1. Welcome to Game Dog Forum

    You are currently viewing our forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

    Dismiss Notice

Dangerous Dogs Act Debate

Discussion in 'Laws & Legislation' started by F.W.K., Apr 16, 2018.

  1. F.W.K.

    F.W.K. CH Dog

    Mr. Speaker : Order. I draw to the attention of the House the fact that there are 27 groups of amendments to be debated on the subsequent Bill and that there is an order after that. I shall allow questions on this matter to continue until 5.15 pm. I ask those hon. Members who are called to be brief because it will enable as many hon. Members as possible to be included.

    Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland) : While expressing our sympathy to the victims of these appalling attacks and welcoming the Government’s proposed ban on two species of fighter dogs, does not the Home Secretary recognise that, in proposing his Bill in such vague and uncertain terms, he betrays the Government’s unwillingness to tackle the problem of dangerous dogs at root? He has not even made it plain that, in respect of the two breeds to be banned, he is prepared to take the advice of those who say that neutering would be adequate.

    Why has the Home Secretary set his face against measures more comprehensive than those which will apply to the two breeds? Of the 465 cases of serious dog attacks in the metropolis of London in the past year, only 111 were by American pit bull terriers. The Home Secretary may believe that it is adequate to tackle a quarter of the problem, but many people in Britain will feel that the Government are falling sadly short.

    Mr. Baker : The measures that I have announced represent a comprehensive package affecting all breeds of dogs. The measures on dogs which are out of control in a public place and on control orders involving muzzling of specific dogs have the strong support of the Kennel Club and the RSPCA. The hon. Gentleman asked why I did not take the advice that the specified families of dangerous dogs should simply be neutered. I have discussed the matter with the various interests. The answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is that, if dogs can be made safe by neutering, I shall be prepared to consider it. However, my advice is that a neutered dog can be just as vicious.

    The important point to appreciate about pit bull terriers and other cross- breeds is that they are completely unpredictable. That marks them out from other dogs. They can be friendly and docile one minute and complete killers the next. After the last three incidents, the owners said, “Our dog could not possibly have done that. It was friendly.” I shall, of course, consider neutering, but I would have to be satisfied that it would secure safety.
    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the words of Mr. Roger Mugford, one of the most highly regarded animal psychologists in Britain and a writer on dogs. He said : “All pit bulls go bad--it is just a countdown from when they are 12 months old.”

    Mr. Robert Hayward (Kingswood) : My right hon. Friend will be aware of a tragic case in my constituency last year. When the case ultimately came to court, the magistrate did not order the destruction of the dog, even though the hospital had to place 100 stitches in a young girl’s face and upper body. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that, in the legislation and in his discussions with the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney-General, magistrates are given strict and clear guidelines that dogs should be destroyed in such tragic cases?

    Mr. Baker : I appreciate my hon. Friend’s concern about that incident. He has seen me about it. It would be wrong for me as Home Secretary or, I suspect, for the Lord Chancellor to comment on the sentence passed by a court. However, I am sure that the fact that he has mentioned it in the House will be noticed by many people.
    Mr. Terry Lewis (Worsley) : I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement this afternoon, especially as two of the items in it were clearly addressed in early-day motion 840, which I tabled before the three tragic accidents last weekend. May I go further with the Home Secretary and reiterate what my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said about a dog registration scheme? I shall certainly support today’s announcement when it is translated into a Bill. However, it does not go nearly far enough. It does not address other
    problems with dogs in society, which the Home Secretary must tackle.

    We need a comprehensive Dogs Act and a neutering programme, we must stop puppy farming and we must engage in an exercise to promote responsible dog ownership. That can be done only through a dog registration scheme. Only the fossilised remains who run the Kennel Club are opposed to such a scheme. Every other organisation in the land which has the welfare of animals and especially dogs at heart is in favour of a scheme. We shall have a scheme in Britain. If the Home Secretary is not forced by the political consequences of the dithering that has taken place to introduce a scheme before the general election, we shall introduce one after it.

