AGAINST | 'Insurance for all' Plans | Have Your Say (4)

Please use this thread to Have Your Say! if you are AGAINST the new 'insurance for all' proposals.

Personally I have a number of issues with these proposals so I am against.

The proposals are:

• Increasing the number of banned breeds
• Compulsory third party insurance
• And force-able microchipping

The Home Secretary, Alan Johnson said:

I'd like to know HOW THESE PROPOSALS ARE GOING TO HAVE ANY EFFECT ON THIS "VERY SMALL MINORITY" Alan!! Aren't they just going to ignore them like they have the DDA? How are you going to police them?

There's only one of the three proposals I agree with. And that's compulsory micro-chipping BUT I think the breeders should be responsible for this - so that problem dogs can be traced back to bad/unethical breeders.

Adding more dogs to the DDA - didn't anyone tell Alan the DDA didn't work. Punish the deed not the breed!

Compulsory insurance - Sorry, but the bad owners are not going to get it anyway, and so responsible owners will be forced to pay ...the insurance companies are just going to rake it in.

Imo, more needs to be done to tackle the breeding of unhealthy and aggressive dogs - along with educating the public so there are not only more knowledgeable folk out there, but the culture can begin to change too. Too many people out there think it's ok to 'breed a litter' or to train their dogs to be aggressive... it's not.

If the insurance was brought in I think it should be not-for-profit, and any surplus for the year (from the 3rd party fee of the insurance) should be paid back to the owners.

All in all, these proposals seem to be ill-thought out and until they demonstrate HOW these changes are going to tackle 'dangerous dogs' I am against.

(Please note these are just my personal views, not necessarily those of Dogsey, or it's members.)

It won't work, and responsible owners who would insure anyway will be penalised by higher premiums.

Just as with cars and the nutters who drive around at high speed in death traps without insurance, so it will be with dangerous/ill trained dogs and their obnoxious owners.

As a responsible owner mt dogs are kept in line, not put into situations which they could endanger themselves or anyone else, they are already microchipped, and arent a banned breed.

The law can not inforce its current dangerous dogs legislation without adding more breeds to it increasing the work load.

ATD x

i am not going to pay for something i know my dogs wont do.
ATTACK ANYONE

Once again Middle England is being the target due to those minorities that choose to have no, or little regard for others. Such people would still disregard the law. Look at all those driving around with no car insurance.

So if I get insurance is my dog allowed to bite then?

i have 3rd party already in my insurance(not cos they bite!) so wont make any difference to me BUT how are they going to police theses rules! they cant even police people picking up dog poo or dogs that have to be onleads in certain areas!

I don't understand how something of this magnitude could be policed thoroughly. Either you would have to take proof of your insurance with you whenever you take your dog out or you would need to provide proof whenever you go to the vets. The first option would be more trouble than it is worth and the second would just mean those without insurance would avoid taking their dogs to the vets.

Like has been said already, it would just end up with the responsible owners insuring their dogs and the irresponsible ones simply not bothering. In my opinion, the government are just trying to look like they're doing something without really tackling the problem at all

I can only echo whats been said already.

Wonder which malfunctioning brain cell, thought that adding more breeds to the dda, would work. Hmmm, we can't deal with the banned types we've got now, so we'll add more...the logic.

Anything to gain more votes.