-Mongrel-

That, is lovely!

First things first, a tragic and avoidable loss of a young life, very sad indeed. There is, in my opinion, a responsibility that lies with the mother, she let her child down on this one, but the rehoming centre too though. As someone said, why would you allow a bulldog with no history to be homed with kids? Why even would you rehome a bulldog in a home with no garden ? They too must bear responsibility for irresponsible rehoming! As for the knee jerk reactionary ****. Not on my watch. It is the irresponsible owners who need to be dealt with, not the responsible owners and dogs that should be penalised with blanket legislation. The old peach of muzzling dogs in public is trotted out again in the original post...how exactly would this help when the majority of serious attacks happen 'at home'?

Enough money to be able to buy a home outright, ideally with some landing, a small holding would be beyond dreams. I don't need millions, just...enough.

Could be worse, a mate and I got rinsed by a bunch of kids on 125's at Sillystone last year and I was on a Zx6R (or was it the year before?). Anyway we would murder them down the straights only to have them darting up the inside and outside on the slower stuff! Mind you, Taylor Mackenzie and Dakota Mamola were amongst them!

Miss-cher-vuss

Brands Hatch Indy on my Honda Hornet 600. There is something deeply satisfying about riding around the outside of litre sports bikes

Once it's in the blood, no getting rid of it! Not tucked the Blackbird away yet, there's still time for a sneaky blast.

The fact that one 'old rad loop' is stopping the flow to the next rad would suggest this could well be an old one pipe system.

Buy a stirrup pump then mate. You'll be kicking yourself when a shooting opportunity arises and you have an empty gun! http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Air-rifle-stirrup-pump-logun-/171157629550?pt=UK_SportingGoods_Hunting_ShootingSports_ET&hash=item27d9ca2a6e

Very likely the problem yes.

Nobody but shooters would pick up on the potential safety aspect and as far as I'm concerned, ANYTHING that shows shooting to the general public in a positive light HAS to be a good thing. I quite enjoyed it, particularly the first 5 shots...for no pigeons! Was it me or did one of them stick his finger down the end of the semi auto to check the choke tightness?

To be honest, I couldn't agree more and to go further I'd say owners should be capable of controlling their dogs off the lead. Unfortunately, in the real world neither is the case in many circumstances. That is the fault of the owner not the dog. Again, agreed. The classic one of picking up the little dog when a big dog comes over to say hello, then spazzing out when the big dog still wants to sniff small dog and lifts its nose to do so, small dog is restricted and vulnerable and so kicks off and it all goes Pete Tong with the owner rapidly! Generally the owner of the little one blames the other for the big dog being out of control when all it's done is sniff at another dog. Problem with the owner again, dog's not trained, simple as that. I see your point about at least one dog is under some control, but are you sure the tight lead and holding him back doesn't make him more anxious? Anyway, ALL of the above points are owner issues more than dog issues, so tell me again, why do I muzzle my dogs if it's because there are bad owners out there?

That is now the norm around Brighton and I'm told, most of the South East.

Leads might work, except you'd have dogs chewing their homes to bits as they're inadequately exercised. Mental exercise? Pointless! I have a Labrador! The other one is a Ridgeback X Mastiff, so laid back he's horizontal, keep him fed and walked and he's happy as a pig in muck.

Which could, depending on the contract, put you in rent arrears. IF the LL is a big enough ****, he could then have you blacklisted.

Flawed logic then IMO. I've also seen two dogs that were on leads tear chunks out of each other before the owners recovered enough to pull them apart. Sometimes dogs fight, it's like people, it's pretty much unavoidable without putting so many restrictions on them as to make ownership undesirable or untenable. Even muzzled dogs will still rough and tumble and potentially injure each other. Where would you stop? There's that many dog owners, I don't think any of the political parties would have the stomach for upsetting the majority of them with draconian legislation anyway.

Not always.

Not sure what makes you think the OP's dog would have been safer on a lead, my reading is that the mastiff type would have attacked wherever it found the dog. I am not able to discern the thoughts of all dogs either, what a daft comment. I am able to comment on what I've experienced though and that's all it was.

Are you suggesting that they are safer on a lead Gordon? I'd beg to differ on that one. Many dogs seem to feel more vulnerable on a lead and become agitated and more likely to 'lash out' far quicker than they do if off lead. If this happens then a bad reaction in return is almost inevitable, perhaps the other dogs sense that vulnerability. This is not my two I'm referring to, they are reactive rather than proactive, but it's something I see regularly.

Rip the kitchen out and you will become liable for the new kitchen and fitting of it. If I was him, I'd have you through the courts for it. Nothing to lose and pretty cut and dried. However, IF the place is still in decent order, has been well looked after and left in good condition, then speak with the TDS and let things take their course. He can't expect 3 years worth of rent for no maintenance costs.

Is this legal? I'm assuming you both have keys? I only ask as I hold my stepsons shotgun, but both his and my FEO insisted that his gun was put on my ticket, and if he had independent access to the safe then all my guns needed to go on his. This is Sussex and Surrey police forces.

That may be an area thing. 3 dive shops locally, all can fill to 300 bar and 2 are trimix certified.

But it's not the law and I'd do my utmost to help ensure it doesn't become law. This has parallels with the lead/steel shot debacle in as much as it's a minority of muppets doing the damage. But would you insist the majority are penalised because of that minority? Why should responsible dog owners with non-aggressive dogs be forced to change what they do without good reason?

Live and learn, I assumed that because they did a 15lt 232, they'd make a 300. I still use my old 15 litre from my diving days.

I have no intention of muzzling either of my dogs and leaving them unable to defend themselves. I have no intention of keeping them on a lead when I walk them either. Dogs NEED to be exercised, it is generally accepted that adequately exercised dogs are calmer and better behaved. You are not going to achieve adequate exercise for most breeds by lead walking them. Mine would comfortably do 5 miles and be up for 10 more if on lead. Neither of mine are aggressive, I have never seen either of them initiate a scrap but both have been involved in dog fights. IF either become aggressive, then fair enough, I will put a muzzle on it, until then I won't put them in a position of being unable to defend. I would be more than a little put out if laws were passed forcing this sort of thing on us because the 'chav' element (and I use the term very loosely, there are plenty of well heeled, inadequate dog owner/trainers,) insist on failing to train and control their dogs, leaving the rest of us to pay for their stupidity. Oh, and probably unsurprisingly I'm with the OP on the subject of removing the dog, use the most expedient method available and if that's a swift size 10 so be it. If it was my dog doing the attacking I'd understand it getting a boot too. People are amazingly protective of their dogs.