At the end of the day, a dog has killed a child because it was an illegal dog in irresponsible hands. Instead of focussing on the fact that it was illegal, perhaps the government should consider things like having to take a test before being allowed a dog at all! This dog wasn't a stray, it was a lethal weapon in the wrong hands!

I don`t believe I just read that! Ireland being held up as a good example of dog welfare!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Here is one reason there are so many strays -
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/hopeuk/pu...rm_capital.htm
and
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8365175.stm

Nor me, this speaks for itself dont you think.

from those figures, scotland has the lowest stray numbers,

we dont have dog Licences, so that sort of blows that theory out the window

470 strays for every 100,000 people in Norther Ireland. This is significantly higher than in Wales, more than twice the level in the south, and three times higher than in England or Scotland.
Kinda says a lot really especially since it is the same site the data Weestumpy makes his claims from


These statements were obtained from this site
http://www.dardni.gov.uk/dog-control...ation-document

I didnt check the links, but thanks for that info Emrad,

so really the situations worse in Ireland than it is anywhere else?

yeap and they have licencing laws since 1983 apparently and they have the worst rates in so many other areas too, I posted in #490 with some stats that back that up over whelmingly even though weestumpy made his stat look good, the whole picture is a lot clearer with my previous post. Worth a read I reckon

I agree, it is all too easy to get a dog.

I'm sorry, Nick, but you have no substantive proof. You have a collection of sensationalistic media articles and alarmist statements without any explanation as to how anyone can look at a chewed-up swing and deduce the motive behind it.

You can post as many articles as you find but unless one of them has some real substance it doesn't mean anything. You say that my argument is without foundation but I can only give you the evidence of my own eyes and ears.

This is an article associated with the event I mentioned earlier:

http://www.thisiscroydontoday.co.uk/...l/article.html

Lets make sure that all the important bits are in it...

snip

snip

Yup - it's all there. There's even a picture of a damaged swing with the caption "This child's swing has been used to train dogs ".

This then would be an example of what you consider "substantive proof"?

Now lets have a closer look, but with our critical attenna erected...

The article claims not only that the playground is being used to train dogs but that the breeds of dogs being trained are known. It lists the four banned types. The article actually says that the swings are being used to train dogos, filas and tosas despite the fact that no dogo, fila or tosa has ever been seized, reported or even seen in the Croydon area. The officers at the awareness event, which included the LA dog warden, the Met Status Dog Unit and the Safer Neighbourhood Team, openly told attendants that, whilst all four types were banned, the public need not concern themselves with dogos, filas and tosas as these were exceedingly rare and they had never had a report of one. So the article has not started on the best foot by misleading in its opening paragraphs. You may think this is a small point but it sets the tone and illustrates the lack of accuracy throughout the rest of the piece. Moving on...

Leaving aside that an awareness event is not exactly a "crackdown" the article speaks of a "rising number of incidents" but this is just not true. There was a rising number of complaints but they all came from the same single source. When I arrived at the event there was about fifteen local residents (mostly pensioners) all loudly complaining - not about dog fighting and not about youths - about the inordinate number of unsubstantiated complaints from this one trouble-making neighbour.

"She even said I beat my dog" shouted one infuriated resident. "You remember" he said, waving his finger at one of the police officers at the event, "you came round and saw my dog. I've never hit that dog in my life!" The officer nodded and commented, diplomatically, that that was why they had arranged this event, to clear the air, to allow residents to have their say and to ascertain if there was a problem that the residents wanted dealt with.

"Yes!" came the chorus "Deal with her!"

So the article, having got it wrong about the breeds has gone on to get it wrong about the "incidents". Moving on...

I asked PCSO Tully (a very sensible and enterprising young officer, this whole event was his idea) how he could tell that the damage to swings was caused by fight training rather than petty vandalism. He said he couldn't. He added that, bar the single complainant mentioned, the biggest problem that they saw in the park was youths using the playgroung at night for drinking. When I told him that the Croydon Advertiser had quoted him as saying that the swings were used for training he was surprised and said that he hadn't seen the article, he had spoken with the paper to publicise the event but hadn't speculated on the damage because that's all it would be - speculation. I then asked the officer from the Status Dog Unit whether, in his experience, dog fighters really used public swings to train their dogs. "No." he smiled and shook his head. So here the article compounds its previous errors and misquotes its source. Good journalism! Moving on...

It's not a crackdown and the SNT did not identify any dogs but did hand out Defra leaflets on the four dogs. Not quite the same as implying that fila, dogos and tosa have been seen on Croydon's streets, is it? Doesn't sell. Not like alarmist sensationalism. Moving on...

This is PSCO Tully being misquoted again. He did not say that Tosa are to be 'looked out for'. Both the PSCOs present, as they handed out the Defra leaflets, were at pains to explain to the public that, whilst four types are listed, only "this one" , pointing at the picture of the pit bull, was actually found in the community.

And, finally, when I commented to PSCO Tully that the only damage I could see on the swings was very moderate and, from the bite size, looked like a small breed he told me that the swings had had more damage than was now visible but they had been replaced after youths had set a fire on one of the seats. Did you get that? The swings were replaced because of fire damage and not, as the article claims, because of damage from dog - dangerous dogs at that!


When we read these articles it is imperative that we keep a disciplined mind because we absolutely cannot trust journalists (who are trying to sell nerwspapers by scaring people) or populist councillors (who are trying to advance their careers by scaring people) to give us the real picture. Whenever we read a claim we should ask ourselves "how do they know that?" particlularly where the claim is not likely or rational - such as dog fighters using swings and trees. When we see pictures of a damaged swing we should ask ourselves how this swing, allegedly damaged in fight training, differs from a swing damaged in straight forward vandalism.

It's journalistic claptrap. The pup is riddled with worms. The only real question is why are you buying?

I'd comment further but Emrad has comprehensively deconstructed your claim.