Another childs life taken

[toontastic]

Very sad indeed, too many people get dogs purely as status symbols and don't have a clue about looking after them. Recently visited a shelter in newcastle looking for a rescue dog and left empty handed as all they could offer me were staffies.

[chrispti]

Seems the mother of the girl stabbed the dog to death in an attemp to stop it mauling her child.......

[Imperfection]

Oh dear.Its people like this who have made this country a nanny state. Whats next? Ban anything slightly pointy or sharp? Ban cars which go faster than 70mph? Ban the internet?

[daz2202]

Sad - yes

Should the dog have been there with child on its own -no

 

Responsibility is the word here we are looking for.

 

Should the home that had the dog knowing its history given it to a family with children (or anyone really)

 

Should the parents have left the dog with the child unattended

 

More than one here guilty of not being responsible. And this equates to another victim- a young girl that has lost her life

[Paddy Galore!]

, better checks made by kennels regarding who they give their dogs to would help, they need to take more responsibility.

[victorismyhero]

limit dogs to an overall length of 60cm and breed them so the jaws cannot repeatedly open and close.

better still...neuter the "jeremy kyle" types BEFORE they get chance to breed...

On Risk...

 

Life is inherently "risky", in fact living kills, so are we to legislate all risk out of our lives in order to save a few lives...dont get me wrong, the death of this child is a tragedy that should not have happened, It was an avoidable risk, but that avoidance is down to the PARENTS. It is NOT societies role to mitigate these kinds of risk. (As distinct from having laws that theoretically stop folks having vicious dogs trained to attack folks for fun/gain/whatever.)

 

The difference is like that of health and safety, rightly we (as a society) have laws that protect workers from dangerous practices within their working environment, otherwise people would be exploited and considered expendable by employers, however the SAME rules rightly do not extend to peoples domestic life. It is not illegal to use a ladder without safety precautions AT HOME. It is not illegal to use a saw table without guards AT HOME, and rightly so, since THEN it is up to the individual to use his/her own best judgement and if they foul up, hard luck. (the first rule of health and safety for the DIY'er....dont put your hand where you wouldnt put your d**k).

To do as the OP suggests would mean that everyones home workshop would HAVE to comply with current H&S rules, which would be impractical, AND everyone who wished to use a power tool would have to undergo training....yer....right....

 

So some risk is inevitable, some is made worse by individual stupidity, lack of good sense and judgement, but non the less, overall the level of actual harm (to society as a whole, rather than the unfortunate individual) is minimal, and therfor legislation is too blunt and intrusive a tool to use.

 

The risk from vehicular deaths and injury is FAR FAR higher than that from dog attacks on a scale of 1000's to 1 yet no one is suggesting any effective changes there...I wonder why?

 

If we legislate out ALL risk we would do nothing...no sport no vehicles...in fact no anything....and we would then all go to war out of boredom...

[nobbyathome]

 

Sadly another child has had its life ended by a Dog attack.

When are people going to realise that Dogs and unsupervised children just don’t mix especially those which are potentially stronger and more powerful than their owners and cannot be restrained.

We will now have the inquest, more postulating and rhetoric, sympathy and remorse but nothing seems to get done about it.

Surely its time for a serious and radical root and branch overhaul of dog ownership regulations in this country.

In my opinion all dogs should be licenced and micro chipped at Birth.

i agree with this comment and it is a great idea

Indiscriminate breeding should be banned and applications made through an appropriate authority to do so. This would stop breeding just for financial gain.

total rubbish how did financial gain cost this child its life?

we as humans have been breeding dogs since the cave man nothing will change and what authority would you like to monitor it? i can not think of one that has our safty in mind anytime regulations are put on all it does is cost owners money for nothing

Owners should apply to have a dog, be vetted and their reasons for wanting a dog should be considered as well as their personal circumstances, age of any children they may have and the environment they live in.

again rubbish i have had 3 dogs over a period of 40 years and as a a responsable owner i decided when i had one and if i could give a dog a good life with me and my family it should stay my choice

saying that i should also be put to account if anything went wrong over the dogs lifetime

The rehoming centres are crammed full of dogs abandoned by people who shouldn’t have had access to them in the first instance, many have been indiscriminately bred and many are of the same breed variety.

they are and most of them are staffs maybe if a dog rehoming can not home them after 6 months trying should they be put down?

