News Shopper launches campaign against dangerous dogs (From News Shopper)

So now begins the witch hunt against Stafordshire Bull Terriers. How incredibly unfair to those of us who have bought our staffs up to be loveable friendley dogs. This should not be made "law" at all it should be on the owners head weather or not thier dog wears a muzzke in public. In the unfortunate event that a dog does attack it can then be said in court that you were warned to muzzle your dog so now you have no excuse. Thats the way it should work. No "breed" of dog is more likley to attack than any other, the problem comes with the way the dog is trained and brought up. Totally unfair. I have a staff and a Jack Russel, and the Russel's more likely to give you some than the staff. Hence why he wears a muzzle when outside and the staff does not.

Like all dogs Staffordshire Bull Terriors are agressive if they have been trained to or have not been trained properly. Maybe it would be helpful if you focused on the owners and the possibility of making sure that all dog owners are liscensed to have a dog and that this should be enforced rather than penalising those dogs that have a perfectly good temperament.

I agree with everything mfclion89 and staffowner have said, I have a lovely staff, he is a great family pet, lovely dog, I would say what the others have said and look at the owners of these dogs, think it is so unfair, I would hate to muzzle my dog, like one of the other post said my dog has been attacked by other dogs, I keep my dog on his lead at all times because I know most people have bad judgements of these dogs!!!

Let the witch hunt begin.

Sounds like a cheap publicity campaign to me...

It's mostly the owners that need a muzzle. Lets not let any facts get in the way of a witch hunt.

One in five dachshunds have bitten or tried to bite strangers, and a similar number have attacked other dogs; one in 12 have snapped at their owners.
Dachshunds have not had a fearsome reputation, although they were originally bred to hunt badgers in their setts.

However, they topped a list of 33 breeds which were rated for their aggression, after academics analysed the behaviour of thousands of dogs.

Chihuahuas, an even smaller breed, were the second most hostile, regularly snapping or attempting to bite strangers, family and other dogs. Another small favourite, the Jack Russell, was third.

Rottweiler, Pit Bull and Rhodesian Ridgeback (Lovely dogs) scored average or below average marks for hostility towards strangers.

Maybe it's people that need educating about dogs.
It's these type of knee jerk laws that ruin it for everyone.

What this all about how can you pin point just staffs. i have been bitten by other dogs that are not mentioned. i am also a owner of a 1 year old staff that is the best dog i have ever had he is loving friendly caring and great with babies and kids and likes nothing more than cuddles. i purchased him as a companion as i stay at home all the time due to being disabled and he is the best. people need to realise that its the way dogs are trained or the enviroment they are in they are just like children if they feel unsettled at home due to people arguing or other situations then they will get unsettled just like a wasp or a bee they are fine until you pester them or hit them then thay sting and you have more chance of dieing from a sting then a dog bite from a staff.
people need to look at other breeds of dogs aswell and not just pick staffs as being nasty. if this was a article about a human then that human would take this case to court for human rights so why cant staffs have a go at taking this to court as being against dog rights they are human aswell if so more human than alot of the walking public..

also mr or mrs newsshopper the picture you have put on the article of the dog that says stop that dog is not a staff it looks like a mongrel

stoptherubbish wrote:
also mr or mrs newsshopper the picture you have put on the article of the dog that says stop that dog is not a staff it looks like a mongrel

The image is taken from here and is a show dog: http://www.dogbreedw
orld.com/staffordshi
re_bull_terrier?imag
es=staffordshire_bul
l_terrier&i=5

the wall wrote:

stoptherubbish wrote: also mr or mrs newsshopper the picture you have put on the article of the dog that says stop that dog is not a staff it looks like a mongrel

The image is taken from here and is a show dog: http://www.dogbreedw orld.com/staffordshi re_bull_terrier?imag es=staffordshire_bul l_terrier&i=5

funny looking staff. tho

A few years ago I had a neutered male Akita/Rottweiller mix, and he was as good as gold. Next door had a **** Lassa Poo, which was a thoroughly nasty piece of work whom the neighbours eventually gave away because of several instances of attempting to bite passers by & tearing their clothes.

All dogs can bite. They are dogs. It is the owners who need to take responsibilty for their dogs.

NS, I used the technically correct term to describe a female dog, it did not need to be removed.

All dogs are aggressive and should wear mussles in public.

Although I agree with what the various people are saying about Staffs and it being the owners bringing up the dogs to be aggressive and not the dog itself, I feel that every dog that is big/powerful enough to cause a possible serious injury (from Poodles to Saint Bernard’s, Labradors, Boxers and yes even Staffs) should be made to wear a Muzzle. The dog can still open its mouth and pant/Bark etc with the correct type of muzzle for that dog so it does not cause the dog too much discomfort so what is the problem? It’s like knives, most of us don’t have the inclination to go stab someone yet knives are banned (unless for specific reasons like for work). Why is this? Because of the select few that would use it as an offensive weapon. The same goes for dogs, most people would bring their dogs up correctly but there are some people that bring them up to attack and use them as weapons.

I hear alot of people complaining how 'unfair' it is to make them mussle their dogs. How utterly selfish and spoilt of you. It is true that it is not the dogs but the owners but people say the same about knifes and guns and you wouldn't take those to a park where children play. I have two small children and we don't have much money so we hang out in public parks alot and when I see a scary looking dog I usher my children away gently. Why? Well I'm sure your dog never hurt anyone but would I be a good mother if I took that chance? How do I know how you've raised the dog? How do I know what kind of personality it has? Should I push my kids towards you and tell them to go play? Should I cross my fingers that this animal with huge jaws and massive teeth doesn't take a disliking to a four year old accidentally poking it's face?

Yes ALL dogs are capable of being violent but not all dogs have the ability to rip a child to pieces. Let's get real here, these are animals. When did we put the right of animals before the right of human beings? I understand that you love your dogs but I love my children and I'm sick of people having a go at mums being wary of these dogs. Like I said we don't know how they have been raised. Should I bring a tiger to your house? It's ok, it's well trained, no need to worry at all. I'm sure you'd take my word for it. No? Oh, how unfair.

Why do you only usher you children away from scary looking dogs? Our point is that one breed should not be singled out. If one breed should be made to wear muzzles then all dogs should. Just because I believe that my dog is not viscious I wouldn't expect anyone to encourage their children to interact with her, that is a very personal decision. I don't think that any child should approach a dog that they do not know because you don't know how it has been brought up.
Also, a dog doesn't have to have a huge jaw and massive teeth to do damage small jaws and teeth can also do the same.

bromleypeep wrote:
I hear alot of people complaining how 'unfair' it is to make them mussle their dogs. How utterly selfish and spoilt of you. It is true that it is not the dogs but the owners but people say the same about knifes and guns and you wouldn't take those to a park where children play. I have two small children and we don't have much money so we hang out in public parks alot and when I see a scary looking dog I usher my children away gently. Why? Well I'm sure your dog never hurt anyone but would I be a good mother if I took that chance? How do I know how you've raised the dog? How do I know what kind of personality it has? Should I push my kids towards you and tell them to go play? Should I cross my fingers that this animal with huge jaws and massive teeth doesn't take a disliking to a four year old accidentally poking it's face? Yes ALL dogs are capable of being violent but not all dogs have the ability to rip a child to pieces. Let's get real here, these are animals. When did we put the right of animals before the right of human beings? I understand that you love your dogs but I love my children and I'm sick of people having a go at mums being wary of these dogs. Like I said we don't know how they have been raised. Should I bring a tiger to your house? It's ok, it's well trained, no need to worry at all. I'm sure you'd take my word for it. No? Oh, how unfair.

Your point is valid and when my little brothers in the park and i see an aimal i think is "capible" of doing real damage i do tend to keep an eye on the situation. In the same breath, my dog dosent leave the lead in a park unless i see it is empty. Hes one of the biggest staffs ive ever seen and could tear me a new one and im 6"4. This proves my point, proper dog owners know the fear that is unfortunatley attached to dogs and act accordingly. If kids want to stroke him when they see him i tell them to be careful not to poke him in the eyes, pull his ears etc, because he is, at the end of the day, an animal and will react to provocation with violence. My point is that responsible owners shouldnt be thrown under the same umbrella as the chavvy boys for the hood who take pleasure in seeing there dog being violent towards other dogs, or worse...

Muzzle all dogs without descrimination whether they are in public or in a private outdoor space (If securely chained up, the muzzle could be removed for meals etc). Make it illegal for dogs to have access to the door when answering the door unless muzzled. This is the only way to protect innocent bstanders and legitimate visitors (eg Postmen) from being bitten. ALL dogs have it in their nature to bite.

I would , however, make exceptions to the rules for officially registered working dogs such as Police Dogs, Sheep Dogs and Game-hunters' dogs (who retrieve the game-birds in their mouths). The relaxation of the rules would only apply when actually working.

safc4ever wrote:
Muzzle all dogs without descrimination whether they are in public or in a private outdoor space (If securely chained up, the muzzle could be removed for meals etc). Make it illegal for dogs to have access to the door when answering the door unless muzzled. This is the only way to protect innocent bstanders and legitimate visitors (eg Postmen) from being bitten. ALL dogs have it in their nature to bite. I would , however, make exceptions to the rules for officially registered working dogs such as Police Dogs, Sheep Dogs and Game-hunters' dogs (who retrieve the game-birds in their mouths). The relaxation of the rules would only apply when actually working.

Spoken like a true dog owner who would hate to see his loveable little pet with a mask on, making him uncomfortable.

MFCLION89 wrote:
So now begins the witch hunt against Stafordshire Bull Terriers. How incredibly unfair to those of us who have bought our staffs up to be loveable friendley dogs. This should not be made "law" at all it should be on the owners head weather or not thier dog wears a muzzke in public. In the unfortunate event that a dog does attack it can then be said in court that you were warned to muzzle your dog so now you have no excuse. Thats the way it should work. No "breed" of dog is more likley to attack than any other, the problem comes with the way the dog is trained and brought up. Totally unfair. I have a staff and a Jack Russel, and the Russel's more likely to give you some than the staff. Hence why he wears a muzzle when outside and the staff does not.

Too right mate i have owned three staffordshire bull terriers and have had NO PROBLEMS IN PUBLIC! with any of them at all! i am deeply saddened by it all my latest and fourth one! is a white staffordshire bull terrier FULLY PUBLIC LIABILITY! INSURED NEVER EVER HAD TO USE IT ONCE he follows every command and does as he is told! HE EVEN SITS AND WAITS WHILE PEOPLE PASS BY WITH NO PROBLEMS EVER!
ITS NOT THE DOG ITS THE OWNER OR OWNERS!

Its not the dog or any animal! ITS THE OWNER WHO IS ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE NO MATTER WHAT IS SAID!
I have had three staffordshires and have had NO! problems what so ever as to any of them attacking some one the answer is DEFIANTLY A NO!
my dogs have never attacked anyone ever ever!
They were raised by me AND I DO NOT LIKE VOILENCE AT ALL!

I have had my fourth one for a year now and no problems he is soooooooo friendly and very very loving indeed there are some but not all of them.

he's name is ree and is two years old and is white with black splodgies aaaah Bless he is ABSOLUTELY SOPPY AND SO GORGOES AND OVER 49 PEOPLE HAVE SAID THE SAME PARENTS CHILDREN OLDER PEOPLE BLEES THEM ALL AND EVEN DISABLED CHILDREN! HAVE HAD NO PROBLEMS WITH HIM
AND WOULD INVITE ANYONE TO COME AND SEE HIM HE SOOOOOO SOPPY AND I LOVE HIM.

HE IS VERY SPECIAL IN MY HEART AND ALWAYS WILL BE!

ITS NOT THE DOG IT IS DEFIANTLY THE OWNERS

THE BEST SOLUTION IS TO HAVE WHAT THEY HAVE IN AMERICA.....
A DOG LICENCE THAT COSTS £160.85
AND ALL OWNERS TO BE THEN CRB CHECKED!THAT SHOULD SORT THE PROBLEM!

FOR ALL BREEDS! NOT JUST STAFFS THAT SHOULD SOLVE THE PROBLEMS

Reading your article i can tell that N/S staff are not dog lovers this is nothing but a witch hunt.Don't they know that magistrates & police are fully aware that people do not always know a dog is a banned breed when its bought as a puppy.They do not destroy dogs for the sake of it they put restrictions on them and send them home where they belong.I have first hand experience because the puppy that was bought for me 4 years ago was a lovely little 'staff' who grew into a great big staff who was taken away and deemed a 'pitball' type dog ( a pitball is not a breed).He was in police kennels for 5 weeks we went to court and explained that he is a family pet ,much loved and part of the family.He was insured,micro chipped etc etc & they could see we were responsible owners.They put restrictions on him gave me a conditional discharge and no fine or court costs.The magistrate told us they were there not there to destroy family pets.It cost us nothing but heart ache our lovely dog 5 weeks of misery and the police a fortune in kennal cost's & vet's fee's.He has got a tattoo inside his leg,3rd party liability insurance has to be muzzled & on a lead in public but shouldn't all dogs.Every dog is potentially dangerous what dog could be more snappy & growl's more than a Jack Russell ?? When are the N/S going to realise its NOT THE DOG ITS THE OWNER.They would be better spending the time & resources on SHOP A BENEFIT CHEAT rather than trying to have much loved family pets destroyed.

Wow, so much ignorance in this article! Who ever wrote this really needs to get EDUCATED on dogs before spilling so much fiction and BS!! It's NOT the dogs that are at fault, it's the humans! I feel bad for people who get attacked by dogs, however, most times these "attacks" could be prevented by either the dog's owner or the human who gets bit! My pit bull is NOT aggressive! Never has been in the 4 years I've had him, however, after working for a boarding kennel, I must admit I have been bit. Not by one of your so called "dangerous dogs", but by a hound mix. Also we had a BEAGLE and we had to put her down after she tried to attack my son when he was 6 months old! ANY dog can bite and ANY dog can cause damage to a human. Instead of adding to pathetic breed bans, which in a way you have proven, do not work, spend the tax payers money on EDUCATION and bite PREVENTION! Stop tearing beloved pets out of children's arms and killing them! Anyone who supports Breed Bans are nothing more than ABUSERS! Get a grip, stop spreading fear and causing chaos!

