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

[mackay 3,425]

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?

 

 

So you want to give wee hitlers the right to walk up to you demand to see your paperwork for your dog, some wee jobsworth giving you the third degree every time your out walking, I think I'd rather run the risk of them being stolen.

[Matt 160]

So you want to give wee hitlers the right to walk up to you demand to see your paperwork for your dog, some wee jobsworth giving you the third degree every time your out walking, I think I'd rather run the risk of them being stolen.

 

I'd happily put up with that every day of the rest of my life if it stops scum from stealing dogs.

 

I own my micro-chipped dogs, and I've nothing to hide.

[Rabbithunter 456]

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.

 

 

[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.

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".

 

Run out of things to further your side of the debate, so raking over the coals of the earlier posts are we?

 

I am arguing about the rights of the individual to choose whether or not they want to pay third party liability cover or not, not the merits of general dog insurance. You seem to have difficulty grasping that, maybe you've got more money than sense to unquestionably hand over the odd 'couple of quid' here and there without really thinking about why you're actually paying it.

 

I'm also arguing my corner because I disagree with the government's blanket policies of putting everyone in the same bracket for the sake of a handful of idiots. There are 8 million dogs in the UK, and out of these it is a very, very small number that cause problems by being in the wrong hands..

[stabba 10,745]

Skelly.. you are an out and out pudding... Are you a labour politician in disguise or perhaps a pet insurance salesman... go ram your pathetic views down someone elses throat .. because you are obviously only here to get peoples backs up.. atb stabba

[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?

 

 

So you want to give wee hitlers the right to walk up to you demand to see your paperwork for your dog, some wee jobsworth giving you the third degree every time your out walking, I think I'd rather run the risk of them being stolen.

 

 

Yes i would rather that then pay because of a few dangerous dogs and i would be happy if that involved my dogs being taken, a wee hitler asking the 'new owner' to see the paperwork and them being arrested for handling stolen property....MY property

[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".

 

Run out of things to further your side of the debate, so raking over the coals of the earlier posts are we?

 

I am arguing about the rights of the individual to choose whether or not they want to pay third party liability cover or not, not the merits of general dog insurance. You seem to have difficulty grasping that, maybe you've got more money than sense to unquestionably hand over the odd 'couple of quid' here and there without really thinking about why you're actually paying it.

 

I'm also arguing my corner because I disagree with the government's blanket policies of putting everyone in the same bracket for the sake of a handful of idiots. There are 8 million dogs in the UK, and out of these it is a very, very small number that cause problems by being in the wrong hands..

Not raking over, just trying to see where your "point" is coming from.

Plenty to say, just seems that some are too thick to see past there own nose and would rather rant and rave against the govt rather than accept something that is basically common sense.

I know exactly what I am paying for and what I get for it, thats why I know its only a few quid and am very happy to pay it.

Not all dogs that cause problems are in the "wrong hands", ask any postman, milkman or someone who goes into homes as part of their work, dogs running into the road, or the stupid woman whose dog comes running up to yours and say "he's just playing ...

 

Skelly.. you are an out and out pudding... Are you a labour politician in disguise or perhaps a pet insurance salesman... go ram your pathetic views down someone elses throat .. because you are obviously only here to get peoples backs up.. atb stabba

Nice contribution stabba (and nice name).

Edited March 9, 2010 by skellyb

[stabba 10,745]

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".

 

Run out of things to further your side of the debate, so raking over the coals of the earlier posts are we?

 

I am arguing about the rights of the individual to choose whether or not they want to pay third party liability cover or not, not the merits of general dog insurance. You seem to have difficulty grasping that, maybe you've got more money than sense to unquestionably hand over the odd 'couple of quid' here and there without really thinking about why you're actually paying it.

 

I'm also arguing my corner because I disagree with the government's blanket policies of putting everyone in the same bracket for the sake of a handful of idiots. There are 8 million dogs in the UK, and out of these it is a very, very small number that cause problems by being in the wrong hands..

Not raking over, just trying to see where your "point" is coming from.

Plenty to say, just seems that some are too thick to see past there own nose and would rather rant and rave against the govt rather than accept something that is basically common sense.

I know exactly what I am paying for and what I get for it, thats why I know its only a few quid and am very happy to pay it.

Not all dogs that cause problems are in the "wrong hands", ask any postman, milkman or someone who goes into homes as part of their work, dogs running into the road, or the stupid woman whose dog comes running up to yours and say "he's just playing ...

 

Skelly.. you are an out and out pudding... Are you a labour politician in disguise or perhaps a pet insurance salesman... go ram your pathetic views down someone elses throat .. because you are obviously only here to get peoples backs up.. atb stabba

Nice contribution stabba (and nice name).

Glad you like o wise one

[Rabbithunter 456]

i might of missed something? But how do you think they will enforce it?

 

Go knocking on everyones door to see if they have a dog?

[gonetoearth 5,144]

skallyb you agree with Alan Johnston , we have hunted and worked

dogs for century's in this country withought the help of crooked mp's

the same mp's that introduced the dangerous dog act a poorly thought

out act , that has never been enforced, the same mp's that rammed thru

the hunting act, the same mp's that sent are lads to war without the kit

to fight , the same mp's that cheated on there expenses , but all of a sudden

with a flash of light while Rome burns we are supposed to accept another

rushed thru idea , The dogs in question and the hood rats that own and breed them

the north face clad wannabes , will all run the vets and police stations to reg there

dogs , these urchins could not give a flying fooooooook for man

nor beast , the law insurance what planet you living on . yes

if you can afford insurance and can get insurance for you working dog get it . but

another unenforceable law aimed at the wrong people is a waste of tax payers money

and another attack on the working breeds and hunting community

[twobob 1,497]

Amazing isn't it, the number of people complaining about this and most are the same people who shoot there mouths/keyboards off when a kiddie gets mauled to death by a dog.

And if the dog was insured would,nt it have happened then?

[Hollie 21]

Amazing isn't it, the number of people complaining about this and most are the same people who shoot there mouths/keyboards off when a kiddie gets mauled to death by a dog.

And if the dog was insured would,nt it have happened then?

 

 

Exactly, dangerous dogs will still be dangerous, whether they are insured or not!

[danw 1,748]

Bloody hell fellas the government has only started a consultation on the dangerous dogs act with the election round the corner it is just spin.

This shite will no more affect us than the ban on hunting

[twobob 1,497]

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?

Buy the countrymans weekly and see how many are chipped and still get nicked

[stabba 10,745]

Bloody hell fellas the government has only started a consultation on the dangerous dogs act with the election round the corner it is just spin.

This shite will no more affect us than the ban on hunting

i personally think you are wrong on this one mate.. why? because it involves money.. and lots of it for this money grabbing government.. atb stabba