All dogs whatever their size should be muzzled in public places and finally it’s time to stop this cross breeding which has become fashionable it’s a ridiculous state of affairs currently..

total **** dogs should not be muzzled if it is going to bite someone it should be put to sleep

who cares about cross breeding if you want something different its the only way

I was looking for a dog recently in the national adds and had to troll through a endless list of dogs of the breeds..... cockapoos, springadoodles, labadoodles, jackapoodles, springadors, cavawhippet, yorkarussel, patterdoodle, weimerspringer, colliedoodle, etc etc etc….what are these stupid people doing….."I know lets cross our staffy with a spaniel call it a springastaffy and sell the pups for £600 quid “ ......WHY ??

because they can and some people are stupid enough to pay that kind of money

I don't believe any of the above measures would deter or prevent serious and conscientious owners from getting a dog and looking after it properly.

We owe it to that poor girl and others of her like before her to do something about it. Such a waste....

And please no " but my 8 stone Rottweiler loves our three toddlers and wouldn't hurt a fly even if they beat it over the head with a rolling pin " type of replies..

rant over

its my choice to have a dog regardless what breed or size or colour or temperment and it should be me the owner to take the consequences for the dogs actions

not my rant just my opinion

my condolences to the family involved

 

 

[bruno22rf]

Our local RSPCA rehoming centre refused to let us have a Jack Russell that would not stop licking my kids and wagging its tail in a frenzy because they simply did not know its history-its good to know that some organisations take responsibility. I think that the parents should face manslaughter charges and , unless the rehoming centre was lied to-they should face the same charges.

[GingerCat]

I dont trust people let alone an animal. Responsible ownership is the key but it can never negate unpredictable behaviour whatever the animal, human or otherwise.

[Mungler]

Why have a large and muscular domesticated wild animal (with teeth) in your house that you couldn't get the better of if push came to shove?

 

Insane and obviously so.

[victorismyhero]

Our local RSPCA rehoming centre refused to let us have a Jack Russell that would not stop licking my kids and wagging its tail in a frenzy because they simply did not know its history-its good to know that some organisations take responsibility. I think that the parents should face manslaughter charges and , unless the rehoming centre was lied to-they should face the same charges.

+1

[Fisherman Mike]

Do you know the meaning of "proportionate" in its "legal/political" sense?? yes a innocent childs life, a human life, is proportionally priceless.

And if you are that bothered about child fatalities.....start campaigning for car licence holders to have the same stringent requirements we as shooters have...(for instance...you do realise that you can be suffering from severe mental illness...and STILL hold your driving licence? ?) I fail to see any relevance in respect of this, the FA licencing regulations are stringent

for good reason

moreover...the above shows you have an emotional involvement in some way, you must learn to detatch from that in order to further serious debate on these kinds of subjects, and argue cold hard facts....and the cold hard facts do NOT support the implementation what you suggest... Not so and don't patronise me thank you. The cold hard facts are that a childs life has been taken which could have been prevented by proper legislation.

Indeed your arguments are similar to the hysterical and spurious arguments that got handguns banned in the aftermath of Dunblane Not at all relevant. Mass public opinion got hand guns banned. Who were in fact proportionate in the majority in the "legal/political" sense.

[al4x]

Well you certainly rose to the fly but I'm afraid your missing the point Vic.... isn't tackling child fatality due to dog attack a bigger priority than safeguarding the non legislative comforts which millions of dog owners currently enjoy... My rant wasn't entirely unconsidered and in fact I have had over 15 Dogs through my hands since childhood all safely raised, trained and cared for... so I think I do have a little bit of an understanding where these things are concerned.....

 

One thing I am confident about though is that it wont be long before the next child fatality, and that nothing tangible will ever be done to prevent it.

 

Thanks for your input nonetheless.

 

your rant is up there with the best twaddle on here as ever FM.