This is just a witch hunt. There is currently a bill going through parliament to make owners more accountable for their dogs. The news shopper is obviously trying to get some cheap publicity. Do some real journalism!

What an utterly disgusting article. Are you being serious??? If you want to talk statistics, how many people are mugged in the UK in a year? How many people are injured or killed through drink driving every year?

Shop a Dog and win a mug? Really? Words fail me.

This is scaremonger journalism at it's best. The only dog I've ever been bitten by was a cocker spaniel. That doesn't make for a good story though, does it?

Might I suggest that the numpty who wrote this article actually does some REAL research. Go on, be different. Set yourself apart from the tabloids and write reasoned and well researched articles. You might even find it increases your reader base.

If you prefer to just pull numbers out of the air and persecute dogs for the way their owners rear them, carry on. I'm sure there are plenty of Staffie owners out there who will happily print this article out and put it to better use...as somewhere for their dogs to urinate and defecate on!

Remember, ignorance is a VERY dangerous thing!

PaulErith wrote:
All dogs are aggressive and should wear mussles in public.

Mussles? With cockles? Or Muscles? Or muzzles???

meme6 wrote:
Reading your article i can tell that N/S staff are not dog lovers this is nothing but a witch hunt.Don't they know that magistrates & police are fully aware that people do not always know a dog is a banned breed when its bought as a puppy.They do not destroy dogs for the sake of it they put restrictions on them and send them home where they belong.I have first hand experience because the puppy that was bought for me 4 years ago was a lovely little 'staff' who grew into a great big staff who was taken away and deemed a 'pitball' type dog ( a pitball is not a breed).He was in police kennels for 5 weeks we went to court and explained that he is a family pet ,much loved and part of the family.He was insured,micro chipped etc etc & they could see we were responsible owners.They put restrictions on him gave me a conditional discharge and no fine or court costs.The magistrate told us they were there not there to destroy family pets.It cost us nothing but heart ache our lovely dog 5 weeks of misery and the police a fortune in kennal cost's & vet's fee's.He has got a tattoo inside his leg,3rd party liability insurance has to be muzzled & on a lead in public but shouldn't all dogs.Every dog is potentially dangerous what dog could be more snappy & growl's more than a Jack Russell ?? When are the N/S going to realise its NOT THE DOG ITS THE OWNER.They would be better spending the time & resources on SHOP A BENEFIT CHEAT rather than trying to have much loved family pets destroyed.

Since when was a Pitbull not a breed?

I am shocked that such a naive article could be written in when their is so much breed knowledge out there for all to learn from. Staffordshire Bull Terriers are NO more likely than ANY other breed of dog to attack a human. In fact due to their loyal loving nature, and their fondness of children, they are LESS likely than many other breeds to bite a child, or adult. If socialised well Staffies can be great with other dogs, and can be used as stooge dogs to help dogs with social problems. I speak as a dog behaviourist with a lot of experience in rescue kennels when I say that I have never met a human-aggressive staffie. Never. I have never been shown any form of aggression by a Staffie. Or pit bull actually. To deny loving owners the right to fight for their dog in court is disgusting. Absolutely shocking. It was a witch hunt that got 4 breeds banned due to media hysteria and a few attacks by unsocialised dogs with irresponsible owners. Deed NEVER Breed. Fact.

Hmm you don't know a lot do you? so much for journalism, Staffies have been fighting stigma for years all because of reporters like this one. The Dangerous Dogs Act is about to be repealed, therefore no more breed bans because they have been proven not to be effective and make those dogs banned more interesting to bad owners and 'Chavs', the new Dog Control Bill which is currently going through all the stages and by which is about half way through the process will indeed make it an offence for ANY dog to be out of control even on public property, this has been backed by many organisations such as the RSPCA, PDSA etc. stop abusing your powers of persuasion and get your facts straight, over 25,000 staffies are PTS in kennels every year because of articles like this one putting people off, if they were deemed dangerous by experienced staff and trainers they wouldn't be allowed to be rehomed. And yes I own two staffies, a 4 year old deaf staff and a 1.5 year old rescue staffyX, I gave them a chance, won't you?

It's hard to say that I've never read such irresponsible journalism before, but I really haven't. www.ddawatch.co.uk : any owner of any dog now going to be persecuted because of it's looks not it's behaviour or that of it's owner - please contact DDA Watch immediately. NO dog is born bad, they are trained bad. Where's your research and facts from, Newsshopper? You know that most attacks ARENT from staffies? They're just the ones that you choose to report on... now go find us a few stories on other dogs that bite and the damage they cause - the border collie, the retriever, the labrador, the chihuahua - the worst bite i had was from a Westie... The Staffie is named The Nanny Dog... look it up, it's for a **** good reason. BLAME THE DEED NOT THE BREED. Take a good look at the DDA - yes, your lovely labrador is 99% banned breed under that act!!! Go do some proper research - http://www.dogbitecl
aims.co.uk/dangerous
-breeds.html - look which dog is the most aggressive!! Disgusting article...disgusting journalism.

I Say make all owners have a dog licence NO MATTER WHAT BREED OR TYPE!and it would cost say £160.85 also make a licence explaining the breed , owners details etc also the owners must have a full crb check before they can any dog FULL STOP
that way the silly elite few who cause a problem cant have one.

What an irresponsible and ignorant article!! I'm a mother of two young children, aged two and four, and the owner of a staffordshire bull terrier she is a very loving dog and has never so much as growled at another dog let alone a person. Having said that I don't expect everyone to love my dog or let her roam around parks jumping on young kids and scaring people. The writers of this article clearly have done no research into the breeds they are 'demonising' evident in the statistics they quote 163 dog attacks in the area over two years 5 of them have been by a staff over 3 years - what about the other 158 attacks that weren't by staffs!!! I agree one attack is one too many but it's time to punish the person on the end of the lead not the breed. Shop a dog win a mug, I've just read a load of nonsense written by a pair of mugs!!

Seriously the people who thought this up really need to do their research. Staffordshire Bull Terriers are the only dog recommended by the Kennel Club as the perfect FAMILY dog as they are so gentle with people including children by nature. The peoblem with any dog which is aggresive is purely down to the owner. I think you would be far better looking into the amount of innoccent dogs seized under the barbaric BSL. Dogs which have never been a threat are being seized and held for long periods of time for no genuine reason. By nature Staffies are not aggressive which is why so many are being dumped - evil scumbags get a Staffy to fight, but Staffies do not want to fight, therefore they are dumped or used as bait dogs. The biggest problem is the media giving out false perceptions of Staffies. They are no more dangerous than any other dog. You really need to look at what you are doing to this wonderful breed, the media are responsible for hundreds if not thousands of Staffies being murdered. Get real, get useful and look at the real problem. Owners not dogs. Every dog should be registered and chipped. Owners must be made responsible for their actions as it is THEIR actions not the dogs. When will this country get a grip and make people responsible for what they do and that includes the way dogs are treated. Do you also realise that most hospital only register bites by Bull breed dogs? Not really a level playing field is it? Staffies have been a favourite breed in this country for a very long time, they are not dangerous, it is unfortunately the people who are dangerous as they have got away with doing whatever they want for far too long!

This campaign is SHOCKING!! It is not an issue of breed but responsible dog ownership, dog owners have a responsibility to ensure their dog is under control in a public place, the same as people have a responsibility to themselves to not approach or provoke an animal they do not know. Responsible parents would not allow their children to approach a strange animal as children can be just as unpredictable as animals!! If a stranger came in your face & poked you in the eye I am sure you would react too!! So a person who LOOKS strong should have their hands tied behind their back in public just incase they hurt someone?? DEED NOT BREED people need to get their facts right

jglass totally sums this up in the above comments....seems you are a bit behind the times and your researchers totally out of touch with current situation....you may have made yourselves look a tad ridiculous...

muzzle the owners not the dogs
bad owners make bad dogs not the other way around

This is very much a witch hunt,And I believe you will be doing yourselves a great disservice by carrying it out,The Staffordshire Bull terrier Is known as the Nanny dog due to its loving nature,If you do your own sums you will see how silly you are going to make yourselves look,Number of dog attack's in your area in the last "2 years 163"The number of attack's by Staffies in the last"3 years 5"These are your numbers not mine,I think this tells its own story don't you,Its about time we looked at dog owners and not breeds,That way you will be doing your customers the service they deserve!!!

Staff Owner2 wrote:
Like all dogs Staffordshire Bull Terriors are agressive if they have been trained to or have not been trained properly. Maybe it would be helpful if you focused on the owners and the possibility of making sure that all dog owners are liscensed to have a dog and that this should be enforced rather than penalising those dogs that have a perfectly good temperament.

Totally agreed. stop blaming the **** dog its disgusting!!!

Ros1111 wrote:
What an irresponsible and ignorant article!! I'm a mother of two young children, aged two and four, and the owner of a staffordshire bull terrier she is a very loving dog and has never so much as growled at another dog let alone a person. Having said that I don't expect everyone to love my dog or let her roam around parks jumping on young kids and scaring people. The writers of this article clearly have done no research into the breeds they are 'demonising' evident in the statistics they quote 163 dog attacks in the area over two years 5 of them have been by a staff over 3 years - what about the other 158 attacks that weren't by staffs!!! I agree one attack is one too many but it's time to punish the person on the end of the lead not the breed. Shop a dog win a mug, I've just read a load of nonsense written by a pair of mugs!!

I have a 2 year old white staffordshire called ree he is soooooo gorgoes you wouldnt beleive it! i call him wee wee pooooos or weadles all i know is he would never attack anyone and i love hime so much he loves everyone and i mean everyone! i think there should be a licence or registration system and CRB Check or something that way it might stop the elite few of twits out there

nicely wrote:
I agree with everything mfclion89 and staffowner have said, I have a lovely staff, he is a great family pet, lovely dog, I would say what the others have said and look at the owners of these dogs, think it is so unfair, I would hate to muzzle my dog, like one of the other post said my dog has been attacked by other dogs, I keep my dog on his lead at all times because I know most people have bad judgements of these dogs!!!

Agreed, im not putting a mussel on my staff cross! i didnt with my dog who recently passed who again staff cross he was rescued and passed to us when he was 10months old , even when we bought home a rescue dog who attack bruce still he would not fight back we taught him if its in the house living in the house (any pets) u dont harm . owners should have licenses stop banning dogs!

G.O.D. wrote:
This is very much a witch hunt,And I believe you will be doing yourselves a great disservice by carrying it out,The Staffordshire Bull terrier Is known as the Nanny dog due to its loving nature,If you do your own sums you will see how silly you are going to make yourselves look,Number of dog attack's in your area in the last "2 years 163"The number of attack's by Staffies in the last"3 years 5"These are your numbers not mine,I think this tells its own story don't you,Its about time we looked at dog owners and not breeds,That way you will be doing your customers the service they deserve!!!

well said! im loving the comments backing up the dogs. 99% chance its not the dogs fault its the owners who taught him/her bad. when a kid attacks another or something simular do u blame the kid? NO u blame the parent!!! i dont care what dog it is they dont deserve to be banned!! its disgusting

You wouldn't get away with this kind of prejudice against humans so what makes you think you can get away with it against dogs!!!!!!!!!!!!! it is a disgusting show of ignorance by the author of the article who obviously has a phobia of dogs

Complete rubbish, cheap publicity stunt by a cheap website!
More kids are killed by their own parents than by dog attacks.

As an owner of a loving, intelligent and laid back Staffordshire Bull Terrier, I am horrified that yet again, this beloved breed has been targeted for yet another ignorant and uninformed article. Your report is lazy, out of date and dangerous and clearly no real research has been done. By yet again highlighting the humble bull terrier as the sole example of bad behaviour in dogs, this will only increase the plight of so many beautiful staffie dogs who already suffer lengthy stays in rescue centres and kennels across the area.

ALL dogs are capable of aggression and frustration when left untrained - this is NOT the fault of the dog but that of its owner and this is true of any breed.

Battersea Dogs' Home work tirelessly to promote the bull terrier breed, in order to change this ill perceived perception and articles of this nature are exactly why their job is made so difficult. Almost two thirds of their intake are bull terriers and prospective owners are almost always surprised to learn of the staffie's suitability as a family pet. These are gentle, loving dogs in nature who do all they can to please. They are quick to learn and yes, impossible to tire out at playtime but again, this is true of any type of dog.

I am disgusted to learn that my seemingly responsible local newspaper has deemed it acceptable to begin a sensationalised campaign based on a poorly researched and lazy report. If this is not the case, it is nothing short of an overreaction.

Can I just start off by saying that this whole thing is a form of discrimination, and certainly will not be tolerated, especially when it concerns something I am so passionate and care about dearly.

I am the proud owner of a Staffordshire Bull Terrier myself, and I can vouch for their people friendly, child friendly, happy go lucky, affectionate personalities. A well bred, well socialised and responsibly owned Staffie ( which, frankly all should be ) should NEVER be people aggressive. These dogs, by the nature of what they were once bred for were never meant or created to be people aggressive; if this was the case, they were never bred from so clearly a ill-tempered Staffy is a very under socialised and incredibly irresponsibly owned.

Staffordshire Bull Terriers are aknowledged by the Kennel Club, and even visit their website/contact them if you do not beleive me, as to having a "natural" affinity with children. To be honest, they are not called the "nanny dogs" for nothing, you know. If you spent literally 5 minutes with a true Stafford you would experience their lovely, loyal personalities who would literally warm the hearts of anyone, and definitely change the haters perception of them.

Following on to that, if you want to judge Staffordshire Bull Terriers on statistics, take a look at this, these are the percentages of "friendlyness" conducted by the American Temprement Test Society....

