thegazbo Posted May 13, 2014 Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 New powers introduced today (Tuesday 13 May 2014) sees the legislation extended to include all private property. This means that for the first time dog owners will no longer be immune from prosecution if their dog attacks somebody in the home. The maximum sentence for the owner of a dog who kills somebody has been raised from two years to 14 years. If a person is injured from a dog attack the owner faces up to five years imprisonment. The change in legislation will also provide additional protection to people who visit homes offering essential services, including health visitors, postal staff and utility workers. The change in legislation does not protect trespassers. Attacks on assistance dogs have also been recognised in the new legislation and will be subject to a maximum sentence of three years. It's a start Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walshie Posted May 13, 2014 Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 (edited) Comment withdrawn as couldn't be bothered to read the whole thing, Edited May 13, 2014 by walshie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Essex Keeper Posted May 13, 2014 Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 The change in legislation does not protect trespassers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TaxiDriver Posted May 13, 2014 Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 New powers introduced today (Tuesday 13 May 2014) sees the legislation extended to include all private property. This means that for the first time dog owners will no longer be immune from prosecution if their dog attacks somebody in the home. The maximum sentence for the owner of a dog who kills somebody has been raised from two years to 14 years. If a person is injured from a dog attack the owner faces up to five years imprisonment. The change in legislation will also provide additional protection to people who visit homes offering essential services, including health visitors, postal staff and utility workers. The change in legislation does not protect trespassers. Attacks on assistance dogs have also been recognised in the new legislation and will be subject to a maximum sentence of three years. It's a start Oh yes, heaven forbid a burglar gets bitten. Anyone breaking in my house in the middle of the night is going to have a very large dog round their neck. Have highlighted a bit to help you out Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walshie Posted May 13, 2014 Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 Have highlighted a bit to help you out Thanks so much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted May 13, 2014 Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 The new legislation doesn't 'protect' anyone; all it does is ensure those owners responsible will face prosecution. It matters not that the minimum sentence has been raised from 2 years to 14, or 114, it offers no 'protection' to anyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirty Harry Posted May 13, 2014 Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 It may help protect people as the owners of snappy dogs might think twice about keeping them under control. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GingerCat Posted May 13, 2014 Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 As Harry says, it protects people bitten by snappy dogs who clearly don't care to much or they would correct the problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blunderbuss Posted May 13, 2014 Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 As Harry says, it protects people bitten by snappy dogs who clearly don't care to much or they would correct the problem. It doesn't protect anyone as the law will only be applied AFTER someone has been attacked. It is probably little consolation to the kid with half his face bitten off that the the dog's owner faces a stiffer penalty. Also, I can't see the sort of pond life who own "status dogs" and allow them to run amok, being deterred by such a law, or even being aware of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frenchieboy Posted May 14, 2014 Report Share Posted May 14, 2014 While it may be a move in the right direction I don't think it goes anywhere to combat the problem of these (Sometimes fatal) "unprovoked" dog attacks. So much attention and blame is put on certain breeds (Usually the Bull Terrier Types) because of "media hype" that many poeple overlook or forget the fact that any breed of dog is capable of attacking and causing severe injuries. There has beed threads in the past about PW about members who have had their dogs attacked while out exercising them so many members will recognise the potential problems. I was once bitten and needed medical attention by a colie dog which was on a lead while out walking in Townley Hall Park with no provocation whatsoever from me, which is why I think laws need to be brought into force to protect the "general public" while out in public places like having to have ALL DOGS (Regardless of their bred) muzzled while out in public places. This may on the face of it seem a little extreme but the public deserve some sort of protection while out and about in public places and going about their lawful pursuits/recreation in ANY and ALL public place. As for a dog that attacks an intruder while that intruder is trespassing (And quite likely/often up to no good) then that intruder has nothing to complain about a dog that is protecting the property. If they don't have good reason to be there then they should have to put up with and accept the consequences of their "misdemeanour or intentions"! This post may well seem a bit "controversial" but I am quite firm in my beliefs on this matter! