is actually disgusting. Why on earth would someone do this to a poor animal? It's probably cost the bloody council hundreds to feed and shelter (albeit badly) the animal, and brought so much bad publicity as well - equally costing the council money! Grrr stupid things like this irritate me. I feel sorry for the dog obviously, but also for the girl too.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I can see the councils' view, somewhat though. However, if the family really want this dog and if there can be a narrangement that it is kept secure if ever outside (no walkies, perhaps), then the family should be allowed to take that supposed risk with a supposed dangerous dog.

    Free will.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Selkarn)
    That doesn't make sense at all. Your dogs could snap and kill someone. That is undeniable.

    This whole situation is subjective. It's about where you draw the line.

    I personally see equal to Belfast Council - that dog looks extremely dangerous and could probably kill me if it snapped, and I believe that it violates people's freedoms and rights to have such animals walking around, leashed or not.

    I think the fact that one of you said "dogs should only be punished only once they have ripped out a kid's throat" is testament to the small amount you value human life.
    Agreed dogs can snap but as mentioned so do people, however the dog was a working dog and was a disabled childs only companion, not only that but the parents seem like reliable honest people not the chav scum that you see who purposefully breed dogs to kill. 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?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    That is actually horrible. The poor thing does not deserve to be killed, it hasn't done anything. I don't see why anyone should be allowed to put an animal to death for being 'too tall', the dog's not aggressive and it was being well looked after. Absolutely disgusting to take it away and make it live in those conditions.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    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.
    I am sorry that you'd be upset and thinking these dogs are dangerous. But I am sure you will understand that you can't generalise your own experiences against an entire breed of dog.

    Every year dozens of different breeds of dogs attack humans and animals alike: just two days ago a Japanese Akita gave a dog warden stitches in Northern Ireland. But I wouldn't say that all Akitas are dangerous. (If I were that warden I probably would be saying that though!) - but it's silly.

    I have only been the victim of crime twice in my life, and both times my attacker was of the same ethnicity, but I would never dream of thinking that ethnicity is more dangerous than any other: it's the individual, not the breed.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Selkarn)
    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.
    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?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by screenager2004)
    two days ago a Japanese Akita gave a dog warden stitches in Northern Ireland.
    What a clever dog! :p:
    Offline

    2
    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.
    Can't help but think this is somebody in this thread making another account to post this. If it isn't then I call bull****. Obviously something happened to the dog on that day. That or you didn't know the dog & it's owners as well as you think you do.

    Are you aware of how many of these "dangerous breeds" don't actually attack anybody in their lifetime? Are you aware of how many "acceptable" breeds are responsible for bites?

    The bottom line is that all dogs are "dangerous" and the single most contributing factor to that level of danger is the dogs owner.

    Dogs should be judged on their individual temperament, not their breed which is completely illogical and shambolic.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thisisnew)
    Can't help but think this is somebody in this thread making another account to post this. If it isn't then I call bull****. Obviously something happened to the dog on that day. That or you didn't know the dog & it's owners as well as you think you do.

    Are you aware of how many of these "dangerous breeds" don't actually attack anybody in their lifetime? Are you aware of how many "acceptable" breeds are responsible for bites?

    The bottom line is that all dogs are "dangerous" and the single most contributing factor to that level of danger is the dogs owner.

    Dogs should be judged on their individual temperament, not their breed which is completely illogical and shambolic.
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trigger)
    Educate yourself mate.
    Dangerous dogs are put down. Get over it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    I suggest you read other posts I've made in this thread, they cover what you said perfectly. Also, the dog was taller than the guideline suggests. A line has to be drawn somewhere, and sadly for the dog it was taller than is allowed.
 
 
 
Poll
Is the Big Bang theory correct?
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.