STAFFIES - 93.2% (highest pass rate)
PIT BULL - 84.1% (second highest!)
GERMAN SHEPERD- 82.6%
COCKER SPANIEL - 81.5%
YORKSHIRE TERRIER - 80%
WEIRAMARANER - 79.7%
COLLIE - 79%
DOBERMANN - 76.5%
POMERANIAN - 75%
ENGLISH SETTER - 78.7%
BULLDOG - 68.3%
DASCHUND - 66.7%

^^ Now, this proves that these dogs aren't as dangerous as they are said to be!!

Racial profiling, and Breed Specific Legislation, is WRONG. You wouldn't do it to a human; so why is it any different for a dog?

Please, I am begging you, to see the real dog behind the vicious monster the media have portrayed them to be. You are only hearing what the media tell you, see the real dog, the real staffie!!

Sad way to raise your readership but typical of the gutter press media hype I guess.
Please educate yourself, at least.
Never read such nonesensicle fear mongering in my life.

BSL was brought in during 1991, and that is what is to blame for everything right? Well, almost. It was brought in as a kneejerk reaction, like the gun law changes after the Dunblane massacre, but unlike the gun laws, BSL isn’t based on something tangible, something you can readily identify, like a gun.
So, what is sustaining this? Look at the buzz words we are surrounded by in the media…. “Hoodies” ; “Gangs” ; “Status Dogs” ; “Crime” “Violence” “Dangerous” “Pit Bull” . Those buzz words, repeated again and again, in story after story are becoming ingrained within us, and we are becoming unable to separate them. You walk down your street, and there is a young lad in a hooded top, and these words jump into your brain . Have that Lad walk a Bull breed type of dog, and your fear is doubled. You hold your dog close, your children closer. You cross the street, afraid of an attack, The dog on the lead is suddenly a slavering beast, it’s owner a criminal.
But what is feeding this? Well, Frank Furedi (The Politics of fear 2005) discusses the way governments use fear to create a feeling of vulnerability amongst their electorate, and in this, the media helps. People’s frustrations and emotions can be directed towards outrage to particular issues, such as child obesity, Extremist sects, and dangerous dogs. The outrage gets pushed into demands that the Government needs to do more to clamp down, the machinery of the state, the police, health and security services, needs to be tougher on these issues, We accept that these “experts” Know best, and our best interests are served by government policies based on their advice. Attempts to criticise are lambasted; critics are labelled as militant, the media stereotypes those who speak out.
And there is the rub. Fear sells papers. Celebrity gossip vies with stories of injury, death and violence as our daily diet of current affairs. No-one wants to read the headline “Young man with Staffie cross is quite nice actually” People want to read about slavering beasts, bred to fight other dogs, bred to attack people to safeguard a dealer’s stash. People WANT to read that these animals are devil beasts with Jaws that lock; that will attack anything that moves and the media delivers. Those in authority need their “experts” to reinforce that fear, because if they don’t, the media will be upon them then next time a dog does attack, closely followed by the public.
“Do you not see what kind of world we are creating? {…} A world of fear and treachery and torment; a world of trampling and being trampled on, a world which will grow not less, but more merciless as it refines itself” George Orwell wrote in his novel 1984. This then, is what we fight - a culture of fear, created by a media desperate to keep itself going to influence its readers/listeners/wa
tchers. In this digital and internet age, the fight for audience is big business. The “Raising awareness banner” has become a cover for what was once classed as propaganda. Interviewees talk about being afraid to use parks because of these “status dogs” and Children are used as they provoke a more emotive response. The tone of the articles is all about provoking the “correct” response amongst the readership.
This Article, indeed, this whole short sighted campaign, is the result of this, of the death of so called "common sense" and needs to be put to sleep quickly, as it refuses a muzzle.

In order to write a credible article it is necessary to research a subject fully, which it is blantantly obvious you have not done.
If staffords are such vicious animals and so people aggressive please explain to me why in attempts to train them as police dogs they were unable to be used because they would not 'bite' to bring people down?
As previously stated a stafford should NEVER show aggression to people.
The only dog that has ever tried to bite me was a westie, my partner was bitten last month by a collie. Have we ever so much as been growled at by a stafford in the 15 years we have been around the breed? No...
I invite you to attend the next information stand our club holds. See if by the end of the day you still believe all staffords need to be muzzled any more than any other breed...

So, you quote 5 alleged Staffordshire Bull Terrier attacks in the last 3 years. Have you bothered to collate statistics of attacks by other breeds of dog or are you just discriminating against the Staffordshire Bull Terrier?
I hasten to add that not everyone can actually correctly identify a dog breed so it's purely guesswork that SBT's are responsible for attacks.
I think you'll find that these nasty little snappy dogs are more likely to attack without provocation. I concede that the results of an attack by a smaller dog would not be as devastating but if we're talking unprovoked dog attacks, take a look at dacshunds, chihuahua's, jack russell terriers, west highland terriers, cocker spaniels (yes, the canny cocker is more likely to bite you than a staffy is) and even the good old labrador.
But of course, attacks by these dogs don't make front page news - they don't start a media frenzy, people aren't running into their houses screaming "devil dog" when next door's chihuaha saunters passed.
Do a bit of research about the temperament of these dogs before you start casting aspertions.
After all, the SBT is the only dog the KC states as being "totally reliable" and also one of only two breeds that are specifically recommended as being good with children.

I would like to see anyone that met my 2 beautiful Staffies tell me that they needed to be muzzled. Dog attacks happen on a daily basis but the only ones that make the news are those of staffs, rotties, and other large dogs that are stereotyped as dangerous. Any true animal lover or dog owner will understand that a real staffordshire bull terrier, is a loyal, loving, friendly animal that loves human attention and affection. Those that attack will usually have been mistreated, beaten and unloved by there owners making them scared and defensive. If the media stopped reporting on these stories and actually showed the true nature of staffies, then maybe they would become less appealing to the idiots that end up buying them as a status dogs.

I loke many on here are appalled by this article. Whilst many of the points could have been well supported (like the private land rulings etc), the whole article has lost its credibility on its prejudiced slur on Staffordshire Bull terriers. I am surprised the editors didnt pick up on this poorly researched inflamatory piece of work- Staffies are a huge popular breed in Bexley and are likely to have many supporters.

As a volunteer at Battersea Dogs Home, I recommend that the writer's of this article go and researched their 'People with Dogs' campaign. This campaign educates about status dogs, and a big message is that it's not about victimising a breed, but the bad owners.

I see no mention in this article about how some of these Staffies are made to become aggressive, when they are naturally a playful lovely breed. What really is a bad crime in our area is illegal dog fighting. Maybe the writer's should hgo and investigate that- and after seeing Staffies tied up by their necks and viscously and repeatedly beaten to make them aggresive they would understand.

And yes all dogs are capable of injury- but lets get this in perspective. If parents really want to remove their children from the chance of being killed or hurt then they wouldnt let them cross the road, or let them be in car on the motorway. Oh and they wouldnt go to school- where they are at risk of bullying- as dont forget the biggest killer of under 30s is actually suicide.

So I would actually prefer a new petition newsshopper- one for an apology from the writer's of this article for such a poorly educated piece of writing that will achieve no more than spreading hate for a misunderstood breed!

Oh and if anyone has managed not to listen to this awful article- may I suggest you think of adopting a Staffie from Battersea. A lot of their campaigns this year have focused on getting their reputation changed!

On a final point-

your article states:

'According to NHS stats, at least 163 people have been injured in the Newshopper area in the past two years'.


Then later on you state:

'Are Staffies banned? No, Despite at leats five attacks in the News shopper are in the past three years.'


So you decide to campign for them to have added restrictions, for the fact they are responsible for 5 (in 3 years) attacks out of 163 (in two years). thats 3%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!

Terrible article!

Newshopper....what the hell is wrong with you??
You seem to be lacking any degree of intelliegence to back up your witch hunt. I would like to point out that due to the unfortunate fashion for Staffies as status symbol dogs, they have been disgustingly overbred to the point where there are far more staffies than homes, many of which are murdered every day only to make way for more, the ones that are alive languish for months if not years in kennels. Have you ever considered the fact that the number of staffie attacks is not due to some flaw in the breed, it is directly proportional to the huge number in this country at present, do you not realise that if ANY breed was overbred to this extent then numbers of that breeds attack rates would also rise proportionally??
While you attempt to spread your hate of innocent creatures you are perpetuating the idiotic view of them being a status symbol dog, everytime an idiot such as whoever wrote this articles falsely claims that the breed is inheritently aggressive it advertises them, and makes them more desireable to the irresponsible teenagers etc that WANT a dog with this reputation as a status symbol. You are helping in no way at all, you are perpetuating the problem.
I am a veterinary nurse and i work and foster for a number of charities, i see, handle and treat at least 5 different staffies on a DAILY basis, over the course of 5 years this is quite a high number, have i ever been bitten? No. Even while restraining them for treatment, even while injecting them, even while carrying out uncomfortable proceedures. Ignorant people with ignorant viewpoints should not be able to print such unsubstantiated rubbish. Im sure the hundreds of families out there with their faithfull family staffies are going to cease reading your newspaper, think how many of your readers own and love this breed? You are excluding your own readers. Moronic. So far 75 per cent of readers have voted 'no' to muzzle wearing. Oh dear.

congratulations shoppa news uve just victimised the uk s most popular dog . i can tell you ive reported this article to the kennel club and all the staffordshire bull terrier breed clubs i could find . im quite sure you will be getting calls from numerous soliciters for liable now . did you also know that the kennel club have a verry verry good soliciter i wont tell you his name because im quite sure you will be hearing from him verry soon . have a nice evening :)

Is this a joke? I've read more in depth and honest articles in The Sun and Daily Fail!!

"163 people have been injured by dogs" dogs not specifically Staffordshire Bull Terriers. You failed to mention Labradors bite more people each year than Staffordshire Bull Terriers.

"5 Staffordshire Bull Terrier attacks in the last 3 years" considering the huge amount of these dogs in this country that's not a high average so really not every single one of these dogs is dangerous then as the amount of attacks would be much, much higher.

There are many thousands of Staffordshire Bull Terriers and crosses that live in loving family homes and are as much a loved family pet as any labrador, collie or spaniel. Why don't you attempt to stand out from the usual ignorant journalists and truly research this breed.

So much ignorance and hatred for an animal that is just doing as it's masters trained it to do. Try pointing the finger at the person holding the lead.

Is this a joke? I've read more in depth and honest articles in The Sun and Daily Fail!!

"163 people have been injured by dogs" dogs not specifically Staffordshire Bull Terriers. You failed to mention Labradors bite more people each year than Staffordshire Bull Terriers.

"5 Staffordshire Bull Terrier attacks in the last 3 years" considering the huge amount of these dogs in this country that's not a high average so really not every single one of these dogs is dangerous then as the amount of attacks would be much, much higher.

There are many thousands of Staffordshire Bull Terriers and crosses that live in loving family homes and are as much a loved family pet as any labrador, collie or spaniel. Why don't you attempt to stand out from the usual ignorant journalists and truly research this breed.

So much ignorance and hatred for an animal that is just doing as it's masters trained it to do. Try pointing the finger at the person holding the lead.

Is this a joke? I've read more in depth and honest articles in The Sun and Daily Fail!!

"163 people have been injured by dogs" dogs not specifically Staffordshire Bull Terriers. You failed to mention Labradors bite more people each year than Staffordshire Bull Terriers.

"5 Staffordshire Bull Terrier attacks in the last 3 years" considering the huge amount of these dogs in this country that's not a high average so really not every single one of these dogs is dangerous then as the amount of attacks would be much, much higher.

There are many thousands of Staffordshire Bull Terriers and crosses that live in loving family homes and are as much a loved family pet as any labrador, collie or spaniel. Why don't you attempt to stand out from the usual ignorant journalists and truly research this breed.

So much ignorance and hatred for an animal that is just doing as it's masters trained it to do. Try pointing the finger at the person holding the lead.

To shanar Bournemouth re your comment 'since when has a pitbull not been a breed' - it has never been a breed it is a type of dog and a term used to describe several breeds including an American staff,American bulldog & Boston terrier.They are breeds of dogs in the molosser family which refers to Large solid built dogs.My dog is an American staff breed but the dog expert wrote in his report to the police he has a high percentage of the characteristics which deem him a 'pitbull type' and therefore banned.

To shanar Bournemouth re your comment 'since when has a pitbull not been a breed' - it has never been a breed it is a type of dog and a term used to describe several breeds including an American staff,American bulldog & Boston terrier.They are breeds of dogs in the molosser family which refers to Large solid built dogs.My dog is an American staff breed but the dog expert wrote in his report to the police he has a high percentage of the characteristics which deem him a 'pitbull type' and therefore banned.

Good grief. I don't think I seen such ignorance as this since... since....
since, nope it is THE most ignorant piece of reporting I have ever seen.

After reading the numerous comments above, each one pointing out just how ill-informed these 'journalists' are, I feel I have little left to add, but I'll have a go anyway. There may be a little lesson in there for the writers of this rubbish. It's a freebie on me.

This article really does look like it was thrown together over a few drinks on a Friday lunch-time. The views stated were commonplace 5 years ago, but since then it's been quite well established that bad owners are the major cause of poorly behaved dogs.

In response to the weak statistics upon which the article appears to hang, in the UK in 2009 alone, there were 405 deaths caused by drowning. In 3 years this figure rises to over 1000 deaths. (Source: RoSPA)
Now, if they were truly concerned with saving people, they could have campaigned for more lifebelts along rivers, or maybe fundraised for the RNLI, or even promote swimming lessons for kids. But let's face it, that doesn't make good headlines does it?

Ok, onto our 5 attacks in 3 years. (sounding rather weak now, isn't it) How about a picture of an unfortunate old lady who was attacked by a Staff? As harrowing as the ordeal undoubtedly was, hers is an isolated incident. Still, it'll get the readers in!

Situations like this boil down to a simple equation: Risk=Hazard+Outrage.


Plenty of outrage to milk out of a dog attack, as they've already demonstrated so well. but as we've already seen, the risk is almost non-existent.

Drowning on the other hand, well, the balance of the equation shifts. Far more hazard, as we can see, but outrage is a bit thin on the ground. Nothing to see here.

