united we stand....................and you know what happens when we dont!

[skellyb 8]

If you can't afford a few quid to insure your dog/s then you shouldn't have them.

Doesn't matter how well cared for or well behaved your dogs are, any dog can cause an accident, get in a fight or worse.

 

Define 'a few quid'

For me just under £400 a year for 3 dogs. 3rd party on its own would cost a lot less.

As in the last year one dog has had over £1500 (still ongoing) treatment and another £300 makes sense to get your dog/s insured (which includes 3rd party liability)

They are all microchipped as well, which is another thing they are looking at making compulsary.

[Matt 160]

What effect do you think that micro chipping would have on the number of dogs stolen?

[Guest busterdog]

IMO its not whether you can or can't afford it it's about more stealth tax and back handed deals between this shite government and the RSPCA.

Who gives them the right to decide on more and more tax, anyway you look at it its the working man getting shafted once more.

 

 

Surely a working man/woman who owns a dog........

 

It's about having responsability. Maybe the people who own 50 dogs will feel the pinch!

 

 

 

You can be responsible without having to pay for it. If you keep allowing more and more stupid rules and regulations to go unchallenged where will it all end. Will it be a licence to have children ?? it may sound stupid now but if we keep in the mind set of accepting this and that we will soon be there. Ask you're grandad if he thought hunting would ever be banned.

[Guest bullterrier]

All dogs could be insured under dangerous breeds plans

 

Gangs are using dangerous dogs as status symbols - and even weapons

All dog owners in England and Wales would have to get insurance against their pet attacking someone, under proposals to tackle dangerous breeds.

 

Police and local authorities could also be given powers to force owners of dangerous dogs to muzzle them, or get them neutered, under the Labour plans.

 

Ministers say the consultation responds to concern about the use of animals to intimidate or threaten people.

 

But the Tories say Labour has allowed the problem to grow in recent years.

 

Each week, more than 100 people are admitted to hospital after dog attacks.

 

There has also been a reported rise in levels of dog fighting and illegal ownership, particularly by gangs who are using dangerous dogs as status symbols.

 

'Fundamental right'

 

Coming a few weeks before a general election is expected, the Labour government has launched a consultation on amending the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act.

 

This legislation banned four types - the pit bull terrier, the Japanese tosa, the dogo Argentinos and the fila brasileiros - from public places.

 

The government's consultation suggests also banning them from people's homes.

 

Ministers argue this will also protect postal workers, telecoms engineers and other people whose work takes them on to private land.

 

Thousands of our members are attacked at work every year. This reform cannot come soon enough

 

Billy Hayes

General secretary, CWU

 

 

Should all dogs be insured?

Another proposal is to introduce compulsory third-party insurance for dog owners to ensure attack victims are compensated.

 

Home Secretary Alan Johnson said he was concerned that some owners were keeping dogs with the sole purpose of intimidating other people.

 

He told BBC News: "What most dog owners recognise is that what's going on is cruelty to animals.

 

"Other dogs are being treated abysmally because of this fashion for 'status dogs', which has been the main issue over the last five or six years."

 

Environment Secretary Hilary Benn said: "There is a lot of public concern about dog attacks, including the recent tragic deaths of young children, and about the rise in the number of so-called status dogs used to intimidate or threaten people.

 

"This is a serious issue of public safety. The government wants to hear what people think about the law as it stands and what more we might do to protect people from dangerous dogs."

 

Serious debate

 

The CWU postal union welcomed the proposals as "long overdue", with general secretary Billy Hayes saying: "Thousands of our members are attacked at work every year. This reform cannot come soon enough."

 

The RSPCA said a serious debate on the issue was needed, concentrating on curbing irresponsible pet ownership.

 

The charity's government relations manager, Claire Robinson, said: "There is a real need for updated legislation that enables enforcers to tackle the problem effectively and prevent serious incidents from occurring rather than waiting till after a tragedy or penalising certain dogs just because of their breed or type."

 

The Conservatives said the government had allowed the problem to get worse, with the number of people convicted for allowing their dogs to cause injury more than doubling in the past decade.

 

Peter Tallack, a former Metropolitan Police dog handler, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that owners of dangerous dogs had "a lack of understanding of what potential they've got on their hands.

 

"It's become a major problem now. It's become a bit of a cult.

 

"It's very difficult for the police. With all the resources in the world we couldn't tackle the problem at the moment."

 

He added: "I don't think there's a choice other than dog registration over the next few years."

 

The Dangerous Dogs Act, passed by Parliament in 1991 after a spate of attacks, brought in destruction orders for banned dogs.

