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

To date not one pitbull has ever been put on an excemption registra in NI

I did not make them look good, these are cpoied and pasted from the department, You copied one that supported your claim you neglected to state the rest that put in context that NI is the country still with the worst dog rates in the Islands. I too copied and pasted and added the stats together to show you that your claim was false by factual evidence
granted big way to go but at least they are doing something. Per head of population NI still not good nor is the rest of the UK read my previous statement with stas that show nothing of any substance is coming out of the licencing of dogs but overall licences are working.
Overall the statistics show nothing has changed since 2002 on anything so how are they working!!!! Stop writing things that you are unable to back up even when provided with evidence to the opposite of your statement are provided you ignore them
Put it this way, why should a non dog owner in NI have to pay for dog control sevice when he does not have a dog. You want a dog, you pay for it. Again it states -"Councils are responsible for enforcing all aspects of dog control legislation here. However, the costs of enforcement of dog legislation through the dog warden system are far in excess of councils’ income from dog licensing" so licencing is costing more to run than it makes anyway!!!!
Okay let me put it this way, if I don't own a car why do I have to pay taxes that go towards roads, if I don't have children,why do I have to pay taxes that go towards schools, daycare, medicare, and the list goes on and on, I don't get on a plane why do I have to pay taxes that go towards a runway etc etc
Because as a part of society we are responsible for more than ourselves, if you are worried about paying for others dogs I would suggest there are many other things that cost a lot more than dog ownership to the general public so if you are whining about that I would look for a bigger cause
In NI with the licence the Wardens will be able to attach control measures to the licence on problem dogs or problem people who have dogs. Unlike Engalnd they have to take then to court. The way NI is going to deal with it will save time and in a lot of cases may save dogs from being put down if the problem is stopped before it happens.First off NI has a proposal not a law on it as yet so you are still going to have to wait for the out come of that and still if it changes
4.20 However, where a council considers that a dog of a banned type is a risk the option to seek a destruction order through the courts would remain as it is at present.



Then your police would rather do nothing.These are the ones knew about an illegal dog that killed Ellie and yet history repeats it self again. "There is a continuing problem with attacks by dogs on people. Over the last ten years, the number of dog attacks on people here has remained fairly constant, averaging around 745 each year " again
Councils in NI are more robust in dealing with illegal dogs as our so called great Roger Mugford knows.

The robustness is some what lacking effectiveness, so be as robust as you like if it has no positive effect it is meaningless

To date not one pitbull has ever been put on an excemption registra in NI sorry what was that??????

Welcome Home Bruno
We would like to welcome home Bruno an eleven year old dog who was seized in march this year under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991as a suspected Pit Bull Terrier type. His case was treated sensitively by the police at Bolton, and his owners were dealt with under section 4b of the DDA amendment meaning that they did not face criminal proceedings and allowing the magistrates discretion to allow Bruno onto the register of exempted dogs.His family are delighted to have him home as is the family parrot who has been shouting his name since he was seized"

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?

you may dismiss as sensastionalist, does that mean that the 4 year old boy was not really killed by that dog because the media reacted in a sensastionalist manner - just because of the way the journalists handle this stuff does not make it untrue...the reason i believe it is due to the sheer volume of evidence...

i don't think we're going to agree on this one

very articulate, however at the end of the day there is a volume of evidence available to show that the swings are used for this training purpose

you may dismiss as sensastionalist, does that mean that the 4 year old boy was not really killed by that dog because the media reacted in a sensastionalist manner -

i don't think we're going to agree on this one

No, there's not. There's a large number of claims (sometimes coming from the same small group of people). Claims are not evidence and these claims are not based on evidence either - if they were they would have presented it.

Explain to me how you (or anyone) can tell, by looking at a damaged swing or tree, what was in the mind of the dog owner?




I am not saying that the claims about the use of swings are untrue because they are repeated in sensationalist media but because there is no evidence to support them. Look at the evidence and not the hype - lurid hyperbole does not make a claim untrue but it doesn't make it true either - remember Iraq's WMD?

John-Paul Massey's death was a tragedy but it doesn't bolster the claims about swings and trees.



You may be right but I'm hoping that the next time you read such an article you'll be looking for hard facts - if only to come back and slap me down with - and you'll notice their absence.

BTW I have attended more than a single event but this one was a particularly good illustration of the point I am making.