So, to sum up: The basic reality is that the risks that scare people and the risks that kill people are very different. You are statistically more likely to drown than be attacked by a Staffy, but to shift a few copies of their local rag, the News Shopper still believe that more controls are required. Good work.

"Shop a dog, win a mug" Ive never seen six words so disgusting! How utterly repulsive. As a staffy owner and an American bulldog owner I find your article beyond comprehension. Its inaccurate inarticulate and your facts are unsound. Id like to know who this "We" is you speak of because according to DEFRA consultation people want to see an END to DDA/BSL and bring in a law that targets ALL irresponsible owners. Im disturbed you want to see the glorious Stafford in a muzzle for absolutely no reason other than flawed data. 3 attacks in 5 years does not warrent such a harsh reaction to the 1000s of responsible owners and dogs in this country. The dogs who have attended socialisation classes, obedience classes and are not status symbols or weapons dogs. If NS is really wanting to stop dog attacks it needs to look at the bigger picture and stop producing ignorant articles like this. The blame for a dogs bad behaviour is always the fault of the human on the other end of the lead. They havent socialised their dog, have badly trained or just plain mistreated it. Worse still are those who go out of their way to create a vicious dog! These are the people who need targetted. Who should never own a goldfish. Im sick of responsible owners being attacked by stupid idiotic journalists who dont research facts but just write completely sensationalist bull to create a story. This one has really back fired. There is a Private memebers Bill going through the House of Lords called the Dog Control Bill. I shouldnt be telling you this!! This will replace the Dangerous Dog Act with legislation to cover all dogs out of control and dangerous to the public. Its been backed by The Blue Cross. RSPCA, PDSA, Dogs Trust Kennel Club and BVA.
Tmcd.. Your arguement isnt logical. Kmnives or guns do not on kill or maim people, the people who have them do that. Do we then tie everyones hands behind thir backs to stop any chance of people carrying them. Same arguements go for muzzling.
Bromleypeep.. I take both my dogs to walk in the park. One difference, neither of them are allowed to run off lead. It isnt fair to kids or adults who may be frightened of them. It also isn fair to my dogs if a kid screams and spooks them, leaving them wondering what they have done wrong. If I want them off lead I take them to an area allowed off lead and where kids are not wandering. When kids do approach I ask them to reach out and let dogs sniff them then approach. Never in 7 years have either dog been a problem
SAFC Ive never read such a ridiculous statement in my life. Muzzling 24 7 and chaining would actually create a very dangerous unpredictable dog. When a dog is in its home and with family its natural instinct is to guard and protect. There is a difference in creating an aggressive dog and a dog who will protect you if he/she thinks their is danger. Also all dogs do NOT have it in their nature to bite. All dogs have teeth and can bite.. the vast majority do not!

What sloppy, sensationalist journalism this is. The picture & the graphics of your 'shop a dog' logo says it all- that's not even a staffordshire bull terrier. And as for the blood dripping down & the title itself? Cheap shots Newsshopper, shame on you.

I have two rescued staffies and a shih tzu cross. All are fantastic with humans, and two are fantastic with dogs. Which one has the attitude problem when it comes to other dogs? You guessed it, the shih tzu.

If you'd actually bothered to do any reasearch before writing this poor excuse for a piece of journalism, you'd have noticed that there is very little evidence to support the notion of banning specific breeds. If you are following the legislation going through the House at the moment, you'll know that the overwhelming majority of animal charities do not support the banning of specific breeds and would rather see owners made to take responsibility.

My staffs might lick you to death, but that's about it. As has already been pointed out to you, the breed most likely to bite humans is the Dachshund, but hey, that wouldn't have made such a nice scary picture would it?

I live in the area you purport to represent. I have gone out of my way to make sure my dogs are the best trained, most well socialised dogs in the park, I go above & beyond what is expected of a responsible owner & my dogs are ambassadors for their breed as a result. I get asked everyday by people petting my dogs, what breed they are; people are confused, because the dogs in front of them are nothing like the ridiculous caricature depicted above. I'm so fed up of people who should know better, such as supposedly educated journalists, jumping on the sensationalist bandwagon and demonising my dogs. The sooner you realise you're looking at the wrong end of the lead for someone to blame, the better. Shame on you.

I am a staffy owner from Australia and have owned 2 staffies one has now passed away but he was the sweetest, gentlest creature u would ever want to meet, Nitro would lick you to death, he was such a dangerous dog that he let a friends toddler ride on his back, my new staffy Harley is a softy as well. It's how the owners treat them as to how they react, i was bitten severely on the knee by a maltese when i was walking to the bus, i still have the bite scar & have trouble bending & straightening my knee but are they classed as dangerous dogs? no, unless you know the dog DON'T JUDGE IT OR THE BREED, BY THE ACTIONS OF A FEW BAD OWNERS. How would you like everyone to judge you for a reason like say u have red hair, u must have a temper, should we be declared dangerous? People & un informed media PULL YA HEADS IN & GET INFORMED BEFORE JUDGING, DOGS DON'T JUDGE U, SO DON'T JUDGE THEM.

shaner,bournemouth wrote:

meme6 wrote:
Reading your article i can tell that N/S staff are not dog lovers this is nothing but a witch hunt.Don't they know that magistrates & police are fully aware that people do not always know a dog is a banned breed when its bought as a puppy.They do not destroy dogs for the sake of it they put restrictions on them and send them home where they belong.I have first hand experience because the puppy that was bought for me 4 years ago was a lovely little 'staff' who grew into a great big staff who was taken away and deemed a 'pitball' type dog ( a pitball is not a breed).He was in police kennels for 5 weeks we went to court and explained that he is a family pet ,much loved and part of the family.He was insured,micro chipped etc etc & they could see we were responsible owners.They put restrictions on him gave me a conditional discharge and no fine or court costs.The magistrate told us they were there not there to destroy family pets.It cost us nothing but heart ache our lovely dog 5 weeks of misery and the police a fortune in kennal cost's & vet's fee's.He has got a tattoo inside his leg,3rd party liability insurance has to be muzzled & on a lead in public but shouldn't all dogs.Every dog is potentially dangerous what dog could be more snappy & growl's more than a Jack Russell ?? When are the N/S going to realise its NOT THE DOG ITS THE OWNER.They would be better spending the time & resources on SHOP A BENEFIT CHEAT rather than trying to have much loved family pets destroyed.

Since when was a Pitbull not a breed?

Actually, under section 1 of the dangerous dogs act, the pitbull terrier is defined as a TYPE of dog, not a breed of dog. This enables them to label any dog with the requisite number of physical characteristics to be deemed a pitbull terrier TYPE dog. Any breed, or crossbreed can be classed as a PBT if it ticks enough of the boxes. There have been KC registered staffordshire bull terriers with 5 generation pedigrees deemed pitbulls under this law.

bromleypeep wrote:
I hear alot of people complaining how 'unfair' it is to make them mussle their dogs. How utterly selfish and spoilt of you. It is true that it is not the dogs but the owners but people say the same about knifes and guns and you wouldn't take those to a park where children play. I have two small children and we don't have much money so we hang out in public parks alot and when I see a scary looking dog I usher my children away gently. Why? Well I'm sure your dog never hurt anyone but would I be a good mother if I took that chance? How do I know how you've raised the dog? How do I know what kind of personality it has? Should I push my kids towards you and tell them to go play? Should I cross my fingers that this animal with huge jaws and massive teeth doesn't take a disliking to a four year old accidentally poking it's face?

Yes ALL dogs are capable of being violent but not all dogs have the ability to rip a child to pieces. Let's get real here, these are animals. When did we put the right of animals before the right of human beings? I understand that you love your dogs but I love my children and I'm sick of people having a go at mums being wary of these dogs. Like I said we don't know how they have been raised. Should I bring a tiger to your house? It's ok, it's well trained, no need to worry at all. I'm sure you'd take my word for it. No? Oh, how unfair.

This kind of ignorant prejudice is dangerous. For you and more importantly for your kids. For one thing, you're teaching your kids that only certain breeds pose a real danger to them and they can judge this on the basis of the dog's appearance - wrong. There was a case recently of a west highland terrier ripping a child's eye lid off! Secondly, the staffordshire bull terrier is one of only two breeds out of 190 to be noted by the Uk kennel club for its 'natural affinity with children'. It is the only breed out of 190 with the words 'totally reliable' used to describe its temperament. The most dangerous thing you can teach your child is that some dogs are dangerous, some are not. Your children need to understand that all strange dogs are potentially dangerous, unless they're told otherwise.

Secondly, you should be teaching your children how to behave CALMLY and sensibly around dogs. The biggest problem we dog owners have is with hysterical parents frantically ushering their children away. These children never learn how to behave appropriately around dogs because they pick up all the phobic habits of the parents. Staring at a dog attracts its attention, as does screaming and pointing, yet time and time again I see adults behave in a way which encourages these kinds of hysterical responses from their children. This is not good for the child's safety long term. Learning to move calmly & slowly around dogs is the best way to keep your child safe. My dogs will completely ignore children in the park but we've had a few occasions where parents have dragged their children across the park at high speed, shrieking loudly every time a dog came within 100m of them, which actually attracted far more dogs than if they just walked by calmly, minding their own business. Staffies have an instinct to protect children, which goes back hundreds of years to the days when they would share beds with the children of the workers.

The ONLY time my dogs have ever approached a child without permission in public was when we came across a mother was chastising her children too harshly as we were leaving the park. She was clearly 'on the edge' & was forcefully shaking & screaming at the top of her lungs at the middle child, with the elder & younger ones crying hysterically & obviously in real distress. The situation was completely out of control and I was just contemplating how to respond, when both my dogs quietly went and stood in directly front of the youngest child (about 2). They remained there until the mother realised they were there, let go of the middle child & stopped ranting. They then calmly came back to me & left the park. The mother probably didn't appreciate their intervention, but the terrified children certainly did.

A campaign to bring Justice to the victims of dog attacks? More like a victimisation campaign against dogs that someone at newshopper doesnt seem keen on.
There are no dangerous breed - just dangerous owners that turn dogs into what they want them to be.
Alot of these 163 so called attacks were most likely chihuaua's or maltese (the biggest biters as it happens) nipping someone.
The dogs are the victims in this disgusting excuse for a "justice campaign". But not only the dogs - the members of the public who believe that a publication cannot give out false information and attempt to incite hatred - they are victims of your lies. This is a shameful day for the Newshopper.

How about "Shop A Journalist" (I use the term loosely). Another writer who ran out of real news for his/her deadline so decided to regurgitate the old "devil dog" theory. When Hitler murdered people, was the blame laid on the gas chamber? When the IRA murdered people, was the blame placed on the bombs? When Al Qaeda murdered people, was the blame aimed at the planes? No, so why does the dog take the blame and pay the price in every "attack...mauling" feel free to insert any more sensational description! It's about time that the so-called owners of the dogs involved in incidents were punished more severely. We all know the type of owner we are talking about and let's face it, you seize and murder their dog...they just get another, no big deal! Start at base level.....stop backyard breeding, regulate and license recognised breeders, make compulsory micro-chipping and registration.
Let's stop demonising the dogs as the majority of these breeds live their lives happily as family pets and are never involved in any altercation whatsoever. Start laying blame and taking appropriate action at the other end of the lead........or is it just easier to kill the dog than punish the owner? On a final note, red cars are involved in more accidents than any other colour so your next headline could be...."shop a red car"?????

How about "Shop A Journalist" (I use the term loosely). Another writer who ran out of real news for his/her deadline so decided to regurgitate the old "devil dog" theory. When Hitler murdered people, was the blame laid on the gas chamber? When the IRA murdered people, was the blame placed on the bombs? When Al Qaeda murdered people, was the blame aimed at the planes? No, so why does the dog take the blame and pay the price in every "attack...mauling" feel free to insert any more sensational description! It's about time that the so-called owners of the dogs involved in incidents were punished more severely. We all know the type of owner we are talking about and let's face it, you seize and murder their dog...they just get another, no big deal! Start at base level.....stop backyard breeding, regulate and license recognised breeders, make compulsory micro-chipping and registration.
Let's stop demonising the dogs as the majority of these breeds live their lives happily as family pets and are never involved in any altercation whatsoever. Start laying blame and taking appropriate action at the other end of the lead........or is it just easier to kill the dog than punish the owner? On a final note, red cars are involved in more accidents than any other colour so your next headline could be...."shop a red car"?????

jca111 wrote:
Let the witch hunt begin. Sounds like a cheap publicity campaign to me...

Unfortunately I have to agree. Your campaign to focus on Staffies is incredibly unfair and wrong. Staffie Welfare and Battersea are sponsering a campaign "Blame the Deed, Not the Breed". You need to educate the idiots who will take a dog (regardless of breed) and use it as prop to their poor self image. Odd really, Staffordshires are renowned for being extreme people lovers and are not called the Nanny Dog by the kennel club for nothing. And as for the mother who is worried about her children approaching a strange dog.. Do you not have ANY common sense?. You never NEVER approach ANY strange dog without asking the owner and you should always teach your children this. Regardless of breed . If you see a dog continually being agressive, then report it to the local dog warden. Stop jumping on the band wagon with this ridicoulous hysteria. Oh and for the record, you might think that picture is of a staffordshire bull terrier but you quite clearly did not bother to go the either the Kennel Club or Staffie Welfare for a correct picture. That picture is quite clearly a cross of something. A correct staff is only 16" at the shoulder for a dog and 14" for a ****. Anything else is a cross or an example from these backstreet irresponsible breeders. Why don't you campaign to stop THOSE people "breeding" dogs and then dumping them on rescues.

Wow.. "Shop a dog and win a mug."
Dan Keel and Kelly Smale, how long did it take you both to come up with that slogan. This is just another example of totally irresponsible and lazy journalism. It's irresponsible owners who are the problem, not the dogs.

I see the poll has been removed.

Not going your way, Huh?

