Surely they could of fought that order in court as she had enough witness's to say that the girl was told not to touch the dogs tail, but she disobeyed her Mum hence the reason the dog bit the girl.

Working on that reasoning, would my dogs be found guilty if I left my lot locked in the house while I was out and someone decided to to break in and one or all of them bit him. Who's at fought, them for defending mine and their home or the intruder?

Malady - Well that is completely wrong. With any 'incident' occuring, there should be a proper trial - where evidence is taken and witnesses called. A dog shouldn't be lableled guilty just because it was pushed into snapping.

There is always the case when the dog is not dangerous and neither is the owner but circumstances cause it.

Last year our 11 year old collie was being looked after by a very experienced dog owner that knew him well along with our 8 year old dog. Both dogs had lived together since Boris the 8 year old was a pup and had known the person looking after them for several years. Whilst we were away Boris was attacked by our collie several times and so was the person who was looking after them.

We returned from our holiday and were shocked to hear what had happened. The person that was attacked by Freddie knew him well and knew that it was completely out of character. At the time Sacha was only 5 months old and we were terrified of Freddie turning on her. The vet diagnosed a brain tumour and Freddie was sadly PTS. Thankfully nobody was badly hurt but the thing is our dog attacked someone. It wasn't our fault or the person he attacked and for the 10 years we had owned the dog we could not have predicted it.

I totally agree with both of you, but the lady was so distraught about the whole thing and to be honest I think the police urged her a bit too much, to 'do the right thing' (in their eyes), so she did it rather than wait for a court order, ordering her to do it. She is still suffering now for it too. If it were me, I would have stood my ground for my dogs, but I just think she wasnt as strong at the time and wasnt sure what to do for the best

by playing with the tail do you mean pulling at!
I would kick the fool who was doing it,
as the make believed dog was held so couldn't get away from the idiot so was trapped,
dogs don't have a voice so depends on its owner to always do the right thing, as we all know every dog can be dangerous. The sweetness nature dog in the wrong hands can become dangerous so I agree the term is wrong it should be dangerous owner

The term' dangerous dog' to me means a dog that is dangerous. The problem comes when it is applied to a dog because of it's breed rather than because of it's actions. As people on here have said people shout at them for having a 'dangerous dog' simply based on their dogs looks not their dogs actions and that is why it has got so muddy.
The media use this term for any dog that they 'think' is on the DDA.
When I separated two of my terriers that were fighting I got a bite to the hand. 3 puncture wounds. I popped along to the nurse to make sure they were clean and get my tetanus done etc and she went oh you've been savaged To which I laughed and said don't be stupid it's a bite. So people's percieved ideas also vary. People may say they were 'savaged' when in reality it was just a nip.
I had one of my pups returned because he 'bit' one of their children in the face, this was the second time he had come back to me allegedly for biting. Turns out, when the husband came round to see him that the child was chasing the dog round the kitchen table and caught the child ont he face with a tooth, you know when a dog runs at you with it's mouth open, my lot do it all the time! so she was only grazed along the face. He was due to be PTS by me because I had been told he had bitten. When I was told the truth I found him a home with no kids, his new owners were fully aware of his past and they love him to bits.
I think a lot of dogs are destroyed because saying they have bitten is an easy way to get them PTS
Becky

excelletn post - totally agree.

I find that the dog is most often to blame and pts, but if in realitiy there is nearly always a reason, I find the following statment true, "never a bad dog born" always the way its reared not fair on the dog to be put to sleep for human wrong doings, but on the othere hand if the dog killed as in the case last week I would put him down, but a nip no never, there is always a reason why he has nipped, fright, pain,jealousy, we had a alsation years ago that was frightened of kids, he used to hide, bajaluna will rember him he was called dog, or britt whatever he came to usally, brilliant with other animals , he mothered goat kids but frightend of human kids.
One of our boxers is the same petrified of kids but has had no wrong doing i've had her from a pup. Reared with kids.

Buy imo if the dog bites the owner should be charged with negligence or manslaughter in whatever the case maybe. People might think twice before leaving the dog with kids in future.

We have a saying over here, "Guns aren't dangerous, people are." And I think the very same applies here. Anytime you take up ownership or operation of anything that can potentially cause harm to the general public, it is the responsibility of the owner/operator to ensure the safety of the public. Be it a gun, a dog, a car, a boat, what have you.

Very good point, Azz. Perhaps if the wording were changed we'd be less inclined to continue to pass legislation banning things, instead of legislation aimed at promoting and enforcing responsible behavior.