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

[Cajunrules 8]

Come on fellas this is a serious issue, start another topic about layabouts if thats what you want to talk about.

It is a serious issue and layabouts are part of the problem, people who have dogs and cannot afford to look after them.

 

The vast majority can afford to look after their dogs, obviously because they do. The issue is why should I pay just because some idiot wants to try to make himself look a hard man by having a nutjob on the end of a leash? If a chav is willing to have a banned breed then he is'nt going to give a shit about insurance is he? So the very people who this proposed law is meant to target would be completely bypassed by it. Whilst the rest of us pick up the bill.

[Waz 4,274]

Interesting that no-one on here is commenting on the dog thief issue.

 

If all dogs were identifiable and registered to owners, then surely no-one would steal them?

 

Matt, in theory all cars are identifiable and registered to owners, surely no-one is stealing them?

[TOPPER 1,809]

i do microchipping for £10 a go so form an orderlly que i could make a packet

 

but microchipping only works if you keep the register updated ie change of address / owner etc

 

it wont stop the scum who nick your dogs, theres a way the details can be wiped from a microchip but i won t tell you how!!

[skellyb 8]

Come on fellas this is a serious issue, start another topic about layabouts if thats what you want to talk about.

It is a serious issue and layabouts are part of the problem, people who have dogs and cannot afford to look after them.

 

The vast majority can afford to look after their dogs, obviously because they do. The issue is why should I pay just because some idiot wants to try to make himself look a hard man by having a nutjob on the end of a leash? If a chav is willing to have a banned breed then he is'nt going to give a shit about insurance is he? So the very people who this proposed law is meant to target would be completely bypassed by it. Whilst the rest of us pick up the bill.

If there are penalties for not then there is a choice, pay and microchip or run the risk of whatever penalties are laid down.

As for the rest of us picking up the bill, what bill, if you are responsible now then there isn't a bill.

And if more people take out insurance then costs should come down

Edited March 9, 2010 by skellyb

[Malt 379]

The vast majority can afford to look after their dogs, obviously because they do. The issue is why should I pay just because some idiot wants to try to make himself look a hard man by having a nutjob on the end of a leash? If a chav is willing to have a banned breed then he is'nt going to give a shit about insurance is he? So the very people who this proposed law is meant to target would be completely bypassed by it. Whilst the rest of us pick up the bill.

 

That's the point, but a certain person on this thread can't see that because 'It's only a couple of quid'. It's not the cost that's the problem, it's the principle.

[Cajunrules 8]

Come on fellas this is a serious issue, start another topic about layabouts if thats what you want to talk about.

It is a serious issue and layabouts are part of the problem, people who have dogs and cannot afford to look after them.

 

The vast majority can afford to look after their dogs, obviously because they do. The issue is why should I pay just because some idiot wants to try to make himself look a hard man by having a nutjob on the end of a leash? If a chav is willing to have a banned breed then he is'nt going to give a shit about insurance is he? So the very people who this proposed law is meant to target would be completely bypassed by it. Whilst the rest of us pick up the bill.

If there are penalties for not then there is a choice, pay and microchip or run the risk of whatever penalties are laid down.

As for the rest of us picking up the bill, what bill, if you are responsible now then there isn't a bill.

And if more people take out insurance then costs should come down

 

"if you are responsible now then there isn't a bill", of course there's a bill: the cost of insurance

[Cajunrules 8]

The vast majority can afford to look after their dogs, obviously because they do. The issue is why should I pay just because some idiot wants to try to make himself look a hard man by having a nutjob on the end of a leash? If a chav is willing to have a banned breed then he is'nt going to give a shit about insurance is he? So the very people who this proposed law is meant to target would be completely bypassed by it. Whilst the rest of us pick up the bill.

 

That's the point, but a certain person on this thread can't see that because 'It's only a couple of quid'. It's not the cost that's the problem, it's the principle.

 

It can't be put better than that mate

[poacher3161 1,766]

The vast majority can afford to look after their dogs, obviously because they do. The issue is why should I pay just because some idiot wants to try to make himself look a hard man by having a nutjob on the end of a leash? If a chav is willing to have a banned breed then he is'nt going to give a shit about insurance is he? So the very people who this proposed law is meant to target would be completely bypassed by it. Whilst the rest of us pick up the bill.

 

That's the point, but a certain person on this thread can't see that because 'It's only a couple of quid'. It's not the cost that's the problem, it's the principle.