    Mr. Baker : I will say to the hon. Gentleman what I said to the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook. I do not believe that, if a registration scheme had been in operation, it would have had any effect on the recent incidents. Many of the owners of these breeds of dog would pay scant regard to registration. I must be frank with the House on that. When I talk to police forces about some of the people who own such dogs, they tell me that such people would not register. I appreciate that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook would try to enforce this scheme, but I remind him that, in the Republic of Ireland, where there is a dog registration scheme, in spite of attempts to enforce it, the authorities have managed to register only a third of dogs so far.

    Mr. Andrew Hargreaves (Birmingham, Hall Green) : I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement today. He may not be aware of a recent case in my constituency in Yardley Wood, in which a young girl was severely attacked by the family pet, which was not one of the dangerous breeds that he has specified. The attack happened while the dog was being fed. Therefore, I welcome the emphasis that my right hon. Friend has placed on responsible ownership. I hope that he will do all that he can further to promote responsible ownership of dogs.

    Mr. Baker : I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said. Fortunately, the great majority of dog owners are responsible. One can never exclude the possibilities of incidents in the home with any sort of dog. One only hopes that the dog has been trained by the owner to ensure that incidents do not take place.

    Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : Does the Home Secretary accept that his announcement is welcome but belated? If it were not for Rucksana Khan’s tragic accident, the Government would not have taken action, despite a long list of similar accidents. Why does not the Home Secretary take immediate action to add such breeds as rottweilers and dobermans, which are also responsible for serious accidents, to the schedule of the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976? That would immediately give powers to local authorities to license owners, inspect premises and ensure that proper standards are maintained, bearing in mind public safety.

    Why does not the Home Secretary ensure that the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 and the provisions of the Animal Health Act 1981 on muzzling are enforced as a matter of urgency, rather than wait for the legislation to come to the House, when a dozen more accidents might take place in the meantime?

    Mr. Baker : The hon. Gentleman has not studied it in enough detail. If he had studied the Act a little more carefully, he would have discovered that canus familiaris is specifically excluded from the Act. Therefore, I could not designate certain dogs. That is the reason why we are introducing a measure to identify a group of dogs. We cannot call them a breed. They are a species of dogs and a series of cross-breeds that have to be defined as carefully as we can to ensure that we cover them properly and make sure that the courts will be able to take action against them. One thing that is agreed between the RSPCA, the Kennel Club, the British Veterinary Association and ourselves is that we want those types of dogs to be removed from our society permanently. They made that very clear to me yesterday. What we are examining is the way in which that can be done.

    Mr. Roger Gale (Thanet, North) : My right hon. Friend will have heard the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) criticise the Government earlier this afternoon for not introducing a Bill next week. Those of us on this side of the House who are members of the all-party animal welfare group are heartily relieved that my right hon. Friend is not adopting a populist or knee-jerk reaction. We are very grateful for the level of consultation that has taken place so far. May we hope that that consultation will continue, that the level of flexibility that has already been shown will continue and that my right hon. Friend will be open to suggestions before the Bill is brought before the House?

    Mr. Baker : I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall continue to consult the various dog interests. I had useful and interesting meetings with them yesterday. As I have already said, there is an identity of interest. It was clear that the RSPCA, the Kennel Club and the British Veterinary Association want to see the elimination of these dogs from our country. They do not want them. It is a question of how we achieve that. They do not want them
    because these dogs are unpredictable. They can be very gentle one moment and killers the next. We cannot judge their behaviour in future by their behaviour in the past. We have made it very clear that we want to achieve the same objective.