I was saddened to read your article this week regarding the lady who was attacked by a Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Dog attacks not only leave people with physical scars but the mental trauma associated with such an attack will last a lifetime.
Or...iginally bred for baiting, bloodsports were thankfully eliminated in Great Britain in 1835 when the Stafford was introduced as a family pet.
Unfortunately the Stafford is probably the most misunderstood dog out of all of the breeds. It is very apparent that today’s ‘Yob Culture’ find it fashionable to walk the streets with a Stafford which due to its shape and size and usual accompaniment of a large choker chain, provide an intimidating appearance.
The breed is of an extremely loyal and loving, intelligent and stable nature. However, its affection and loyalty for people is sadly abused by some owners. It has been reported that drug dealers invite friends in to their homes and stage ‘mock fights’. The dogs loyalty towards its owner makes the dog aggressive towards the attacker and provides a level of safety to the dealer and his drugs when they are walking the streets. If anyone tries to attack, the dog is used as a form of legal weapon. Should the dog really be used or punished for this ? I personally feel that more attention should be paid to what is on the other end of the lead.
Battersea dogs home take in hundreds of Staffies every year which have been abused, stranded and generally uncared for. People seem to forget that the dog is a living creature and does require exercise, food and water. The breed is being cross bred more often today and sometimes with a dog that has some volatile traits. This being said, a large majority of cross breeds make excellent family pets.
I personally own a 100% pure pedigree Stafford who is Kennel Club registered and whos ancestors have had many winners at Crufts. Our dog is fed on top quality food, exercised up to 3 miles a day and is given much love by myself, my wife and our two children who are 9 and 11. She is sat on, rolled over, dressed in silly costumes from time to time and generally played with like a child. Our dog has never once shown any aggression to any human being and prefers the company of people rather than other dogs whilst in the park.
Sadly, many people misread this breed and all unfortunately then get tarred with the same brush. Instead of trying to enforce that ALL Staffords should wear a muzzle in public, it should be made law that all dog owners pay for a licence for their animal. This would then go some way to ensuring that people who own dogs are responsible, genuine dog lovers.
Please do not chastise my dog and many others when the minority who do not care about their animals welfare are causing these problems.

Needless to say I am absolutely appalled by your article. Most of what I wanted to say has already been said in comments above so there is no need for me to repeat them. I would however like to point out that if you had done your research, which presumably is part of your job description (???) then you will see that Staffies are not even in the top 5 breeds of dogs who have caused the most dog on human bites! I do however see why you would not want that published though...after all, it doesnt sell stories does it?? My other point would have to be, where is the voting poll you were running on this yesterday? From memory, nearly 75% or people who voted said 'NO Staffies should NOT be muzzled in public'. Funny how that poll and its results have vanished from this article with NO mention whatsoever of what it is that the public actually want!! Again, I see why you would want to hide it as it totally blows your one sided and biased opinions out of the water!!! So much for the public having a voice. If we cant talk for the dogs, what chance do they have??

One of my cats has taken the odd nip fat my finger when playing but I'd hate to see them wearing muzzles.

I'm no dog lover - quite the opposite - but this whole idea just seems bonkers.

In my opinion the problem is with the owner not the dog.

OMG you have to be joking staffys are so loyal and loving dogs i have owned them for years i am also a mum of two girls age two and 3months and i own 2staffys and a amstaffy n there are absolutly great dogs with EVERYONE strangers,kids,other dogs, how dare they say there aggresive does no one get its all these little thievs n druggys that give them a bad rip i say bann the young lads from owning the dogs rather then banning the dogs,the poor dogs are only doing wat they have been tought to do! noone ever mentions the poodle the ripped someones nose off or the millions of jack russels that attack kids everyday or ny of the little snappy dogs!"!"! no its just all the bull breeds isnt it wat makes good gossip wel its a discrace! for all you staffy lovers or pit lovers i have a petition on the petition site to STOP THE BANNING OF STAFFYS AND PITBULLS ALL OVER THE WORLD but not many people no its there so PLEASE go have a look n sign n share it for the staffys before its to late xxx

First of all, I'd like to send my best wishes to Mrs White, & hope she is recovering well. That wish goes out to all who have been attacked by dogs & to all dogs who have been attacked by people, you will find the latter is a far greater number.
As an animal rescuer, I can tell you that there are far more Staffordshire Bull Terriers & their cross breeds in the UK, than any other breed of dog.... If you don't believe that, then do speak to the large charities & they will confirm it for you. Given this, would not expect if you truly believe staffy's to be so dangerous, far more incidents of biting or attacks... its simple maths.
In the 20 years I have rescued dogs, I have handled many staffy's & their crosses, I have seen them starved to near death, beaten so badly, they are too afraid to even look at you & wet themselves in fear when you approach them. I have seen some who do display fear aggression due to abuse, but those same dogs come round very quickly with a kind word & understanding handler who rebuilds their trust, showing them that not all people are bad... This is an important point.. as you cannot tar a breed, a species or a race with the same brush!
I do believe that new improved laws need to put in place, not only to safe guard people from dog attacks, but to safe guard the thousands of dogs who are attacked by people. With a bit more thought, your new dog campaign could have been great, helping society as a whole, because like it or not, dogs are indeed part of our society. But as it stands, your new campaign is nothing more than one fueled by hate, ignorance, & it appears sensationalism.

There are much better ways to help people & dogs, & it boils down to dog licensing & proper controls over dog breeding & ownership. The only way to achieve this is for the press to inform themselves & work together with rescues who are picking up the pieces on a daily basis of an inadequate law.
Breed specific legislation does not work, & sees many loving dogs destroyed who never harmed anyone, & families grieving for their companion. Do not underestimate the love a human has for their doggy friends, no one has the right to sit in judgment of that love. But as a society we all have the right to fight for better laws to protect all.

Maybe you could reconsider your campaign & feel free to contact me if you would like some pointers on how best this could be tackled... granted its just my opinion, but one based on fact & experience. I'm always happy to seek knowledge from others on subjects I'm ignorant to, so please do the same, & rethink your stance on this & maybe gain some support.

First of all why have you taken the poll down !!!!!! Was it not going as you expected ????? Secondly I was totally disgusted by this ignorant article "Shop a Dog get a free mug" I have never heard such such vile Bull**** in my life. Any dog is capable of biting, what breed is next on your hit list. I think whoever wrote this article should spend more time doing research before spouting such utter rubbish !

Why has the poll gone? Not going your way?

By the way, the picture of the "dangerous" staffie you have in your article, is of Champion BELLEDEN GHOST N DARKNESS, an Australian Show Dog. Yes, a show dog. That will be a dog bred for health and temperament, and assessed as such by the australian show world. I have made them aware that you are using their photograph to "promote" how dangerous their dogs are. I suspect you will be hearing from them. Here is the original photo. I assume you also have their photographic copyright consent to use the picture? You will see that all those photos are copyrighted at the end of their web page, here. http://www.ourknight
s.com/our-critiques.
asp

There are a lot of hysterical people who have been reading about 'dangerous dogs' and so believe ALL dogs are dangerous and will savage you sooner than look. Lots of small dogs are yappy and can be snappy but if they are in their own garden and cannot get to you just ignore it, not like some of my neighbours who screech at the dog to frighten it then as I call her in say they are going to stab her or kidnap her
(or as I pointed out dognap as she is a dog!)
A lot of dogs might bite BUT it is easy to get them to let go but if it's a Staffie type dog their jaws lock and it is impossible to get it to let go unless you kill it usually.
This Newsshopper 'Shopadog' campaign is adding to the hysteria that is around nowadays - when I was a child dogs would be running around the streets on their own and one rarely heard of anyone being bitten and although I don't want to see any dog on the streets now as it would cause accidents etc at least most people were not in a state of terror if they see a dog as we see now.

Just to set the last persons comment on the 'locking jaws' of a stafford, this is completely untrue, no dog can lock its jaws this was another media hype back in the '90s, they are simply just strong, but not as strong as a Rottweiller or a German Shepherd. There was a story of a chihuahua who bit its owner so badly she had to have her leg amputated!

you took down the poll as the results were going against the campaign.how shameful.
the truth is staffies when loved properly are loving dogs.

this is not a free campaign against dangerous dogs it is a witch hunt against staffies.

ALL dog owners should have to register their dogs and have a licence. to keep a track on bad owners!

shame on you! for removing the poll!

grant higgins wrote:
you took down the poll as the results were going against the campaign.how shameful.
the truth is staffies when loved properly are loving dogs.

this is not a free campaign against dangerous dogs it is a witch hunt against staffies.

ALL dog owners should have to register their dogs and have a licence. to keep a track on bad owners!

shame on you! for removing the poll!

Unprincipled "journalism" from unprincipled "journalists." Only to be expected really.

I cannot believe this article. Not only is it misinformed, misrepresentative and moronic. It's archaic, dangerous and thoughtless.

You really need to report this properly and research your subject matter. The SBT is not the dangerous dog you purport it to be. In fact the breed with the highest bite ratio is the Dachshund!

Do you know what. There's no point in writing about this.. You've no idea about dogs, no idea about 'dangerous dogs' and no idea about how to tackle the problem of dog bites.

For me, I have a problem with false reporting, I believe all reporters who make false allegations should have their testicles/breasts removed with rusty pliers and have to wear a scolds bridle in public!

The stupidity of the above article is beyond reprehensible!

totally unbelievable! how can you label all dogs the same, the Staffie is a loyal and loving dog in the right hands - people who use these lovely dogs as status symbols set the media raging that all dogs are the same - they are not! this is a witch hunt that should be stopped now - your ad only adds to the hate media that is spread by this sort of thing - please check your facts before committing yet another breed to the outdated and soon to be gone - hopefully - dangerous dogs list!

crazydoglady wrote:

shaner,bournemouth wrote:

meme6 wrote:
Reading your article i can tell that N/S staff are not dog lovers this is nothing but a witch hunt.Don't they know that magistrates & police are fully aware that people do not always know a dog is a banned breed when its bought as a puppy.They do not destroy dogs for the sake of it they put restrictions on them and send them home where they belong.I have first hand experience because the puppy that was bought for me 4 years ago was a lovely little 'staff' who grew into a great big staff who was taken away and deemed a 'pitball' type dog ( a pitball is not a breed).He was in police kennels for 5 weeks we went to court and explained that he is a family pet ,much loved and part of the family.He was insured,micro chipped etc etc & they could see we were responsible owners.They put restrictions on him gave me a conditional discharge and no fine or court costs.The magistrate told us they were there not there to destroy family pets.It cost us nothing but heart ache our lovely dog 5 weeks of misery and the police a fortune in kennal cost's & vet's fee's.He has got a tattoo inside his leg,3rd party liability insurance has to be muzzled & on a lead in public but shouldn't all dogs.Every dog is potentially dangerous what dog could be more snappy & growl's more than a Jack Russell ?? When are the N/S going to realise its NOT THE DOG ITS THE OWNER.They would be better spending the time & resources on SHOP A BENEFIT CHEAT rather than trying to have much loved family pets destroyed.

Since when was a Pitbull not a breed?

Actually, under section 1 of the dangerous dogs act, the pitbull terrier is defined as a TYPE of dog, not a breed of dog. This enables them to label any dog with the requisite number of physical characteristics to be deemed a pitbull terrier TYPE dog. Any breed, or crossbreed can be classed as a PBT if it ticks enough of the boxes. There have been KC registered staffordshire bull terriers with 5 generation pedigrees deemed pitbulls under this law.

Exactly. A 'Pitbull type' meaning something as close to a Pitbull as possible. Pitbull terrier is a breed, fact! An Amstaff is also a Pitbull. In the US your dog could be an American Staffordshire or a Pitbull, it just depends who it is registered with.

meme6 wrote:
To shanar Bournemouth re your comment 'since when has a pitbull not been a breed' - it has never been a breed it is a type of dog and a term used to describe several breeds including an American staff,American bulldog & Boston terrier.They are breeds of dogs in the molosser family which refers to Large solid built dogs.My dog is an American staff breed but the dog expert wrote in his report to the police he has a high percentage of the characteristics which deem him a 'pitbull type' and therefore banned.

How very wrong you are.

Last time I checked the poll, the vast majority of people thought the suggestions by NewsShopper were a pile of the proverbial. So they remove the poll, they remove posts that don't support them on Facebook, etc etc. Seems to me someone's seen the publicity surrounding another dog issue this week (The One Show) and made a sloppy and pathetic attempt to emulate the furore by sticking together an ignorant, ill-informed, bigoted piece of writing (I use the word loosely) to try and boost readership. Epic fail. I've noticed a lot of poor penmanship in the NewsShopper, it seems to be hashed together with pretty lazy writing and editing. Hopefully the views above will knock some sense into your "journalists" and editor - people don't approve of racial profiling and bigotry in this day and age. It's time to get out of the dark ages and stop using dogs as an excuse for poor reporting skills and pants staff. I urge responsible dog owners to boycott this publication until they pull their socks up and stop treating the public like idiots with these silly, childish scare tactics.

For the record, you don't see your publication urging people to "Shop a VW Golf" when a child is run over. You don't see "Shop a bad dog OWNER", no, it's far easier to hand out free mugs to the mugs who fell for this ploy. SBTs are the only breed the Kennel Club specifically recommend to families with children. I can't see the owners of the photos you illegally stole being too chuffed about their use with this piece of tripe.

MFCLION89 wrote:
So now begins the witch hunt against Stafordshire Bull Terriers. How incredibly unfair to those of us who have bought our staffs up to be loveable friendley dogs. This should not be made "law" at all it should be on the owners head weather or not thier dog wears a muzzke in public. In the unfortunate event that a dog does attack it can then be said in court that you were warned to muzzle your dog so now you have no excuse. Thats the way it should work. No "breed" of dog is more likley to attack than any other, the problem comes with the way the dog is trained and brought up. Totally unfair. I have a staff and a Jack Russel, and the Russel's more likely to give you some than the staff. Hence why he wears a muzzle when outside and the staff does not.

I totally agree. This is outrageous!! I have a Stafordshire Bull Terrier, who we got from a rescue centre five years ago. She was so badly abused it makes make me argry how people can treat any animal so badly!! She has scares on her back, and now she is absolutely scared of everything. When we take her out all she want to do is play with other dogs. She would not hurt a fly!!!
SO YOUR WHICH HUNT AGAINST ALL STAFORDSHIRE BULL TERRIERS IS SO WRONG!!