 

Look at the number of children killed by dogs versus the number killed by their own parents, the number killed falling from bicycles, in car accidents and all manner of other ways and you can see having a dog is an infintessimal risk.

 

But and the very big but is was this a recipe for disaster and the answer is yes, a recent rescue dog of unsuitable breed living in a council flat with a child all over it and if its ever going to happen then its a prime case.

[Fisherman Mike]

 

your rant is up there with the best twaddle on here as ever FM.

 

Look at the number of children killed by dogs versus the number killed by their own parents, the number killed falling from bicycles, in car accidents and all manner of other ways and you can see having a dog is an infintessimal risk.

 

But and the very big but is was this a recipe for disaster and the answer is yes, a recent rescue dog of unsuitable breed living in a council flat with a child all over it and if its ever going to happen then its a prime case.

OK so perhaps my proposals are rather radical...but....this will happen again and again until something is done.

[bruno22rf]

Mungler-are you talking about my wife?

[westmids1987]

Been reading about this story through the day,initially thought to be a french mastiff but now been confirmed to be a bulldog(not a cross breed),picked up from the street by dog warden then rehomed with a child,i would have thought any dog picked up from the street with no history would only be placed with experienced adult owners.

You just don't know the background and any triggers that the dog may have.

Any calls for banning certain breeds is nonsence wher to you draw the line?anything bigger then a bulldog bye bye labs,retrievers etc,

or ban bullbreeds?chavs will just turn their eye to other breeds.

People who say only small dogs when you have kids how small?a cocker could kill a small child?few years back a JRT killed a baby?smaller dog = lower pain threshhold=more likely to bite/defend itself when provoked (im generalising here)

I dont have the answers but knee jerk reactions will only punish responsible owners

[daz2202]

I love my dog and all of my past dogs. I was bought up with dogs from day dot and so have my kids.

 

My dog (springer) is not left alone (ever ) with my youngest. Even if I'm just going for a pee. It takes seconds just to shut him in the kitchen for a moment. And I trust him totally. But my kids are my prized possessions.

 

My old man had a rule, and the rule continues in my house. Never in the house will be an animal that could possibly over power me.

[Peskyfoxs]

It's not just the owners though, I know of one rescue who rehomed a German shepherd, new home didn't have kids but dog jumped over 5ft wall and headed straight for a small child and bit it. Luckily it was winter and kid was wrapped up with loads of layers and no damage done .... Rescue took dog back and rehomed. Turned out it had bitten another kid at its old home but the rescue never put a dog down as they deserve another chance, and another after that.

 

I have no idea how the dog in the news right now was assessed or how it had been treated before but any rescue dogs can have a hidden past. My springer dislikes women, I'm guessing she was battered by the woman who used to own her and has been slightly aggressive towards my wife previously. I certainly wouldn't leave any of my dogs alone with a child

 

German shepherd and springer owner (the gsd above was not mine)

[victorismyhero]

 

Do you know the meaning of "proportionate" in its "legal/political" sense?? yes a innocent childs life, a human life, is proportionally priceless. Really? then tell the warmongers that, tell the maniacs that starve and murder kids in their 1000's in other less civilised places, and FINALLY tell the drink drivers/speeders/crackheads/etc

And if you are that bothered about child fatalities.....start campaigning for car licence holders to have the same stringent requirements we as shooters have...(for instance...you do realise that you can be suffering from severe mental illness...and STILL hold your driving licence? ?) I fail to see any relevance in respect of this, the FA licencing regulations are stringent

for good reason surely THIS is the point which makes your rant illogical....If you FAIL to see the direct comparison you cannot see how your post is deeply flawed...in the UK CARS..or rather bad drivers kill FAR more kids every year than do dogs in fact more than ANY animal. YES FA licensing IS stringent, and rightly so...but so should driver licensing, yet it isnt and folks like you have a blinkered view of this as demonstrated by your reply here.

moreover...the above shows you have an emotional involvement in some way, you must learn to detatch from that in order to further serious debate on these kinds of subjects, and argue cold hard facts....and the cold hard facts do NOT support the implementation what you suggest... Not so and don't patronise me thank you. The cold hard facts are that a childs life has been taken which could have been prevented by proper legislation. But the cold hard facts, like it or not, cannot and should not in general place the individual above the majority. MOREOVER, the "proper legislation DOES in fact exist, the problem is that courts will not implement it. As another poster has said the parents in this case should be facing charges of negligent manslaughter at least.