    Mr. David Young (Bolton, South-East) : As a Bolton girl was involved in one of these incidents, I join those hon. Members who have expressed sympathy for the relatives and for all those who have been injured in these attacks. How does the Minister propose to deal with cross-breeding? Does he accept that, although we would agree to the putting down of animals, it ought to be a measure of last resort? How does the Minister propose quickly to make this a criminal offence so that people have easy redress? It is bad dog owners who are responsible. We can put down the dogs but not the owners. If the Minister does not intend to have dog registration, does he accept that people who own potentially dangerous dogs that are not on his list should register them at the police station, in the same way as lethal weapons are registered?

    Mr. Baker : By identifying these dogs and putting them into this category, one would be eliminating these types of dog. Those who favour neutering will realise that that is the end of the species ; if the dogs are all neutered there can be no future puppies. I have already said that I will examine all this, but it would inevitably lead to a large number of dogs being put down. I must ask the House to remember how vicious and deadly these dogs can be. They are trained to fight and to kill. The pit bull terrier has a pressure in its head of 1,000 lb per square inch. It can pull several weights weighing several thousand pounds. They are trained to do that by chasing live cats that are then fed to them.

    Sir Giles Shaw (Pudsey) : Will my right hon. Friend accept that he moved with commendable speed--I must confess almost electric, in Home Office terms, in being able to do so quite so quickly? Will he advise on whether or not the problem about bringing an owner to prosecution is affected by the fact that the dog itself has been destroyed? I understand that, if the dog is destroyed, no proceedings can be brought against the owner. Can that be put right?

    Mr. Baker : If a dog is destroyed under the changes that we propose to make, and if the owner is found to have been guilty of having it dangerously out of control in a public place, proceedings will be taken against the owner. It is always possible, of course, for civil actions to be brought against owners, if negligence can be proved.

    Mr. William Ross (Londonderry, East) : Does the Home Secretary realise that, although he has named breeds of dog, his real problem is not breeds of dog but types of dog that are bred with the blood lust in them to kill? How will he deal with that problem if he has to go to the court with each individual dog to get that dog muzzled? Surely the only sensible way to deal with the problem is to have a licensing authority that has the power either to grant or to deny a licence to keep a particular dog. Such a licence should not be granted for any dog unless the owner also has insurance against the damage that the dog might cause.

    Mr. Baker : As I said, we are dealing with a particular group of dangerous fighting dogs. It is not a question of licensing them and letting them go on. The dog interests in the country clearly want these types of dog to be removed from our society. That is the purpose and the intention. The hon. Gentleman has raised an important point about definition. All dogs are of the same species. It is not possible to determine the type of dog by a method such as DNA fingerprinting. The existence of pedigree allows us to distinguish certain breeds, but the cross-breeds are very difficult to define scientifically or legally. I have consulted experts about the definition. We plan to specify in the ban the type of dog commonly known as the pit bull terrier and the Japanese tosa, together with other dogs that appear to have been bred for fighting. I believe that these definitions can be made to stand up. We shall also take powers in the Bill to ensure that they can be tightened up should scientific knowledge in this area change and should it become easier to define dogs.

    Mr. Geoffrey Dickens (Littleborough and Saddleworth) : As a former breeder and show judge of great Danes-- [Interruption.] I know that we all look like our pets, but do not be rude to me--and also as a former boarding kennel owner, may I say that the vast majority of the big breeds have lovely natures? It is only a tiny minority that are bred by irresponsible breeders. Bona fide breeders will not use bad temperament in their breeds to produce puppies. I am sure that the Home Secretary has heard that from the Kennel Club.

    In the case of the pit bull terrier, we are talking about exterminating the complete breed. Whether we call it a breed or a species, we have a problem. Some of the pit bull terriers will be used to produce half-breeds and three -quarter-breeds. It will take an expert to decide whether it is a pit bull terrier. Notwithstanding that fact, I honestly feel that, because some of those dogs are real pets and have been with their families for many years, we ought to give their owners a reasonable time to find homes for them in countries where it is not illegal to have them. That would be a humane approach. We should not give them too long, but they ought to be given long enough, if we are to be humane.