 

In 1997, another parliamentary act amended the law, removing the compulsory destruction orders and giving courts discretion over the issue and the sentencing of owners

[TOPPER 1,809]

its all a load of bollocks just another stealth tax that at the end of the day would be un enforceable, as mentioned before look at the ban on handguns didnt achive much theres more handguns about now than ever before and how often do you see someone get done for it , in bristol there shootings everyday but rarely do you joe public here of them

[skellyb 8]

its all a load of bollocks just another stealth tax that at the end of the day would be un enforceable, as mentioned before look at the ban on handguns didnt achive much theres more handguns about now than ever before and how often do you see someone get done for it , in bristol there shootings everyday but rarely do you joe public here of them

So I take it you are not joe public then ?

If you are reponsible, you insure your car.

If you are responsible, you insure your home and belongings (and take out legal expenses as well)

If you are responsible, you insure when going on holiday.

If you are responsible, you insure your life.

If you are responsible, you should insure your dogs (and not just 3rd party).

If you are responsible, you should microchip your dogs.

Edited March 9, 2010 by skellyb

[fishfish 17]

The problem being... most folk just wouldnt be able to afford it.. fact... hence driving more and more breeds underground.... i for 1 will refuse to pay.. why the fcuk should i? my dogs are well cared for and well behaved... bring back the dog license i say... sit and spout all you want.. it aint going to work.. atb stabba

 

 

 

its all well saying you wont pay but when the penalties are big and the like you will have no choice but pay.

 

imagine if not having the dog insurance resulted in confiscation of the dog,even put down,ban from keeping pets for years,fine and in worse case prison,we would have no choice. like i said in my original post this is just a way of getting rid of breeds and the lifestyle that goes with them.

the government is going on about the 'new phenomenon' yobs having a staff or PBT as a weapon/status symbol,this has gone on for ages,remember bill sykes' dog? twas a bullbreed wasnt it!?

[poacher3161 1,766]

Wats people worrying about the pet food industrie wont allow it to happen

[gonetoearth 5,144]

why not go the full hog micro chip every living creature

on the planet , ban meat , ban smiling , ban , having

kids unless you have the money to feed clothe and rear them

till 18, , , have an air tax for every time you breath

terminate every one over the age of 65, ban wages you should

if white be prepared to work for every other tom dick ans Ali

to feed and clothe them, in fact all sit down and give up

as the don't want you to live in this country no more ,

unless you a muslim gay tree hunging new labour voting

rag head or from eastern euroupe and will work for a shekel

last one out turn the light off,

[MuttleMcTuttle 21]

ban having kids unless you have the money to feed clothe and rear them till 18,

 

Well actually that's one of the more sensible suggestions I've seen on this forum...

 

But, about the dog insurance thing, I don't think it would work because the sort of people (and I use the term loosely) who own these so called "status dogs" most likely would not get them insured anyway. A lot of twats don't even have third party car insurance or MOTs, so they certainly aren't going to get it for their dog... It'll just hit the responsible dog owners who are already covered for third party liability via their pet or home insurance.

 

I agree, just another bloody stealth tax

[Malt 379]

 

But, about the dog insurance thing, I don't think it would work because the sort of people (and I use the term loosely) who own these so called "status dogs" most likely would not get them insured anyway. A lot of twats don't even have third party car insurance or MOTs, so they certainly aren't going to get it for their dog... It'll just hit the responsible dog owners who are already covered for third party liability via their pet or home insurance.

 

I agree, just another bloody stealth tax

 

Yep, that's my main gripe too. It's always the same with these blanket measures they roll out, the ones they're targeting aren't affected but everyone else has to suffer for it..

[phantomflanflinger 24]

AND HERE COME'TH THE TROJAN HORSE , THE RSPCA WILL

GET NEW POWER'S WITH THIS UNESSARY PROPOSED LAW

[TOPPER 1,809]

fish

 

its all well saying you wont pay but when the penalties are big and the like you will have no choice but pay

 

 

i think you will find this will come in as an amendment or a statute law of which most of these are unenforceable if you know the loopholes and theres plenty of them , hence i dont think you will find there to keen to drag you to court they will try the fixed penalty system as 99% will pay up no questions asked and boost the coffers with little or no cost to the system were as to get you to court will cost them and if you elect for crown court [jury ] there a good chance they will look stupid

[SHOTGUNSNIPER 47]

It is not about Dog's

It is not about Insurance

It is not about guns

It is not about ferret's

It is not about killing animal's

 

 

It is about control

It is about tyranical propanda to take your will to fight from you.

It is about controling the mass population.

It is about convicing you by making these "laws" that you have no god given right's

 

 

They want all of your rights/will to fight. They will have their way if you let them!

 

 

Edited March 9, 2010 by SHOTGUNSNIPER

[phantomflanflinger 24]

It is not about Dog's

It is not about Insurance

It is not about guns

It is not about ferret's

It is not about killing animal's

 

 

It is about control

It is about tyranical propanda to take your will to fight from you.

It is about controling the mass population.

It is about convicing you by making these "laws" that you have no god given right's

 

 

They want all of your rights/will to fight. They will have their way if you let them!