Muzzle That Guard Dog

There’s been much hyperbole in the news of late regarding dangerous dogs, much of it suggesting that somehow chipping dogs will magically stop the dangerous ones from biting people –  and of course, chipping your Labrador will have no effect on the scrote who keeps a pitbull and ignores the legislation. And we can be sure which of you will be the one whose pooch is checked by the authorities, can’t we? However, if you hope that your mutt will still be able to deal with intruders think again.

Courts will have the power to jail dog owners for two years or impose a £5,000 fine if animals cause injuries while “dangerously out of control” in their own homes, under the plans.

And by that, they mean:

However, government officials admitted that burglary victims were not “immune” from prosecution if they allow their “dangerously out of control” pets to savage intruders.

Biting the postman’s leg is, I agree, dangerously out of control. Doing the same to an intruder intent on doing you harm or depriving you of your property, is I feel perfectly reasonable force. Besides, as is pointed out in the piece, a dog is not expected to understand the nuances of “reasonable force”. As far as it is concerned, the family home is being violated and it is merely following its instincts to defend it.

There was a time when people kept dogs for that very purpose. No longer so it seems, in our topsy-turvey world where the burglar is proffered the protection of the law and Rover is destroyed for doing his duty.

31 comments for “Muzzle That Guard Dog

  1. wiggiatlarge
    April 24, 2012 at 4:43 pm

    This act will not make one iota of difference in the area its intended to and your article is 100% correct.

  2. Tattyfalarr
    April 24, 2012 at 4:52 pm

    I’m of a generation that was punished and will accept the consequences of my actions. So do what you must but step over my doorstep intent on doing me and mine harm and I’ll go down fighting with every last breath in my body.

    Can’t speak for my dogs (idiot boxers) but can take a wild guess they’d probably do the same.

    If TPTB and the criminals they protect can threaten to do their worst then so can I. We’ll see who wins.

  3. David A. Evans
    April 24, 2012 at 5:00 pm

    Any damage done to an intruder is, in my view, the responsibility of said intruder.

    DaveE.

    • April 24, 2012 at 5:28 pm

      Indeed.

      • Tattyfalarr
        April 25, 2012 at 12:57 am

        David Cameron said not so very long ago that burglars leave their Human Rights at the door.

        The government recently got the blame for people panic buying petrol and some braindead bint setting fire to herself in her own kitchen.

        Therefore it’s HIS fault if me and my dogs shred an intruder in our home. We can all play stupid when we need to.

  4. DerekP
    April 24, 2012 at 5:15 pm

    “…government officials admitted that burglary victims were not “immune” from prosecution if they allow their “dangerously out of control” pets to savage intruders…”

    Exactly how is the homeowner to know if the intruder is a burglar, or someone with far nastier intentions?

    Really the onus is on the burglar to make sure not to invade a home where people are present, as otherwise this intruder is showing the intention, maybe even desire, to physically over-power the occupants.

    It is a sign of how stupid and out of touch our government and its busybody officials are that you have to rub their faces in the distinction between ‘letting a dog dangerously run wild’ and ‘protecting against a dangerous intruder’.

    Any homeowner who is prosecuted for their dog mauling an intruder should make sure to take the matter to a jury trial and publicise the issue.

    It may also be time to start publicly identifying bureaucrats and politicians who attempt to impose this rubbish on us, rather than the bland identifier ‘government officials’.

    • April 24, 2012 at 5:30 pm

      Any intruder intent upon nefarious activity should forfeit any legal protections whatsoever, irrespective of whether they intend to steal or commit worse crimes. The dog that mauls them should get a medal, not the needle.

      • DerekP
        April 24, 2012 at 6:01 pm

        “Any intruder intent upon nefarious activity should forfeit any legal protections whatsoever…”

        Yes, that’s the nub of it.

        Laws made to advantage the intruder against the homeowner are unjust and promote what would have been called dangerous criminal activity, in earlier times when weapons were available for self-defence.

        • April 24, 2012 at 10:05 pm

          You see where this is going — your house is no longer your castle, your property is no longer your own.

          (Serious comment — on a par with the recent ‘Oldies, give up your terraced houses — other people need them’.)

      • Voice of Reason
        April 27, 2012 at 3:35 pm

        That is the law in my state. The police do prefer that you drag the corpse into the house, as it means less paperwork.