    Mr. Baker : I had not appreciated that my hon. Friend was a big breeder. [Laughter.] I said “breeder”. I have some sympathy with his point. If some of these dogs have been imported and the countries from which they came are prepared to take them back, a reasonable time should be allowed. However, most other countries in the world are introducing legislation that is very similar to what we are doing in the United Kingdom about these dogs.

    Mr. Alan Williams (Swansea, West) : May I remind the Home Secretary that one attack every third day in the London area alone would have been avoided if only the Home Office had responded to an early-day motion tabled by 50 of us on 1 May 1990 warning of the nature of just these animals and the need to ban them. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman more precisely about compensation? That is crucial. This breed of dog is possessed all too often by people of an irresponsible nature who keeps potentially vicious breeds, such as rottweilers and dobermans, not as family pets or companions but as potential offensive weapons. Such people can be seen every day swaggering up and down the streets of our inner cities. Such irresponsible ownership cannot be tackled without dog registration. How long will the Government set their face against public opinion in this matter ?

    Mr. Baker : The hon. Lady speaks of the problem of irresponsible owners, but they are the very last people to register a dog. I do not agree with her general condemnation of certain dogs. The dogs that she mentioned are not trained to fight and kill.

    Mr. Michael Colvin (Romsey and Waterside) : In welcoming my right hon. Friend's statement, may I remind him how much the House dislikes retrospective legislation ? We shall look most carefully at the Bill's provisions for exemptions. Will he ensure that any exemptions are coupled with adequate safeguards, such as muzzling and proper insurance ? If he wants to know the sort of dog to which I refer, he has only to go to St. Stephen's entrance now and meet Mrs. Juliet Glass, who is there with three- year-old Holly, an American pit bull terrier. Holly has been spayed and my right hon. Friend and any other hon. Member who makes Holly's acquaintance will confirm that it would not hurt a flea, never mind a human being.

    Mr. Baker : The three owners of the dogs which recently committed these appalling attacks all said that the dogs were very quiet, friendly and peaceful and that people could stroke them and play with them. The characteristic of these cross-breeds is their unpredictability. They can change very quickly, and when they decide to attack, the jaws cannot be prised open. They go on until they kill. They can be muzzled in a public place, but the second of the incidents happened when grandparents were with their granddaughter. It is unreasonable to think that a dog can be muzzled throughout its life.

    Mr. John McAllion (Dundee, East) : The Home Secretary referred to different degrees of seriousness in attacks involving American pit bull terriers. I remind him that my constituent, Kelly Lynch, was killed in a savage attack by two rottweilers more than two years ago. Her family and friends will not be convinced that the right hon. Gentleman's statement shows that the Government have acted urgently or adequately.

    Does not the right hon. Gentleman understand that, without the dog registration scheme, he cannot begin to know the true levels of ownership of dangerous dogs? Without an adequate licence fee, the resources will not be available to establish a national network of effective dog warden schemes. Without those two basic building blocks, the whole edifice of dog control that he has announced will be built on sand and will not survive.

    Mr. Baker : I have commented on our views about the registration scheme, but I continue to be unpersuaded that it would have a significant effect. On the question of rottweilers, as I said, the RSPCA and the Kennel Club, both of which support a ban on the ownership of pit bulls, would not support a ban on rottweilers, which are a recognised breed of dog. I am not convinced that rottweilers fall into the same category of unpredictable viciousness as pit bull terriers.

    Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo (Nottingham, South) : As with dangerous weapons when carried in a public place, we have, in the public interest, reversed the presumption of innocence. Could we not use the same approach to deal with what will inevitably be the grey area of defining a pit bull terrier? The last thing that we want is for a smart alec lawyer to drive a coach and horses through much-needed legislation the first time that it comes to court.

