from england, some odd news

Post Reply New Topic

british dog owners may be forced to microchip their pets and take out insurance, part of a proposed crackdown on dangerous canines.
the government's proposals are aimed at tackling the growing problem of aggressive dogs being used to harass, attack and even kill. in a country where guns are tightly controlled, animal rights experts and politicians say street thugs have turned to dangerous-looking dogs to intimidate their victims. if this wasn't so sickening, i would say there was an element of humor in this, using vicious dogs in place of guns, ala "gimme all yer dough or i'll sick killer on ya!"

I expect that any day now martial artists will have to submit to a similar procedure, this is after all how they handle these things in the UK. First the guns, then the knives, now dogs... I'll be interested to see what happens when they try to control club like objects, that at least should be entertaining.

I'd like to see how the people of Britain react to this. It should be interesting...

eric arthur blair [george orwell] was prescient, just a few decades early. like any good writer, he knew human nature. thought pre-crimes are on the legislative agenda, just wait.

especially if it includes cricket bats .

Well actually if you have to walk past a gang of youths with large fierce dogs (staffs or pit bulls) I dont think you would find this so amusing. There has been several cases of men setting their large dogs onto police who come to the house to arresst them. And even more cases of small children being killed by these large fierce dogs. Its not funny its really not nice at all. Most of those 'thugs' carry guns and knives aswell so being snitty about UK gun law is unhelpful at best!

Judging by what you yourself said (bold is purely mine for emphasis), it would seem that it's the UK gun laws that are unhelpful at best. Perhaps you wouldn't be so menaced by those nasty dogs if you weren't rendered defenseless by the asinine British custom of attempting to legislate problems away.

nobody is making light of the mayhem, per se. the "humor" was that [short of a police state] no matter what one as a governing authority does to maintain order, disorder will spontaneously pop up "whack-a-mole" style. suppress one class of weapons and another will take its place. as long as there is one group that wants to dominate another group, this type of displacement will continue right up to "cricket bats" and butterknives, given enough time. just look at what is banned from airline cabins and prisons, to limited effect. beyond a certain point, banning/regulating any class of weapons loses effectiveness, as there will always be workarounds. and nobody under god seems to have any useful solutions to this quandary. if one could not laugh about this, the only alternative would be to cry.

It does need legislation, its very fashionable in the UK to have fierce dogs such as rotweilers, staffs and pit bulls even for 'non thugs'. People do not have the sence to not get these dogs, they get ones from dog farms and dont properly train them. It needs some sort of legislation to 'put them off'. If people had sence legislation would not be needed but unfortunately people do not have sence at all!

Here in Australia it is mandatory to microchip your pets. It's really no big deal. I also have no problems with people being forced to take out pet insurance as it guarantees that pets will get the medical care they need. It's so sad to see pets whose owners don't take them to see the vet when they really need it as they don't have money to pay for their treatment.

I take it you're not from round these parts. The nanny state is a polar opposite to British custom, which is one of the reasons why it's so friggin' annoying.

Read this part of what you said again. Carefully.



So you think the same people who are already ignoring the prohibitions regarding guns and knives are suddenly going to turn law abiding once you pass a law restricting their dogs? In some circles, expecting differing results from doing the same thing is defined as "crazy", apparantly the UK would beg to differ.

You're right, I'm from nowhere near the UK except in a genetic sense, and I think that's probably a good situation for everyone involved. As to your "custom" I'm truly flabbergasted at the level of government oversight that the average Britisher seems to not simply tolerate but actually desire, so I think you'll have to forgive any conclusions I may have drawn about British custom. It's like England is turning into Singapore without the money or the charm...

Ah, thanks, that explains everything.

I dont think it will make the people behave differently but it will give the police powers to remove their fierce dogs, at the moment they have to just 'put up with' the person threatening them with the dog and not do anything about it.

for example child protection laws do not stop/'put people off' abuseing their children, but they do mean that authorities have the power to remove children when they are found to be abused. I think its important to have legislative powers to protect vulnerable people from people who are cruel and unkind.

I don't really see the problem in chipping pets. The concern with chipping humans is that the government may use it to spy on people if they don't like the way they think, but since a pet doesn't have the same intelligence level nor rights as a human being, I wouldn't start screaming "police state" just yet. However, there are many other existing ordinances in the UK that would suggest "police state" much more heavily than this.