If you think these dogs are dangerous you are looking at the wrong end of the lead! We rescued a Staffy Cross at the weekend from Battersea Dogs & Cats Home (about 90% of the dogs they had there were staffy or staffy cross, the one we rescued is a lovely boy)not likely these will find homes with campaigns like this running. I really think NS should of done their homework first, Staffs are know as "nanny dogs" because of their good nature, its the idiots that encourage them to behave in this manner that are to blame. Yes any dog has the potential to attack and do damage but US RESPONSIBLE owners know the signs and react to them so an attack doesn't happen. Surely we should be looking at the owner NOT the dog.

PaulErith wrote:
All dogs are aggressive and should wear mussles in public.

You should wear a mussel

My goodness. this article is no more informative or accurate than an essay written in haste by a 12 year old. the use of carefully selected generic photos of 'vicious' dogs does nothing but increase people's fear of some animals and add to a growing hysteria that all staffies are unpredicatable and prone to attack. rather than proceeding with this ill-informed, slightly dangerous way of trying to change things, i would suggest you drop this article like a hot brick and take advice from experts, by which i mean the people on the ground dealing with the consequences of crap written like this everyday. how many more abandoned dogs will turn up now you have put the frighteners on people. absolute disgrace!

shaner,bournemouth wrote:

meme6 wrote:
To shanar Bournemouth re your comment 'since when has a pitbull not been a breed' - it has never been a breed it is a type of dog and a term used to describe several breeds including an American staff,American bulldog & Boston terrier.They are breeds of dogs in the molosser family which refers to Large solid built dogs.My dog is an American staff breed but the dog expert wrote in his report to the police he has a high percentage of the characteristics which deem him a 'pitbull type' and therefore banned.

How very wrong you are.

I guess all the books i own on the American Pitbull terrier, The American Staffordshire terrier and other Bull breed dogs must be wrong.
Also, American Bulldogs are not classed as 'Pitbull type'.
There are guidelines that they use to determine what is a 'Pitbull type' and it all goes on looks, size and shape.

Why dont you start with attacking the back street breeders who are making a fortune out of these dogs. Puppy farms and the likes make bad dogs but sell them cheap so people will purchase them.

shaner,bournemouth wrote:

shaner,bournemouth wrote:

meme6 wrote:
To shanar Bournemouth re your comment 'since when has a pitbull not been a breed' - it has never been a breed it is a type of dog and a term used to describe several breeds including an American staff,American bulldog & Boston terrier.They are breeds of dogs in the molosser family which refers to Large solid built dogs.My dog is an American staff breed but the dog expert wrote in his report to the police he has a high percentage of the characteristics which deem him a 'pitbull type' and therefore banned.

How very wrong you are.

I guess all the books i own on the American Pitbull terrier, The American Staffordshire terrier and other Bull breed dogs must be wrong.
Also, American Bulldogs are not classed as 'Pitbull type'.
There are guidelines that they use to determine what is a 'Pitbull type' and it all goes on looks, size and shape.

And your dog was deemed a 'Pitbull type' by some of his characteristics? Surely you can see that this is complete nonsence?

perhaps the journalist and the editor might like to visit
http://www.deednotbr
eed.org.uk/
and discover some true facts and figures, plus just what results inflammatory knee jerk journalism can have on families and animals
then decide whether you want to dish out cheap bits of advertising ceramic whilst advocating people to become 'blackshirts' and turn their neighbours in regarding innocent animals

KathyA wrote:
Last time I checked the poll, the vast majority of people thought the suggestions by NewsShopper were a pile of the proverbial. So they remove the poll, they remove posts that don't support them on Facebook, etc etc. Seems to me someone's seen the publicity surrounding another dog issue this week (The One Show) and made a sloppy and pathetic attempt to emulate the furore by sticking together an ignorant, ill-informed, bigoted piece of writing (I use the word loosely) to try and boost readership. Epic fail. I've noticed a lot of poor penmanship in the NewsShopper, it seems to be hashed together with pretty lazy writing and editing. Hopefully the views above will knock some sense into your "journalists" and editor - people don't approve of racial profiling and bigotry in this day and age. It's time to get out of the dark ages and stop using dogs as an excuse for poor reporting skills and pants staff. I urge responsible dog owners to boycott this publication until they pull their socks up and stop treating the public like idiots with these silly, childish scare tactics. For the record, you don't see your publication urging people to "Shop a VW Golf" when a child is run over. You don't see "Shop a bad dog OWNER", no, it's far easier to hand out free mugs to the mugs who fell for this ploy. SBTs are the only breed the Kennel Club specifically recommend to families with children. I can't see the owners of the photos you illegally stole being too chuffed about their use with this piece of tripe.

I AM THE OWNER OF THE PHOTO AND DOG FEATURED ABOVE and I am in no way happy about him being featured in such a trashy ill-informed article.....you have no right to use my image it is copyrighted......to me as the photographer. This dog and the boys who love and cherish him do not deserve to read such rubbish things written about the breed he is, it's as if you are saying he is the culprit. Do not judge a book by it's cover as you should NOT judge a dog by it's breed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
! As the above poster KathyA has written this is the ONLY breed that states in there Kennel Club standard to be "totally reliable, Highly intelligent and affectionate especially with children." in there temperament and characteristics!!!! I understand some people have a fear of strange dogs but I have a horrific fear of spiders but you don't see me campaigning to have them defanged (equivalent to muzzling a dog). People need to realize that it is DEED NOT BREED you should be directing your anger at the irresponsible owners and campaigning to have stricter laws for such owners etc.....not blanket ban breeds....look at the humans first, they are the ones most responsible for how each dog turns out.

I think this is singularly the most outrageous and ignorant piece of 'journalism' I have ever read. I am a Blackheath resident and I will be campaigning against this newspaper as of this weekend. I think it is absolutely disgusting that you are encouraging people to 'shop and dog' by offering a mug! It is appalling. You should be sincerely ashamed of yourselves and you will not be hearing the last of it.

Jasmin

BSLisWRONG wrote:

KathyA wrote:
Last time I checked the poll, the vast majority of people thought the suggestions by NewsShopper were a pile of the proverbial. So they remove the poll, they remove posts that don't support them on Facebook, etc etc. Seems to me someone's seen the publicity surrounding another dog issue this week (The One Show) and made a sloppy and pathetic attempt to emulate the furore by sticking together an ignorant, ill-informed, bigoted piece of writing (I use the word loosely) to try and boost readership. Epic fail. I've noticed a lot of poor penmanship in the NewsShopper, it seems to be hashed together with pretty lazy writing and editing. Hopefully the views above will knock some sense into your "journalists" and editor - people don't approve of racial profiling and bigotry in this day and age. It's time to get out of the dark ages and stop using dogs as an excuse for poor reporting skills and pants staff. I urge responsible dog owners to boycott this publication until they pull their socks up and stop treating the public like idiots with these silly, childish scare tactics. For the record, you don't see your publication urging people to "Shop a VW Golf" when a child is run over. You don't see "Shop a bad dog OWNER", no, it's far easier to hand out free mugs to the mugs who fell for this ploy. SBTs are the only breed the Kennel Club specifically recommend to families with children. I can't see the owners of the photos you illegally stole being too chuffed about their use with this piece of tripe.

I AM THE OWNER OF THE PHOTO AND DOG FEATURED ABOVE and I am in no way happy about him being featured in such a trashy ill-informed article.....you have no right to use my image it is copyrighted......to me as the photographer. This dog and the boys who love and cherish him do not deserve to read such rubbish things written about the breed he is, it's as if you are saying he is the culprit. Do not judge a book by it's cover as you should NOT judge a dog by it's breed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

! As the above poster KathyA has written this is the ONLY breed that states in there Kennel Club standard to be "totally reliable, Highly intelligent and affectionate especially with children." in there temperament and characteristics!!!! I understand some people have a fear of strange dogs but I have a horrific fear of spiders but you don't see me campaigning to have them defanged (equivalent to muzzling a dog). People need to realize that it is DEED NOT BREED you should be directing your anger at the irresponsible owners and campaigning to have stricter laws for such owners etc.....not blanket ban breeds....look at the humans first, they are the ones most responsible for how each dog turns out.

Do you mean the photo of the SBT that is also on Wiki? Is that you that loaded the photo wiklipedia?

If so - you released it under public domain which "grants anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law."

You cannot simply then state that you do not like the context that it was used in.

If you are the owner and didn't uploaded it to wiki and didn't agree to the public domain licence - I suggest you take that up with Jimmy Wales and co.

The tone of this article and campaign is very hostile to all dogs, especially Staffies. This is not at all helpful to anyone except the bad owners who have this animal purely as a status symbol and do encourage violent behaviour in dogs and humans. In starting this campaign you have done nothing to solve the problems caused by these people. Are you even aware of how many completely innocent dogs that are taken away from their responsible owners purely on the way the animal looks? These animals are held for months and even years in kennels away from their homes before their fate is decided. Labradors are just as likely to attack a human as any other breed of dog. Its bad owners that need controlling. Please don't judge an animal just on its looks.

I totally agree with everything Battersea have said. I have two staffies, one rescued 5 years ago, therefore have no knowledge of his background, and the other given away 16 months ago for free who had not been sociallised very much. Both dogs have lived together with my hubby and I and are the most loving and wonderful dogs I could hope for. They attract so much attention with all ages. Sometimes they attract bad comments from dog owners who seem to thnk my dogs will kill their dogs. How stupid these ppl are. It is often their dogs that 'go' for my dogs and their breeds are ones that are supposed to be ok (labs, scotties, etc). I believe that the love that we have poured onto our dogs has most certainly come through in their personality and have helped them be such wonderful social and friendly dogs. It is most definetely the owners fault if a dog is not socailly inept. I love staffies xxxxx

BUT - I must add - I think Newshopper has their editors out on holiday at the moment.

This is a really bad article, that is pure scaremongering. Sure look to ban or shop bad owners, but stigmatising all dogs - foolish and poor.

Also the article about the fatal accident. Its like a school newspaper gone bad. Whats happened NS?

Kikibee says...
2:15pm Thu 29 Sep 11

I totally agree with everything Battersea have said. I have two staffies, one rescued 5 years ago, therefore have no knowledge of his background, and the other given away 16 months ago for free who had not been sociallised very much. Both dogs have lived together with my hubby and I and are the most loving and wonderful dogs I could hope for. They attract so much attention with all ages. Sometimes they attract bad comments from dog owners who seem to thnk my dogs will kill their dogs. How stupid these ppl are. It is often their dogs that 'go' for my dogs and their breeds are ones that are supposed to be ok (labs, scotties, etc). I believe that the love that we have poured onto our dogs has most certainly come through in their personality and have helped them be such wonderful social and friendly dogs. It is most definetely the owners fault if a dog is not socailly inept. I love staffies xxxxx

Agree with you Kikibee, if these dogs where dangerous Battersea would not go to the lengths they do to re-home them. Battersea take in over 7000 dogs a year sadly 1/3 of these have to be put to sleep due to ill health or too dangerous to re-home due to people teaching aggressive behaviour. Keep up the good work Battersea!!

I am shocked that this article and campaign was thought of, let alone published.
Being a dog owner and having experience of working with many different types of dogs I know that traits such as aggression are not solely determined by breed.
Once I walked my dog on a lead through a housing estate and a dog ran out of a house and attacked my dog. Was this dog a Staffordshire Bull Terrier? No it was a Boxer. I have also encountered other dogs that have shown aggressive traits. These include Dalmations, Spaniels, Terriers, Mongrels, Labradors, Greyhounds...the list goes on. So this just goes to show that temperament is certainly not determined by the breed of dog; any dog can be aggressive. A combination of many factors such as upbringing, environment, socialisation and even food can all affect a dog's behaviour.
Yes there is a huge issue surrounding dangerous dogs at the moment but the idea of targeting one breed is only going to worsen the problem.

What needs to be addressed are factors such as back yard breeding; training dogs for fighting; educating the public on proper socialisation and training of dogs. This includes ALL dogs regardless of breed or type.

A dog's behaviour is the responsibility of the owner; not the dog. If a dog is aggressive it is up to the owner to ensure that this does not affect the public or other animals. The law needs to be changed to fully acknowledge this rather than focusing on breed.

I am disgusted at this article and the idea of "shop a dog" to win a mug.
I sincerely hope you reconsider this campaign

Louise

shaner,bournemouth wrote:

shaner,bournemouth wrote:

shaner,bournemouth wrote:

meme6 wrote: To shanar Bournemouth re your comment 'since when has a pitbull not been a breed' - it has never been a breed it is a type of dog and a term used to describe several breeds including an American staff,American bulldog & Boston terrier.They are breeds of dogs in the molosser family which refers to Large solid built dogs.My dog is an American staff breed but the dog expert wrote in his report to the police he has a high percentage of the characteristics which deem him a 'pitbull type' and therefore banned.

How very wrong you are.

I guess all the books i own on the American Pitbull terrier, The American Staffordshire terrier and other Bull breed dogs must be wrong. Also, American Bulldogs are not classed as 'Pitbull type'. There are guidelines that they use to determine what is a 'Pitbull type' and it all goes on looks, size and shape.

And your dog was deemed a 'Pitbull type' by some of his characteristics? Surely you can see that this is complete nonsence?

I Suppose you know more about 'pitbulls ' than the dog experts or the police dog handlers ?? you are the one who is so wrong.To be deemed a pitbull type dog in the UK a dog has to have certain % of characteristic's of those listed in a report 'what makes a good fighting dog' which was written in the US & is what UK police dog handlers & experts use to determine if a dog in the UK is a 'pitbull type' and therefore banned.As i have been through the whole process and my dog is on the exempt register for dangerous dogs i do actually know what i am talking about.My dog's appearance is that of a bigger than average staff therefore in the UK he is classed as a 'pitbull type' and not a pitbull breed because 'pitbull' is a type of dog and not a breed of dog.