    Mr. Baker : I take my hon. Friend's comment, and I think that he makes a good point. If there is a dispute about whether a dog is of a banned type, the dog owner will have an opportunity to prove that the dog is not a pit bull, a tosa or another banned type by producing a certificate from two veterinary surgeons. That is an important safeguard, but in cases of doubt, the onus will be on the owner to prove that his dog should not be banned.

    Mr. Brian Wilson (Cunninghame, North) : Many of my constituents will be extremely disappointed that the Minister is again setting his face against a dog registration scheme, which is seen as the sine qua non of the control of many aspects of dogs' behaviour. Will he clarify how today's statement relates to Scotland? It is most unusual for the Home Secretary to give a statement that covers Scotland. Indeed, I understand from a note that I received from the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland who has had to leave the Front Bench that the legislation will be amended under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982. As the Home Secretary is the only Minister to make a statement today, can he say whether, if there will be separate legislation for Scotland, it will be open to the Committee that deals with it to suggest separate proposals relevant to the Scottish experience as related by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) and by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan)? In Scotland, no more than a quarter of the deeply worrying incidents that take place would relate to the species covered by the announcement today. It must go wider, and I should like the Home Secretary's assurance that, in Scottish terms, it can go wider.

    Mr. Baker : My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has agreed that the legislation should extend to Scotland which shares much of its legislation for controlling dogs with England and Wales.

    Mr. Jim Lester (Broxtowe) : With regard to third party insurance, my right hon. Friend might be reassured to know that most people who have comprehensive house insurance, whether or not they have a dog, will find that third party insurance for a dog's actions is already included so that there is no need to have an additional policy. My right hon. Friend is already undertaking consultation, but will he also consult the National Canine Defence League, of which I am a council member and which has a valid point to make about people, dogs and breeds, so that he has a complete consultation procedure with all those who take an interest in the welfare of dogs and in their continuation?

    Mr. Baker : On the latter point, I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. On insurance, it is perfectly true that some insurance policies--but by no means all--cover damage caused by dogs. However, very few insurance companies will cover the insurance of fighting breeds and, indeed, specifically refuse to do so. The companies have no difficulty in defining a fighting breed to justify their refusal of insurance.

    Mr. John Fraser (Norwood) : Does the Home Secretary recall that after disclosures in the South London Press I put down a motion asking for an import ban on tosa dogs? At the time, I was advised that the powers to ban the import of those dogs did not exist. If the Home Secretary is satisfied that he has those powers, which he exercised from midnight, what exactly are they? If he is not certain about them, will he ensure that the law is amended so that he has the power to ban the import of dogs on the basis of breed and characteristics?

    Mr. Baker : I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the powers do exist under the Department of Trade and Industry's legislation and they were exercised last night. The difficulty has been to define the type of dog. It is easier to define a pedigree dog than to define a cross-breed. We now believe that we have a set of definitions which will stand up to scrutiny. It is important that we act--and I shall have the powers to do so--to ensure that new types of dogs can be added to the banned list. I understand that there is only one tosa dog in the country, so we can take action now rather than 10 years on, when there would be debates about trying to eliminate a large number of dogs. Indeed, if we had taken the appropriate action with the American pit bull terriers in 1976, we should not be dealing with this problem today. I gather that at least three other breeds are being trained to fight and kill and we must ensure that they do not come to this country. As soon as we know and can define them, we can put them on the banned import list.

    Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark (Birmingham, Selly Oak) : Having had the doubtful pleasure of being bitten by a rottweiler--

    Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West) : Did the dog die?

    Mr. Beaumont-Dark : No, the dog lived too. There is a growing problem with guard dogs, of which rottweilers and dobermans are the well-known breeds. Although we talk about the savage injuries caused by the two dreadful breeds of fighting dogs, nearly all the injuries are caused by rottweilers and dobermans. The interbreeding of those dogs is a time bomb which is just about coming home. Many young people are now growing up fearful of big dogs. Unless we have a way to control the big breeds in public so that they are at least muzzled or controlled by their owners, a generation of young people will miss the great joy and pleasure of owning dogs which is experienced by many hon. Members.