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mick miller Posted May 14, 2014 Report Share Posted May 14, 2014 How will a muzzle in public work with my two working cockers when picking up, beating or in the pigeon hide Frenchie? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mick miller Posted May 14, 2014 Report Share Posted May 14, 2014 Given that Derrick Bird legally owned his firearms when he went on his rampage I firmly believe that ALL firearms should be surrendered by ALL firearms holders in order to protect the law abiding public going about their business in public places. I am firm in my belief. See what I did there? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mentalmac Posted May 14, 2014 Report Share Posted May 14, 2014 How will a muzzle in public work with my two working cockers when picking up, beating or in the pigeon hide Frenchie? Do you shoot pigeons in public places? Let me know how to get into this public beating place too - sounds good. Bit of game shooting and shopping all at the same time. In seriousness, I think Frenchieboy means areas that are filled with public people, such as shopping areas, town centres, local parks full of children etc... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mick miller Posted May 14, 2014 Report Share Posted May 14, 2014 Almost everywhere, outside of your home, is a public place. Yes, I shoot pigeons and beat where the public walk, there are footpaths everywhere and the public have a tendency not to keep to them. So, I can be setting up a hide on a hedge line, without a footpath anywhere in sight and still have a casual jogger run by along one of the wheel lines or round the edge. Suppose my unmuzzled dog takes a dislike or is frightened by them and has a nip, I go to court and face a 5 years sentence? Similarly, when beating we have come across the public in the woods, foraging for firewood or mushrooms, whatever their excuse was. Despite the fact they shouldn't be there it still doesn't alter the issue that they could be bitten by any one of the many working dogs on the line. Then there is the beater that had a one eyed spaniel that after the excitement of a flush through the woods would often run up to the nearest beater and try and have a nip (yes, eventually the owner was asked to keep the dog back at home) but should he have faced a criminal prosecution every time this happened? And again, when I've been out rabbit shooting on the edges of towns and have my dog with me for picking up, I've come across the wandering public where they shouldn't be. A muzzling law would make no distinction between a savage attack by a breed bred for the purposes of bringing down other animals with it's jaws and strength alone and a dog that may bite out of surprise or adrenalin. It would make no distinction between a public park or a field or woodland adjacent to a footpath or right of way. It would make no distinction between a dog which was working or out for a walk. Frankly, its an unworkable solution and a knee jerk reaction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mick miller Posted May 14, 2014 Report Share Posted May 14, 2014 In seriousness, I think Frenchieboy means areas that are filled with public people, such as shopping areas, town centres, local parks full of children etc... This might work, but it would need to be extremely prescriptive, so that it would only cover public municipal parks, public footpaths, towns and cities. The question is then, how do you enforce it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mighty Prawn Posted May 14, 2014 Report Share Posted May 14, 2014 This might work, but it would need to be extremely prescriptive, so that it would only cover public municipal parks, public footpaths, towns and cities. The question is then, how do you enforce it? I agree with the sentiment of compulsary muzzles in public but you're right, Id say the above issues when shooting/beating is covered by that being private property but then so are some parks, shopping centre car parks and many others so any law would need to be well worded and as we see from the GL that is apparently impossible Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mick miller Posted May 14, 2014 Report Share Posted May 14, 2014 I agree with the sentiment, but I cannot see how it can work, without being a legislative nightmare. Then of course, factor in the scrote or thuglife with unmuzzled, fighty type dog who fails to obey any other law of the land, why all of a sudden would they choose to abide by this one? So who would police this new muzzling law? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mentalmac Posted May 14, 2014 Report Share Posted May 14, 2014 I agree with the sentiment, but I cannot see how it can work, without being a legislative nightmare. Then of course, factor in the scrote or thuglife with unmuzzled, fighty type dog who fails to obey any other law of the land, why all of a sudden would they choose to abide by this one? So who would police this new muzzling law? For what it's worth - I don't think that muzzling dogs in all public places would work as you say. Otherwise dogs can't pick anything up and do retrieves etc... Should just be harsher on dogs that attack so that owners know that their dog is dangerous that they should either muzzle it or not bring it in public. I.e if a dog attacks someone and causes an injury that breaks the skin of a human it should be instantly taken and destroyed. If it fights another dog, then a tribunal should be held and the dog that attacked first should be destroyed. Might make the owners think twice about their dogs and responsibilities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frenchieboy Posted May 14, 2014 Report Share Posted May 14, 2014 This might work, but it would need to be extremely prescriptive, so that it would only cover public municipal parks, public footpaths, towns and cities. The question is then, how do you enforce it? You are quite right Mick. I wasn't thinking of working dogs while out shooting as there would not be many situations where you would be shooting in a public place such as a park or such likes. I was thinking more on the lines public parks and "known dog walking areas" etc and I realise that enforcing such policies would be very hard to do but what alternatives are there? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greymaster Posted May 14, 2014 Report Share Posted May 14, 2014 (edited) While it may be a move in the right direction I don't think it goes anywhere to combat the problem of these (Sometimes fatal) "unprovoked" hoodie attacks. So much attention and blame is put on certain hoodies (Usually the full hoody types) because of "media hype" that many people overlook or forget the fact that any hoodie is capable of attacking and causing severe injuries. There has been threads in the past about PW about members who have had their families attacked while out with them so many members will recognise the potential problems. I was once attacked and needed medical attention by a hoodie who was on his own while out walking in Townley Hall Park with no provocation whatsoever from me, which is why I think laws need to be brought into force to protect the "general public" while out in public places like having to have ALL HOODIES (Regardless of their type) muzzled while out in public places. This may on the face of it seem a little extreme but the public deserve some sort of protection while out and about in public places and going about their lawful pursuits/recreation in ANY and ALL public place. As for a hoodie that attacks an intruder while that intruder is trespassing (And quite likely/often up to no good) then that intruder has nothing to complain about a hoodie that is protecting the property. If they don't have good reason to be there then they should have to put up with and accept the consequences of their "misdemeanour or intentions"! This post may well seem a bit "controversial" but I am quite firm in my beliefs on this matter! Hug a Hoodie? See what I did there? Substitute the word hoodie with the latest media demonised group and you have a ready made template for knee jerk law making. Edited May 14, 2014 by Greymaster Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richie10 Posted May 14, 2014 Report Share Posted May 14, 2014 Each couple of years the type of devil dog changes, German shephards, then Rotweillers, now staffys. Muzzling dogs, never off the lead, don't take them out in public, all comments from people who 'could' work dogs. Public places are everywhere so i don't know how you would ever work a dog again. We don't need more laws, we have plenty to protect people. Not sure why you are applauding more restrictions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted May 14, 2014 Report Share Posted May 14, 2014 (edited) How will a muzzle in public work with my two working cockers when picking up, beating or in the pigeon hide Frenchie? I was in a shoot that had a public footpath going through it,literally through the stands, often talked to walkers passing by, lots and lots of dogs on the shoot, all surprisingly obedient enough not to attack passers by, are yours? KW Edited May 14, 2014 by kdubya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted May 14, 2014 Report Share Posted May 14, 2014 The change in law seems to be mainly directed at attacks in someone's home, but we have gone off on a tangent about game shooting. It's not about muzzling dogs in public, it's about removing a potential loophole for scrotes who have vicious dogs in their house, whilst kids are there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grrclark Posted May 14, 2014 Report Share Posted May 14, 2014 The muzzle all dogs in public argument really grates me, why on earth should we penalise the majority for the wrongful actions of the minority? The new laws are a step forward, especially the inclusion for attacks on working dogs, it means that if it does happen there are now greater powers that can be brought to bear, which in turn hopefully acts as a deterrent for others in the future. Same as all punishments for every other law, they are a deterrent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted May 14, 2014 Report Share Posted May 14, 2014 Same as all punishments for every other law, they are a deterrent. Exactly, and should not be confused with 'protection'. Legislation is not protection. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.