    • cdbro
      April 25, 2012 at 3:42 am

      “the bland identifier Government Officials” – Who are they?
      Surely it’s time to put names to these overly powerful people who take advantage of our poor leadership.
      The spawn of Oxford lack commonsense and these ‘officials’ take the fullest advantage of ‘garbage in, garbage out’.

  5. April 24, 2012 at 5:19 pm

    *appalled*

    *but not in the least surprised*

    • April 24, 2012 at 5:28 pm

      Neither am I.

  6. Mudplugger
    April 24, 2012 at 6:05 pm

    Merely chipping dogs achieves nothing – the missing link is having an accessible database of registered owners. Expensive – nope, they already have the model in their own back-yard.

    The DVLA system for registering vehicle keepers, including timed legal obligations to notify any change of keeper or scrappage/export, could work exactly the same with dogs.

    The ‘chip’ is the Registration Number and the current registered owner would have full legal liability for any offences committed by that hound. Any dog on the street could be scanned by any passing Plod and checked on-line against the ‘DVLA’ – if the chip’s not there or doesn’t match, it’s an instant fine, the dog gets ‘towed away’ and, if not legalised within 7 days, it gets ‘scrapped’. Sorted.

    And if they charged £25 for each change of ownership, the system would be cash-neutral.

    True, the responsible dog-owners would obey immediately, but the trophy-dog chavs would soon get the message after a few of theirs had been towed away and scrapped.

    • April 24, 2012 at 9:15 pm

      Then cats? FFS haven’t you had enough of regulations, fines and bloody databases? Why they add postmen as a reason for this proposed crap is beyond me … the postman knows where the dog lives … he’s delivering letters there!

      • Tattyfalarr
        April 25, 2012 at 12:59 am

        Best of luck to any vet that tries to stick something sharp into one of my moggies to chip ’em, that’s all I can say. They better be wearing welders goggles and gloves.

        • April 25, 2012 at 8:27 am

          Our cats are all chipped as it was a requirement for their passports when travelling to (and back from) France. It is also useful for the catflap as this works on the chips – non chipped animals cannot get in. Oddly enough, none of them made a fuss about it.

          • Tattyfalarr
            April 26, 2012 at 1:26 am

            Oddly enough, none of them made a fuss about it.

            They’re just biding their time…

      • cdbro
        April 25, 2012 at 3:43 am

        Then on to hamsters?

  7. The Travelling Toper
    April 24, 2012 at 8:08 pm

    The thought of police constables scanning dogs on the street just about sums this country up.

  8. David A. Evans
    April 24, 2012 at 11:52 pm

    Muzzle the legislature!

    • dragon
      May 9, 2012 at 12:39 pm

      Put down the legislature!

  9. Maaarrghk!
    April 25, 2012 at 5:32 am

    Is it not the RESPONSIBILITY of the intruder to carry out a full risk assessment and present a method statement to the intended victim before commencing “work” on “site”?

    I really don’t see how the site owner can otherwise be held responsible for any injuries sustained.

    • April 25, 2012 at 8:28 am

      It is if the risk assessment is inadequate…

  10. April 25, 2012 at 5:34 am

    The stupidity of this (and the recent ‘we’ll chip all puppies!’ promise, which I strongly suspect is being driven by the RSPCA, to drive work to them) proposed change is that ‘the authorities’ already know where the dangerous dogs are and who owns them – they have simply lacked the will to do anything about it, hampered as they are by the court system.

    So any change they make is doomed to failure, because they continue to focus on the animal on the wrong end of the leash.

  11. Single Acts of Tyranny
    April 25, 2012 at 6:42 am

    It won’t be cats they want to chip next. This is an obvious Trojan Horse.

    • April 26, 2012 at 5:20 am

      😆

  12. John
    April 25, 2012 at 6:42 am

    The RSPCA which has been campaigning hard for all dogs to be chipped.

    And who will take on responsibility to carrying out a large amount of this work and taking the fees involved? The RSPCA.

    And therein lies a substantial part of the answer I think.

  13. Maaarrghk!
    April 25, 2012 at 10:40 am

    Well they are rather short on funds since they blew a whole stack of cash on the case of a contested will the other year.

    The Grumpy Old Sod has one or two things to say about the rspca and its “officers”.

Comments are closed.