    Mr. Baker : The size of a dog does not necessarily have anything to do with its viciousness. Some large dogs are completely safe, such as the St. Bernard and the Irish wolfhound, which was once trained for hunting wolves but which has been bred over the centuries not to be a savage dog. I do not want to give the impression that a large dog is necessarily more dangerous and vicious than a small one. We had considered a definition of the size and weight of dogs, but it does not apply--one must examine the characteristics of a breed.

    Mr. Hattersley : May I urge the Home Secretary to understand that he has been questioned about two different dimensions of the problem? The first is the specified breeds, and I believe that almost the entire House will support him in their banning and eventual extinction. The second dimension deals with attacks by dogs that are not the specified breeds. A dog's motives are hardly important--whether it was bred to fight is no consolation to the person who may be savagely and desperately attacked by a dog that was purchased for another purpose.
    It is because of our concern to limit attacks by other dogs that we want to see a number of proposals to make the owners more responsible. The programme to make owners more responsible has at its heart a national dog register. There is widespread support for such a register. This is not an appropriate matter for party controversy--there is no ideology in the issue of a dog register. When the scheme comes before the House--as it will--will there be a free vote?

    Mr. Baker : It is not for me to determine such matters, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman appreciates. I have made my views on dog registration known. I do not believe that it is the panacea that Opposition Members deeply believe it to be. However, I know that the right hon. Gentleman has sought to be helpful, and I appreciate that. I am grateful for his support of the proposals to deal with the dangerous breeds. As I said, I shall introduce wider measures to make it a criminal offence to have a dog dangerously out of control in a public place and measures to give court powers to be more specific in the control orders on dogs, which will extend to all breeds. I am anxious to put that package on to the statute book as quickly as possible.
  2. oldguy

    oldguy CH Dog

    Does anyone actually know how many dogs were taken and euthanized by the UK government authorities after the DDA was introduced in 1991? I despise the government and RSPCA over that law.. Their media propaganda machine used every dirty trick in the book to wipe pit bulls clean out of existence.. Their RSPCA special operations officer (Mike Butcher) is a sick scabrous rat who took children's pets as well as alleged fighting dogs and 'so called' UK dogmen who posed for photos with Butcher should hang their heads in shame and remember the one and only 'Odbod' RIP who knocked the bastard spark out!
    oldtymer, david63, Finito and 2 others like this.
  3. What a load of shit!........what a group of puffters.what a group of fucking ponces.a group of ponces who no fuck all about dogs.bastards!.all the dogs what bit people were kept in the wrong environment.or they were bread shit.some of them aren't even bulldogs!.there's still the same mutts on every city street today!.I have seen loads of theses mutts.some of the shit I have heard of there stupid chavy owner's is unbelievable.I'm not gonna tell you the shit because we would be here all year!.plus every one will of met a idiot like that at some point.I fucking hate such people.they should never get there hands on one of these dogs.it's my opinion that's why all them bullshit laws were rushed through parliament.because of people who don't look after there dog's.don't contain them properly.don't no how work with the dog.don't take in to consideration how much dog it is!!...did these bullshit laws stop people or children getting bit?no!.all these bullshit laws will have made all the chavs want a "pitbull".I heard one chav say once "coz I'm an illegal,mays well have a illegal dog".I mean these sort of people shouldn't even own a gold fish.let a loan is bulldog,or anything with bulldog in it.I have spoke to many of this sort.even nearly had fights with some of them.now when I see a dog on a city street that could be a bulldog,I don't ask it's owner any more.in every city there is loads of staffs that are blue and the plod class them as "pit bulls "..so do there fucked up owners!..every "pit bull" in these places is brown and huge.none of there owners no not one America dog man's name.but all claim there dogs are "pure".it's my opinion(and i could well be wrong as I was a small child when that law come in.)that because of chavy wannabe gangster tough guy pet owners,that's why that law came in.as any serious folk would never let there dogs run loose,serious folk would never have a dodgey one,serious folk cull,chavs dont,and the list go's on and on.sorry for the rant,but it all pisses me of.especially when the group of ponces sit in parliament making out like they no shit.I mean they keeps saying the pit bull is a cross bread dog?they keep saying there unpredictable?(any breed of dog can be to some degree)they keep saying that one day they will all turn nasty?.I mean there saying all this as if there familiar with the breed?when there not!.there saying all this based on the evidence that the chavs say!.chavs or gangsters do not no a thing about the a.p.b.t.............sorry for the rant and bad spelling.I haven't much sleep.........
    stedz and oldguy like this.
  4. stedz

