I never said that did I?
I think you need to stop twisting things.

Below Is Crossposted.
Home Office 1991 – “Cross-breeds of the pit bull terrier with other dogs are not specifically controlled by s.1 of the act.”
Home Office 1992 – “Under the Act any dog which has the characteristics of the type known as a pit bull terrier is regarded as being of that type, irrespective of parentage.”
Home Office 1992 – “In this country the pit bull terrier is generally regarded as being a cross between a bull breed of dog and larger dogs like the mastiff. It may also, however, be obtained by breeding or cross-breeding pit bull terriers themselves.”
Home Office 1992 – “Whether section 1 of the Act applies to any particular cross will depend on whether the resulting dog is of the type known as the pit bull terrier – that is to say, whether it has the physical and behavioural characteristics of the pit bull terrier.”
Home Office 1994 – “Under the Act any dog which has characteristics of the type known as the pit bull terrier is regarded as being of that type, irrespective of its parentage.”
Queen’s Bench Divisional Court 1993 – the landmark case of Brock & Dunne set a precedent which has far reaching consequences. The court debated what was meant by type and decided ‘type’ has a broader meaning than ‘breed’. Their Lordships, Justice Glidewell and Justice Cresswell stated: “That a dog of the type known as a Pit Bull Terrier is an animal approximately amounting to, near to, having a substantial number of characteristics of the Pit Bull Terrier”. Meaning that the law could cover dogs that were not pit bull terriers, but had substantial characteristics of one.
The court also ruled that the relevant breed standard for assessing whether a dog is or is not of the type should be that of the ADBA. Since part of that breed standard concerned the dog’s behaviour, the court ruled that evidence of a dog’s behavioural characteristics was relevant, but not conclusive.

DEFRA Present Day - Information on what constitutes a prohibited type is given in a leaflet available from Defra. Here the advice is that the law applies not only to ‘pure’ Pit Bull Terriers (even thought it’s not recognised as a breed by the Government) but also to any dog of the type known as the PBT. The overall general description is that of a muscular smooth-haired dog, with a square profile and average height of 45-55cm.
So now the goal posts have widened to include any cross breed of dog, “irrespective of parentage”. The offspring of two perfectly legal breeds could produce an illegal dog. Type has a broader meaning than breed. But, the Index has closed and with it any hope of legalising many pet dogs condemned as an illegal ‘type’.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/2846739.stm
no they arent killing children - but here is one that isnt herding carriages !!
or is that me twisting it ?


The APBT's in this country have probably never fought a bull in their life ! but as the ones that are here are illegal they probably arent the best examples of the breed seeing as about 99% of them will be owned by idiots knowingly breaking the law to play hardmen.....

The majority of APBT's in america are docile family pets. Its the minority that are being used to victimise the whole breed


lets find reports of all the dogs that have attacked in this country and BAN them all JUST in case...

I'm not twisting anything at all !

I dont see a problem with the above.

If people have a legal dog, and dont crossbreed to make a 'dangerous' looking dog, they wont have a problem, will they ?

the current law relates to "TYPE" and any possible action will have to do the same, whether its wiping them out or anything else. I think we agree on this?

SO I refer to my earlier Q's,
How do you id a pitbull in the UK?
What is a pitbull in the UK?
How do propose to "wipe them out" given the law states that any legal pb should be nuetered. That leaves a mass cull, no?
and makes my other Qs VERY important.

Since the pb history has been brought up its worth remembering they originate from the UK bull & terrier breeds.

Did you not read the Link ?

The APBTs in this Country were the ones BRED for fighting Bulls !!!!!

http://www.badrap.org/rescue/breed.cfm

No Callum, I quoted a case from the States where the Pit Bull is LEGAL.

I do because a dog from two legal breeds could very well be described as type,when people buy a crossbreed pup do you really know how it's going to turn out,or should we cull all the pups just in case

I have a problem with BSL/DDA because it is seriously flawed,it's not effictive,it's unenforceable and it's not the answer.

I didnt mention any case you quoted.
You asked the original Q regarding UK illegal pb I thought. And I replied with asking how you would see wiping them out happening?

Id still like to know?

Were you talking of wiping them out globally?

if you read the link wou would have read that when the bull baiting was banned in 1835 due to it being deemed cruel and they switched to dog fighting the main thing that was then bred into the pitbull was a very good bite inhibition to ensure that the handler was able to intercept their dogs so that they didnt fight to the death, and that they didnt turn on the handlers

this is what has now been bred from so how do you get them becoming "human killers " from here ?

bull baiting reall has nothing to do with it -i stand by my point that none of the apbts in this country TODAY have
ever brought down a bull.

Both staffies I have here fit the physical characteristics for the PB, They arent pedigreed with papers. In the scenario's being banded about they would be seized and culled (presumably) to reach the aim of wiping them out.