News-speak to English, free translation

It's dangerous dog season and here's the BBC, Met. Police and RSPCA getting the ball rolling...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8080073.stm


means "we going to have a crack down on dogs that look wrong."

Remember, folks, that in this context "potentially dangerous" has absolutely nothing to do with the dog's actions or temperament. A dog is "potentially dangerous" if it looks a certain way. If it looks a different way then it's 'potentially safe' I suppose.


Means "We're going to do the same as last year even though it doesn't actually make anyone safer".

Incidentally, the first dog seized at the Nottinghill Carnival last year belonged to a local resident who was worried that his much-loved family pet might be disturbed by the carnival noise so he was walking the dog out of the area to spend the day with his mother...about 8:00am I seem to recall. Nice early result for the officer and a "potentially dangerous" family pet banged up. Nice work, I feel lots safer.



Winter events, on the other hand,....

Jeez, who writes this stuff?



Means..."Let's muddy the waters by describing dogs that look too much like Pitbulls as "dangerous" dogs in one breath and then, with no evidence whatsoever, as "weapon" dogs in the next. That should put the willies up Joe Public."



Means "Make it sound like a rise in dogs rather than a crackdown in enforcement and maybe no one will ask 'How many owners went straight out and got another dog?' or 'How many of these dogs were harmless family pets as evidenced by their inclusion on the exemption register?' or, God forbid, 'Does all that money mean that the dogs are well cared for with the Met?' (Hint: the answer is No.)



Means...er...nothing. Nothing at all. I'm not an analyst and I could show a link between dog fighting and knife crime. I could also show a link between dog fighting and benefit fraud, low cost housing, tracksuits and American popular music artistes. Show us the nature and consistency of this "link" and we can consider its validity but just declaring a "strong link" is meaningless drivel designed only to inflame fears and prejudice.

Speaking of prejudice...



Clearly Kit knows a good populist line when he sees one. "Potential killers and we should treat them as such" means "Don't let common sense or the evidence of your own eyes deceive you. Just prejudge the whole lot."

That passes as justice as far as Kit is concerned but then I think we have reason to be concerned about Kit's perspective because as much as I deplore our overpopulation, our BYBs and breeders of illegal 'types' - and I truly do deplore it - I don't think any sane person would think that someone selling a banned breed was equally alarming as someone shooting at them. I wonder if Kit was frightened by a large dog when he was a child?

By the way, did you notice that "weapon dogs" phrase slip in there again? So that's the deputy mayor and the Met police talking about "weapon dogs". There must be a lot of them, you might think, for two high level outfits to be so concerned.



Uh...better make that three. The RSPCA is at it two although how cigarette burns, or other injuries come to that, show that the dog was used as a weapon is not made clear. Perhaps the dogs came with an explanatory note when they were abandoned. Anyways that three big players telling us that dogs are used as weapons. So it must be a problem, right? It must be a pressing issue for these guys to be using their valuable time and energy. I guess lots of people are using dogs as weapons, yes? Lots of people being hurt by or charged with or even convicted of using dogs as weapons?

That's what you'd think...wouldn't you?

Just so you know - No records of dogs used as weapons are kept by either the Greater London Authority, the Metropolitan Police, the RSPCA or the NHS. No records. Even though they profess such concern nobody troubles themselves to count actual instances. Kit Malthouse, deputy mayor for policing, who is equates "potentially dangerous" dogs with gun crime and thinks all "weapon dogs" should be treated like killers keeps no records.

So the next time you see someone telling you about a 'rise in weapon dogs' ask yourself - because you know that if they have no figures then they can't really tell if there is a rise, and you know that if they can't discern an abused dog from a fighting dog from an attack dog then they can't really tell what is and isn't a 'weapon' so, given all this, ask yourself - do they even know what a dog is?

In short, here's the free translation: Weapon Dog = Someone Playing Politics

Excellent.