    stedz Top Dog

    I tell you what made me sick,there were actually SBT show people who helped the Goverment implement the DDA,to protect their own breed,some of them even acted on behalf of the prosecution in court cases,where the fuck did they think their dogs came from.Very very low people,as bad as the scabs during the miners strike.
    david63, oldguy and Soze the killer like this.
  5. I agree stedz.it's fucking terrible.that's another reason I don't like show people.another thing what pisses me of.I mean really pisses me of.is that when something bad with these dogs happends,the police force,rspca,and public vets,are all deamd as "experts" .....I mean come on!.experts?.how?.how the fuck could they be?......
    david63 likes this.
  6. oldguy

    oldguy CH Dog

    In 1991 I was sat around a big wooden table with big Dan from East End Kennel, he was a mountain of a man in all ways and I respected him immensely! He looked at me and said "I can't believe they done it!" He was of course referring to the government passing the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 through Parlaiment.. As much as I admired Danny, I couldn't understand why he was so surprised? The government had already decimated the miners, steel workers and shipyard workers.. There was inner city riots going off all over Britain because Thatcher's boot boys in the police were killing people (black and white) for sport.. It was a war against the British working class, an end to the old ways and traditions and the working dog community were seen as abusing their power of assembly, I think the government was wary of any organised group getting together much the same as they're wary of social media and the internet today, anything that empowered the common man they tried to stamp out! The RSPCA were handed huge powers through the DDA and man did they use/abuse it! I know of dogs taken by the RSPCA, starved and left in their own filth, used for propaganda photographs to shock the public into donating more cash, then euthanized once they served their purpose.. The RSPCA is nothing but a cynical, money laundering organised crime gang who only made a U turn on Pitbulls after the wider public caught on to their persecution of the breed and stopped donating money.
    david63 and Finito like this.
  7. stedz

    stedz Top Dog

    Old guy, I know too true what you are saying is absolutely 1oo per cent right. I was very friendly with a sbt man who actually stood on the right side of the fence, he fought against the dda, in court cases etc.He was involved in the case against Brit boys, on the defence and had access to the holding kennels where those dogs were kept,he tried desperately to stop the dogs getting destroyed,what he saw deeply affected him,he told me he used to make weekly visits to see those dogs,and he could see them going downhill week by week,a lot of them died in custody and the ones that were still alive,at the end of the case were like skeletons..They were deprived of everything food exercise veterinary attention the lot. As for the RSPCA they probably kill more Animals in this country,than anybody or organisation in the country.As for the working class well we are sometimes our own worst enemy,ever read the book The ragged trouser philanthropists? Did you see the one show this week,they did this feature on food banks,and how people would be starving and or on the street without them,then they went back to the studio and did a feature on the Royal wedding for fucks sake!
    david63 likes this.
  8. stedz

    stedz Top Dog

    Anyway mate,dont tell me a big reason you were interested in that Willies ploughboy dog,wasn,t because of all that Turtlebuster blood behind it as well lol.
  9. stedz

    stedz Top Dog

    plowboy willie.
  10. oldguy

    oldguy CH Dog

    Aargh! Bust again! haha!
    stedz likes this.

Share This Page