Indeed your arguments are similar to the hysterical and spurious arguments that got handguns banned in the aftermath of Dunblane Not at all relevant. Mass public opinion got hand guns banned. Who were in fact proportionate in the majority in the "legal/political" sense. Wrong, mass public opinion is rarely. if ever "proportionate", It is generally hysterical, misinformed and whipped up by "special interests" It is never subject to rational debate.

 

hint ...proportionate (in the political/legal sense) A law or other legislation is only proportionate IF it is the LEAST intrusive measure capable of effecting the changes required (nothing to do with majorities or proportion of the population)

 

In European Union law there generally acknowledged to be four stages to a proportionality test, namely,

• there must be a legitimate aim for a measure
• the measure must be suitable to achieve the aim (potentially with a requirement of evidence to show it will have that effect)
• the measure must be necessary to achieve the aim, that there cannot be any less onerous way of doing it
• the measure must be reasonable, considering the competing interests of different groups at hand

 

the hand gun ban on the back of dunblane was neither proportionate OR logical, some would say it was a cynical political act by a PM looking for votes and supports.

 

[delburt0]

Not stereotyping here but I have read the story and really feel not only for the child but all concerned.

I do not no where My disappointment lies unfortunately

Is it with the single mother who lives in a small flat with no secure garden, actually taking a bulldog in when she knows nothing whatsoever about its tempriment, correct age, if it's been mistreat, if it's been aggressive.(you get the picture)..

Or my disappointment with the rescue centre for letting the animal actually get rehomed under the above circumstances....

God rest x

[victorismyhero]

OK so perhaps my proposals are rather radical...but....this will happen again and again until something is done.

And so will an awful lot of other things that kill children (and adults come to that). The answer is to MAKE the courts USE the already powerful existing laws..One thing we DONT need in this country is more laws fgs.

[grrclark]

I find it terribly alarming when the line of 'legislation will/would have prevented something happening'. It seems after every incident, whether it is simply accidental, irresponsible or of wilful intent that the same old argument is spouted out that there should be legislation as that would stop this ever happening again.

 

That is simply not the case, for every act of legislation ever conceived there are countless examples of people who have disobeyed it, some of which had bad consequence and some not. More legislation, especially ill conceived and inconsistently applied legislation, just serves to criminalise a larger group of people with no beneficial outcome for anyone.

 

Legislation may help to deter an act occurring from the fear of the consequence of being caught, but in order for that to happen it needs to be easily and readily policed, so increasing the risk of capture and it also has to resonate with the conscience of the person considering breaking that legislation. Irresponsible people behave irresponsibly, regardless of legislation or social acceptability or anything else, that's why they're irresponsible.

 

Regrettably people, adult or child, will always be killed by dogs, cows, window blinds cords, knives the pointy way up in dishwashers, madmen with swords or guns, drunken drivers, etc. Legislation may be part of a solution, although in this case I suspect education would be much more effective. That education should/could be delivered via mainstream media that take a rational and appropriate approach, equally animal rehoming shelters, pet shops, etc can perform a similar role.

 

 

[-Mongrel-]

Not stereotyping here but I have read the story and really feel not only for the child but all concerned.

I do not no where My disappointment lies unfortunately

Is it with the single mother who lives in a small flat with no secure garden, actually taking a bulldog in when she knows nothing whatsoever about its tempriment, correct age, if it's been mistreat, if it's been aggressive.(you get the picture)..

Or my disappointment with the rescue centre for letting the animal actually get rehomed under the above circumstances....

God rest x

 

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'?

Edited November 6, 2013 by -Mongrel-

[delburt0]

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'?

well I never mongrel ',,,,we agree at last well said...

Atb delburt0....

[-Mongrel-]

well I never mongrel ',,,,we agree at last well said...

Atb delburt0....

 

 

Hang on, I'll go back and modify it!!!