All animals are a product of their upbringing & I state "animals", as we humans have been known to raise animals too, yet we don't seem to put them down and have the media scare mongering to ban their particular race or even their family gene !!

It seems this article has had it pointed out to them, that the picture is not theirs to reproduce, it is on an Australian website copy-written, yet they refuse to pull picture down. Funny how the poll was pulled down ??

Do the right thing by the Australian breeder of this dog and remove the picture. It is not a dog from a banned breed so realistically you have no right to display this picture for the benefit of your very misinformed article.

""You can win yourself a free News Shopper mug by sending in a photo of a banned dog"" - Are you for real ?? Take a picture of a family out walking their beloved pet and in doing so you can win a mug - DISGUSTING !!

What a truly irresponsible and ignorant article which demonises the Staffie breed, with no evidence to back it up. It is down to the owner to socialise their dog correctly and unfortunately Staffies are paying the price by being the dog of choice for people who just want to use them as status symbols on the streets to look 'hard', or force them into fighting other dogs.
You say there have been 5 attacks by Staffies in the area in the past 3 years, but earlier state in your article that 163 people have been injured in the past 2 years? That means 158 of those attacks aren't by Staffies???
Any dog can become aggressive if they're not socialised correctly. Rather than make a ridiculous demand that all Staffies wear a muzzle, why not push for compulsory licensing for all dogs, so that bad owners are punished fully by law?

This article is totally irresponsible!!!

I am a staffie owner - my beautiful boy wouldnt hurt a fly and that is down to me as a RESPONSIBLE and loving dog owner - not only is he good with other dogs but with small children and babies too - that is why staffies are also known as the "nanny dog".

Although my sympathies go to the lady that was attacked by a dog I think articles like this go no way to help the situation as a whole. The dog breed has nothing to do with it - it is the irresponsible owners - what the ignorant writers of this article obviously have no idea about is that ANY DOG can be aggressive in the wrong hands not just these dogs labelled wrongly!! In all my years as a dog owner I have never had any problems with staffies - these poor loveable doggies that are wrongly labelled "dangerous" dogs.......

It is so disappointing when charities out there like Battersea, RSPCA etc. have thousands of these poor dogs coming through their doors in need of re-homing, most of which would make loving family pets but with ignorant articles like this it only makes the situation worse and poor animals are not re-homed when they could be if people were educated properly on dogs and their needs.

Perhaps I may make the suggestion that before writing such articles the writers/reporters should educate themselves properly with the subject to which they are writing - rather than writing the biggest load of rubbish which upsets us responsible staffie owners and no doubt all the hundreds of people working tirelessly to re-home the hundreds of poor beautiful staffie and other doggies out there in desperate need of a home!!!

As for offering a mug - how disgusting!!!!! Really.....is that how low you as a paper have got!!!!!....dear oh dear!!!!!.......

To round off I would say that all you irresponsible ignorant people writing these types of articles are doing is fuelling this attitude that staffies and similar breeds are "dangerous" dogs - which is only going to lead to more of these poor unfortunate doggies being mis-treated. How about some education for these people and perhaps write an article with something which actually makes some sense rather than the garbage you have chosen to print!!

I am highly disappointed in the Newshopper as I am sure hundreds of other people will be!! SACK THE REPORTER for starters!!!!!!!!!!

This has to be the worst piece of news reporting on BSL ever writen. Not only are you "ENCOURAGING" people to report "INNOCENT DOGS" but you are rewarding them with a "PRIZE". Are you aware that these innocent dogs are family pets who have done no wrong apart from being of a particual build? Do you really want to condem a dog to death by means of a tape measure? That's what it boils down to. Being aggressive or none aggressive has no bearing on BSL. Hundreds of dogs lose their lives for no reason. Both reporters should be ashamed. To all of you who have dogs that are not of risk from being "breed type" keep watching over your shoulder because things are about to change and we have no idea if it's going to be better or worse. If and God forbid BSL has even more restrictions and your dog who wasn't on the list is, or your dog who isn't so well behaved is at threat, maybe you will remember this vile piece of journalism and realise what damage it is doing.

Most of the photos are from wikipedia - which has general use licence.

Some however - like the one of the Dogo must be attributed to the owner (Zeballos) which has not been done.

It would be nice to see NS attribute their sources to comply with copyright licences.

Unfortunately many media outlets seem to think that if something is available to the public, this makes it Public Domain. It does not, and credit and source should be given when required and original copyright adhered to.

More shocking, however, is the appalling standard of this and other recent articles on NewsShopper.

Tmcd wrote:
Although I agree with what the various people are saying about Staffs and it being the owners bringing up the dogs to be aggressive and not the dog itself, I feel that every dog that is big/powerful enough to cause a possible serious injury (from Poodles to Saint Bernard’s, Labradors, Boxers and yes even Staffs) should be made to wear a Muzzle. The dog can still open its mouth and pant/Bark etc with the correct type of muzzle for that dog so it does not cause the dog too much discomfort so what is the problem? It’s like knives, most of us don’t have the inclination to go stab someone yet knives are banned (unless for specific reasons like for work). Why is this? Because of the select few that would use it as an offensive weapon. The same goes for dogs, most people would bring their dogs up correctly but there are some people that bring them up to attack and use them as weapons.

Why should dogs have to wear muzzles when they have done no wrong? Would you like to walk around in handcuffs or shackles just incase you decided to steal something? Should all knives be banned including kitchen knives just incase someone uses them as a weapon OR should we punish the PEOPLE who are in the wrong? Dogs learn just like children do by what they have been shown, taught and experience.

To begin, the statistics stated are completely invalid. You cannot quote 3 years of staffie attacks and 2 years of total dog attacks. This completely invalidates your figures to begin with. Secondly, even looking at the figures quoted, it shows less than 3% were from staffies, does this not then prove that staffies are not dangerous dogs? Also, to be able to adequately quote figures, I would like to see what the percentage of dogs to number of attacks is, and specifically the number of attacks as a percentage of staffies in these areas as i would argue that in the areas surveyed, the number of staffies is proportionately higher than most other breeds, which would conclude that the ratio of attacks to staffies is considerably lower than average ratio of attacks to dogs. Take that and muzzle it!

meme6 wrote:

shaner,bournemouth wrote:

shaner,bournemouth wrote:

shaner,bournemouth wrote:

meme6 wrote: To shanar Bournemouth re your comment 'since when has a pitbull not been a breed' - it has never been a breed it is a type of dog and a term used to describe several breeds including an American staff,American bulldog & Boston terrier.They are breeds of dogs in the molosser family which refers to Large solid built dogs.My dog is an American staff breed but the dog expert wrote in his report to the police he has a high percentage of the characteristics which deem him a 'pitbull type' and therefore banned.

How very wrong you are.

I guess all the books i own on the American Pitbull terrier, The American Staffordshire terrier and other Bull breed dogs must be wrong. Also, American Bulldogs are not classed as 'Pitbull type'. There are guidelines that they use to determine what is a 'Pitbull type' and it all goes on looks, size and shape.

And your dog was deemed a 'Pitbull type' by some of his characteristics? Surely you can see that this is complete nonsence?

I Suppose you know more about 'pitbulls ' than the dog experts or the police dog handlers ?? you are the one who is so wrong.To be deemed a pitbull type dog in the UK a dog has to have certain % of characteristic's of those listed in a report 'what makes a good fighting dog' which was written in the US & is what UK police dog handlers & experts use to determine if a dog in the UK is a 'pitbull type' and therefore banned.As i have been through the whole process and my dog is on the exempt register for dangerous dogs i do actually know what i am talking about.My dog's appearance is that of a bigger than average staff therefore in the UK he is classed as a 'pitbull type' and not a pitbull breed because 'pitbull' is a type of dog and not a breed of dog.

How can you say a Pitbull is not a breed? It is a breed, fact!! When they say type they mean something which is as close to a Pitbull as possible. Like i said, in
the USA you either have a Pitbull or American Stafford depending on which club the dog is registered with. So seeing as there is no club to register Amstaffs to in the UK then there is no Amstaffs here. An American Staff is a Pitbull, fact! So please tell me how your dog is an Amstaff? I know it is classed as a Pitbull type but then you could class my two Staffords as Pitbull types too. Pitbull type does not mean Pitbull terrier. The Pitbull terrier is one of the four breeds banned from this country, the key word there is breed. Did you see the four banned BREEDS listed on this article?
Maybe you need to do some research. And yes i know a bit about these breeds as i have numerous books on the Pitbull terrier, the American Staffordshire terrier and other bull breed dogs. You can't tell me they are all wrong just because some numpties like to put dogs on trial due to BSL. Death by tapemeasure basically. Do you know what BSL is?

How disappointing. The press has a duty of care to the public to produce factually accurate information and not total rubbish.
Not everyone is fortunate enough to have owned a Staffordshire Bull Terrier as I have and know what this breed of dog is like when well trained and cared for.
Now that this article has been produced, the chance for these dogs to have a happy existence has been made more difficult. Your shop a dog campaign is a great headline grabbing tool, but does not give any support at all to the poor animals that are mistreated that end up in this situation.
It is a sad fact that there are a some owners of dogs who are totally incapable of looking after them let alone their own children. Your article would be far better aimed at the dog owners who abuse their animals and who are unfit to own a dog. More often than not it is a dog, regardless of breed, that has been brought up in this environment, that is likely to attack a child or other human being.
Battersea Dogs Home is highly knowledgeable and knows what it is talking about and I strongly suggest you get guidance from them prior to launching any campaigns like this in future.

Worst piece of "journalism" I have ever ever seen. Ignorant, ill-informed, irresponsible pile of **** which could have very damaging consequences, written by a pair of numbskulls who clearly no nothing about this subject. This "paper" needs to get closed down, how can they get away with this????

shaner,bournemouth wrote:

meme6 wrote:

shaner,bournemouth wrote:

shaner,bournemouth wrote:

shaner,bournemouth wrote:

meme6 wrote: To shanar Bournemouth re your comment 'since when has a pitbull not been a breed' - it has never been a breed it is a type of dog and a term used to describe several breeds including an American staff,American bulldog & Boston terrier.They are breeds of dogs in the molosser family which refers to Large solid built dogs.My dog is an American staff breed but the dog expert wrote in his report to the police he has a high percentage of the characteristics which deem him a 'pitbull type' and therefore banned.

How very wrong you are.

I guess all the books i own on the American Pitbull terrier, The American Staffordshire terrier and other Bull breed dogs must be wrong. Also, American Bulldogs are not classed as 'Pitbull type'. There are guidelines that they use to determine what is a 'Pitbull type' and it all goes on looks, size and shape.

And your dog was deemed a 'Pitbull type' by some of his characteristics? Surely you can see that this is complete nonsence?

I Suppose you know more about 'pitbulls ' than the dog experts or the police dog handlers ?? you are the one who is so wrong.To be deemed a pitbull type dog in the UK a dog has to have certain % of characteristic's of those listed in a report 'what makes a good fighting dog' which was written in the US & is what UK police dog handlers & experts use to determine if a dog in the UK is a 'pitbull type' and therefore banned.As i have been through the whole process and my dog is on the exempt register for dangerous dogs i do actually know what i am talking about.My dog's appearance is that of a bigger than average staff therefore in the UK he is classed as a 'pitbull type' and not a pitbull breed because 'pitbull' is a type of dog and not a breed of dog.

How can you say a Pitbull is not a breed? It is a breed, fact!! When they say type they mean something which is as close to a Pitbull as possible. Like i said, in
the USA you either have a Pitbull or American Stafford depending on which club the dog is registered with. So seeing as there is no club to register Amstaffs to in the UK then there is no Amstaffs here. An American Staff is a Pitbull, fact! So please tell me how your dog is an Amstaff? I know it is classed as a Pitbull type but then you could class my two Staffords as Pitbull types too. Pitbull type does not mean Pitbull terrier. The Pitbull terrier is one of the four breeds banned from this country, the key word there is breed. Did you see the four banned BREEDS listed on this article?
Maybe you need to do some research. And yes i know a bit about these breeds as i have numerous books on the Pitbull terrier, the American Staffordshire terrier and other bull breed dogs. You can't tell me they are all wrong just because some numpties like to put dogs on trial due to BSL. Death by tapemeasure basically. Do you know what BSL is?

May i suggest that you read a book, one that i own? It is by Dr. Carl Semencic and the book is called The world of fighting dogs. This book will tell you everything about all the fighting breeds and their history. Including the breed standards (at time it was written) and how and why each breed was bred and the original purposes of the dogs.
Then please tell me that the American Pitbull Terrier is not a breed.
A Pitbull type as they say can be any breed.

Any dog can be a threat if they are not trained and socialised properly. I was attacked as a child and my face was badly damaged. My face was split from the corner of my nose down to my mouth, it went all the way through to the inside so the left side of my mouth was separated from the right side. There were also smaller rips around my mouth and nose, I am now 51 and I still have the scars. This damage was done by a Toy Poodle. Please don't blame the dogs, blame the owners. I don't think it is very responsible of you to encourage people to " shop a dog" and to do so to win a mug is insulting to all the people who have been attacked.

Of course everyone regrets whats happened to these poor people, but after seeing those sub-humans being brought to Court yesterday for promoting and supplying dogs for dog fighting, can you blame the animals.? These creatures are brutalised from the day they are born.They obey humans without question.Someone is responsible for these attacks, and it isn't the dogs. Staffies are lovely little dogs if they are treated well.

shaner,bournemouth wrote:

meme6 wrote:

shaner,bournemouth wrote:

shaner,bournemouth wrote:

shaner,bournemouth wrote:

meme6 wrote: To shanar Bournemouth re your comment 'since when has a pitbull not been a breed' - it has never been a breed it is a type of dog and a term used to describe several breeds including an American staff,American bulldog & Boston terrier.They are breeds of dogs in the molosser family which refers to Large solid built dogs.My dog is an American staff breed but the dog expert wrote in his report to the police he has a high percentage of the characteristics which deem him a 'pitbull type' and therefore banned.

How very wrong you are.