Thats it in a nutshell.atb dell

[skellyb 8]

The vast majority can afford to look after their dogs, obviously because they do. The issue is why should I pay just because some idiot wants to try to make himself look a hard man by having a nutjob on the end of a leash? If a chav is willing to have a banned breed then he is'nt going to give a shit about insurance is he? So the very people who this proposed law is meant to target would be completely bypassed by it. Whilst the rest of us pick up the bill.

 

That's the point, but a certain person on this thread can't see that because 'It's only a couple of quid'. It's not the cost that's the problem, it's the principle.

So you'd let your dog/s suffer because of your "principles"

[Malt 379]

The vast majority can afford to look after their dogs, obviously because they do. The issue is why should I pay just because some idiot wants to try to make himself look a hard man by having a nutjob on the end of a leash? If a chav is willing to have a banned breed then he is'nt going to give a shit about insurance is he? So the very people who this proposed law is meant to target would be completely bypassed by it. Whilst the rest of us pick up the bill.

 

That's the point, but a certain person on this thread can't see that because 'It's only a couple of quid'. It's not the cost that's the problem, it's the principle.

So you'd let your dog/s suffer because of your "principles"

How the hell are my dogs going to suffer because I don't think I should have to pay for a government sanctioned, mandatory third party liability cover policy?

 

.....because that's what the thread is about, don't try to twist it into including normal accident cover to suit your side of the argument.

Edited March 9, 2010 by maltenby

[poacher3161 1,766]

The vast majority can afford to look after their dogs, obviously because they do. The issue is why should I pay just because some idiot wants to try to make himself look a hard man by having a nutjob on the end of a leash? If a chav is willing to have a banned breed then he is'nt going to give a shit about insurance is he? So the very people who this proposed law is meant to target would be completely bypassed by it. Whilst the rest of us pick up the bill.

 

That's the point, but a certain person on this thread can't see that because 'It's only a couple of quid'. It's not the cost that's the problem, it's the principle.

So you'd let your dog/s suffer because of your "principles"

Do vets only treat dogs now with insurance??

[ratkilla 35]

Any thing more this country can do to get a penny out of us they seem to do it!! Not so much the land of the free any more. Better work my arse off this summer and get outta HERE hopefully for the better in the long run at this rate im sure it will be !!

[skellyb 8]

The vast majority can afford to look after their dogs, obviously because they do. The issue is why should I pay just because some idiot wants to try to make himself look a hard man by having a nutjob on the end of a leash? If a chav is willing to have a banned breed then he is'nt going to give a shit about insurance is he? So the very people who this proposed law is meant to target would be completely bypassed by it. Whilst the rest of us pick up the bill.

 

That's the point, but a certain person on this thread can't see that because 'It's only a couple of quid'. It's not the cost that's the problem, it's the principle.

So you'd let your dog/s suffer because of your "principles"

How the hell are my dogs going to suffer because I don't think I should have to pay for a government sanctioned, mandatory third party liability cover policy?

 

.....because that's what the thread is about, don't try to twist it into including normal accident cover.

I have said since the beginning of this thread, if you have pet insurance you most likely have liability insurance, so are yours insured or is that against your "principles"?

Are they microchipped?

If not then your principles could lead to them suffering.

If they are then what the feck are you arguing about.

I think you made your point of view perfectly clear many pages ago when asking to "define a few quid".

[Hollie 21]

Interesting that no-one on here is commenting on the dog thief issue.

 

If all dogs were identifiable and registered to owners, then surely no-one would steal them?

Do you think for one moment that would stop dog theives some who are even pulling up and snatching them off people.

 

 

I think it would deter people, yes it wouldn't stop it completly but it would maybe make it harder, if say, dog wardens etc could ask to see your paperwork (for the dog) and you didn't have it, you get in serious trouble, surely not so many people would risk buying a dog that they know is stolen?

[poacher3161 1,766]

Interesting that no-one on here is commenting on the dog thief issue.

 

If all dogs were identifiable and registered to owners, then surely no-one would steal them?

Do you think for one moment that would stop dog theives some who are even pulling up and snatching them off people.

 

 

I think it would deter people, yes it wouldn't stop it completly but it would maybe make it harder, if say, dog wardens etc could ask to see your paperwork (for the dog) and you didn't have it, you get in serious trouble, surely not so many people would risk buying a dog that they know is stolen?

Dont forget a lot of hunting dogs dont get walked in public and some are kept out of the way plus i would not fancey being a dog warden going on a travellers site and asking for paperwork about their dogs.