I guess all the books i own on the American Pitbull terrier, The American Staffordshire terrier and other Bull breed dogs must be wrong. Also, American Bulldogs are not classed as 'Pitbull type'. There are guidelines that they use to determine what is a 'Pitbull type' and it all goes on looks, size and shape.

And your dog was deemed a 'Pitbull type' by some of his characteristics? Surely you can see that this is complete nonsence?

I Suppose you know more about 'pitbulls ' than the dog experts or the police dog handlers ?? you are the one who is so wrong.To be deemed a pitbull type dog in the UK a dog has to have certain % of characteristic's of those listed in a report 'what makes a good fighting dog' which was written in the US & is what UK police dog handlers & experts use to determine if a dog in the UK is a 'pitbull type' and therefore banned.As i have been through the whole process and my dog is on the exempt register for dangerous dogs i do actually know what i am talking about.My dog's appearance is that of a bigger than average staff therefore in the UK he is classed as a 'pitbull type' and not a pitbull breed because 'pitbull' is a type of dog and not a breed of dog.

How can you say a Pitbull is not a breed? It is a breed, fact!! When they say type they mean something which is as close to a Pitbull as possible. Like i said, in
the USA you either have a Pitbull or American Stafford depending on which club the dog is registered with. So seeing as there is no club to register Amstaffs to in the UK then there is no Amstaffs here. An American Staff is a Pitbull, fact! So please tell me how your dog is an Amstaff? I know it is classed as a Pitbull type but then you could class my two Staffords as Pitbull types too. Pitbull type does not mean Pitbull terrier. The Pitbull terrier is one of the four breeds banned from this country, the key word there is breed. Did you see the four banned BREEDS listed on this article?
Maybe you need to do some research. And yes i know a bit about these breeds as i have numerous books on the Pitbull terrier, the American Staffordshire terrier and other bull breed dogs. You can't tell me they are all wrong just because some numpties like to put dogs on trial due to BSL. Death by tapemeasure basically. Do you know what BSL is?

Breed specific legistation - LOL - i wrote my comments againt the newshoppers campaign againt dangerous dogs & the awful experience we have been through.I didnt expect a doughnut like you to start some sort if tit for tat arguement.I dont really care what you say or what your opinion of my original comment is.We will have to agree to disagree because in the UK a pitbull is not a recognised breed it is a type of dog as defined in the dangerous dogs act.My comment was to put the point across that it is not the dog it is the owner.We are responsible owners which is why our pitbull type Colin came home to us albeit with restrictions

meme6 wrote:

shaner,bournemouth wrote:

meme6 wrote:

shaner,bournemouth wrote:

shaner,bournemouth wrote:

shaner,bournemouth wrote:

meme6 wrote: To shanar Bournemouth re your comment 'since when has a pitbull not been a breed' - it has never been a breed it is a type of dog and a term used to describe several breeds including an American staff,American bulldog & Boston terrier.They are breeds of dogs in the molosser family which refers to Large solid built dogs.My dog is an American staff breed but the dog expert wrote in his report to the police he has a high percentage of the characteristics which deem him a 'pitbull type' and therefore banned.

How very wrong you are.

I guess all the books i own on the American Pitbull terrier, The American Staffordshire terrier and other Bull breed dogs must be wrong. Also, American Bulldogs are not classed as 'Pitbull type'. There are guidelines that they use to determine what is a 'Pitbull type' and it all goes on looks, size and shape.

And your dog was deemed a 'Pitbull type' by some of his characteristics? Surely you can see that this is complete nonsence?

I Suppose you know more about 'pitbulls ' than the dog experts or the police dog handlers ?? you are the one who is so wrong.To be deemed a pitbull type dog in the UK a dog has to have certain % of characteristic's of those listed in a report 'what makes a good fighting dog' which was written in the US & is what UK police dog handlers & experts use to determine if a dog in the UK is a 'pitbull type' and therefore banned.As i have been through the whole process and my dog is on the exempt register for dangerous dogs i do actually know what i am talking about.My dog's appearance is that of a bigger than average staff therefore in the UK he is classed as a 'pitbull type' and not a pitbull breed because 'pitbull' is a type of dog and not a breed of dog.

How can you say a Pitbull is not a breed? It is a breed, fact!! When they say type they mean something which is as close to a Pitbull as possible. Like i said, in
the USA you either have a Pitbull or American Stafford depending on which club the dog is registered with. So seeing as there is no club to register Amstaffs to in the UK then there is no Amstaffs here. An American Staff is a Pitbull, fact! So please tell me how your dog is an Amstaff? I know it is classed as a Pitbull type but then you could class my two Staffords as Pitbull types too. Pitbull type does not mean Pitbull terrier. The Pitbull terrier is one of the four breeds banned from this country, the key word there is breed. Did you see the four banned BREEDS listed on this article?
Maybe you need to do some research. And yes i know a bit about these breeds as i have numerous books on the Pitbull terrier, the American Staffordshire terrier and other bull breed dogs. You can't tell me they are all wrong just because some numpties like to put dogs on trial due to BSL. Death by tapemeasure basically. Do you know what BSL is?

Breed specific legistation - LOL - i wrote my comments againt the newshoppers campaign againt dangerous dogs & the awful experience we have been through.I didnt expect a doughnut like you to start some sort if tit for tat arguement.I dont really care what you say or what your opinion of my original comment is.We will have to agree to disagree because in the UK a pitbull is not a recognised breed it is a type of dog as defined in the dangerous dogs act.My comment was to put the point across that it is not the dog it is the owner.We are responsible owners which is why our pitbull type Colin came home to us albeit with restrictions

At last. Yes i agree that it is not a recognised breed in this country but there is pure pitbulls over here. I know of a few people that own pure pitbulls and not what is described in the dangerous dogs act as a 'Pitbull type'.
A Labrador cross could be labelled a 'Pitbull type'. The actual Pitbull breed is lovely, no different to a Stafford, just bigger.
I'm sorry to hear you had to deal with BSL yourself and i wouldn't wish it upon anybody, because it can happen to anybody.

At last. Yes i agree that it is not a recognised breed in this country but there is pure pitbulls over here. I know of a few people that own pure pitbulls and not what is described in the dangerous dogs act as a 'Pitbull type'.
A Labrador cross could be labelled a 'Pitbull type'. The actual Pitbull breed is lovely, no different to a Stafford, just bigger.
I'm sorry to hear you had to deal with BSL yourself and i wouldn't wish it upon anybody, because it can happen to anybody.
What breed exactly is your dog? I've heard of full KC registered Staffords being labelled as 'Pitbull type' when they are clearly Staffords.

Where on earth was this so called Newshopper journalist getting his information from?
All this so called report has done is instill in people with no proper informative information that Staffs etc are dangerous dogs. If he/she had done any proper research they would have seen that the ratio of dogs/breeds owned and proportion of attacks if not accountable to these breeds it is witch hunting.
Your reporter is ill informed and ignorant to the breeds it is purportedly reporting on. No doubt this will be deleted before it is aired!!!!
Please get your facts and information right before going to press or perhaps go back to reporting minor collisions that are of no news or consequence to anybody.
Phew feel better for getting that off my chest, perhaps I should be muzzled for it!!!!!!!!

I have been on many london parks with my dog, which is a labrador, her worst offence is licking people. I have een attacked many times by people though whilst working in london,been bitten by people, smashed on the head with a brick etc.Its not breed specific, we have animals in all sectors of society. NO dogs were arrested for rioting in london, but yet these rioters caused fear panic, loss of life burnt out peoples homes and workplaces..Not one of them with a wagging tail..

I have a simple request - I would like to invite both Kelly Smale and Dan Keel to join me on one of my twice daily dog walks. After a pleasent hour or so wandering through woods and fields they can then kindly explain to me why they feel it is necessary for my Staffordshire Bull Terrier to be muzzled!
Go on - I dare you!

I live outside the area but have read the article with concern. Firstly of course it is desparately awful when anybody is attacked whether by an animal or another person. It is of course true that while Staffies are not large they are powerful and in the tragic event of one attacking somebody they will do damage. I have read the comments with interest but am deeply concerned by two main threads. Fisrtly it is downright foolhardy and indeed dangerous to try to whip up public feeling in such a sensationalistic way - it does no good for the victims and only serves to create more tension and trouble in society. Secondly the comments about dogs being as bad as knives is a bit simplistic - surely a car is more dangerous, but we are allowed to use these. There are many comments from dog owners and non-owners alike condemning the irresponsible owners more than the dogs. This is too true. We cannot lose sight on the problem being with the owners - the bad owners shouls be penalised - not the responsible owners and their dogs. I am of course biased - I have two beautiful Staffies both rescued at different ages/backgrounds from Battersea dogs home. They are the swweeteswt, softest most loving dogs I have ever owned (and my family have owned a number thoughout my life - all sizes & breeds). Americans know Staffies as teh Nanny dog. Anyone that knows a well trained Staffie can all too easily see why. Today's politicians are all too scared to take on difficult issues such as punitive actions against thise that need it - this problem is not with the dogs its with the laws we live within. One issue would be to re-introduce a dog licence at a reasonable rate but much higher the the previous paltry amount. Owners of licenced registerd dogs would be able to be accountable but of course actions would need to be taken against those that do not licence. Make it hurt the people that flout the laws and are irresponsible owners.

beaharrison wrote:
My goodness. this article is no more informative or accurate than an essay written in haste by a 12 year old. the use of carefully selected generic photos of 'vicious' dogs does nothing but increase people's fear of some animals and add to a growing hysteria that all staffies are unpredicatable and prone to attack. rather than proceeding with this ill-informed, slightly dangerous way of trying to change things, i would suggest you drop this article like a hot brick and take advice from experts, by which i mean the people on the ground dealing with the consequences of crap written like this everyday. how many more abandoned dogs will turn up now you have put the frighteners on people. absolute disgrace!

I totally agree with beaharrison! I have two dogs (both rescues) - a Boxer/Springer cross and an American Bulldog. When anyone knocks on my door the Boxer/Springer goes in the kitchen because he's neurotic and liable to bite. The American Bulldog is gentle and affectionate, if boisterous, and my postman always has time for a quick cuddle with her. I have had a few people backing away when I open the door while holding her collar, but these are usually people who fear all dogs. Their fear is not helped by the kind of crap printed by NS. Once I have explained that she is NOT aggressive and more likely to lick them to death than bite, most callers are happy to be introduced and licked.

Any dog can be made vicious by cruelty, regardless of breed. The people who should be penalised here are irresponsbile and cruel owners, not the dogs!

I have been on many london parks with my dog, which is a labrador, her worst offence is licking people. I have een attacked many times by people though whilst working in london,been bitten by people, smashed on the head with a brick etc.Its not breed specific, we have animals in all sectors of society. NO dogs were arrested for rioting in london, but yet these rioters caused fear panic, loss of life burnt out peoples homes and workplaces..Not one of them with a wagging tail..

The picture says it all really. A doberman with a bloodied dog tag round its neck. Mindless propagander. They dont even mention dobermans? If this is the standard of their journalism then clearly everything else they write must be faulse too.

PaulErith wrote:
All dogs are aggressive and should wear mussles in public.

Don`t you mean muzzles lol

PaulErith wrote:
All dogs are aggressive and should wear mussles in public.

Don`t you mean muzzles lol

Why should my 2 staffies be persecuted for other dogs wrong doings? Its not the dogs its the owners that are responsible for how their dogs act.
I know I'm biased because they're my dogs but I can honestly say hand on heart that they are the most placid dogs you will ever meet (even kids and adults who know them and that are scared of dogs will agree).
I have 2 young children and normally a house full of other kids and there is absolutely no way I would have them if I doubted for even one moment that they would hurt anyone.
I don't allow any tug of war games (you can try but they wont grip on!!) no teasing, smacking (even play) or jumping.
They love going to the park or fields, running around freely, they have their balls and are not interested in anyone or anything around them.
I know they would hate being muzzled and it wouldn't be fair if they were made to wear one.
There's plenty of murderers and rapists in this world, so should we do what we do to them to the whole entire human race!!!
And personally I think some of these dogs that have attacked are staffs crossed with pits, that seems to be the happening thing nowadays to pass them off as staffs.
Don't punish them all because you only hear of the ones owned by irresponsibly humans.

Why should my 2 staffies be persecuted for other dogs wrong doings? Its not the dogs its the owners that are responsible for how their dogs act.
I know I'm biased because they're my dogs but I can honestly say hand on heart that they are the most placid dogs you will ever meet (even kids and adults who know them and that are scared of dogs will agree).
I have 2 young children and normally a house full of other kids and there is absolutely no way I would have them if I doubted for even one moment that they would hurt anyone.
I don't allow any tug of war games (you can try but they wont grip on!!) no teasing, smacking (even play) or jumping.
They love going to the park or fields, running around freely, they have their balls and are not interested in anyone or anything around them.
I know they would hate being muzzled and it wouldn't be fair if they were made to wear one.
There's plenty of murderers and rapists in this world, so should we do what we do to them to the whole entire human race!!!
And personally I think some of these dogs that have attacked are staffs crossed with pits, that seems to be the happening thing nowadays to pass them off as staffs.
Don't punish them all because you only hear of the ones owned by irresponsibly humans.

Wonder where the News Shopper is? Perhaps all Staffie owners should visit and let them see how friendly the breed is. The two "reporters" must be guilty of incitement or something

i am appalled by this - why are some breeds condemned - yes i am truelly sorry about what this lady has endured, no one should have to suffer this, but I truelly beleive that it is not a specific breed problem - that staffies are not all vicious dogs, indeed most are loving loyal pets. It is the owners of any breed of dog or animal that is reared to be agressive or not controlled and therefore causes such horrific injuries that should be punished. all animals have the capacity to do harm from a minor scale to what we see in this picture - a cuddly fluffy not deemed dangerous dog can do the same! so why pick on the staffies and other brees mentioned above? as concerning is the legislation that allows "authorities" to seize and destroy a dog that they " think" is one of these breeds - with no reason or excuse - i kniw people who have been on the receiving end of this incompetence - the authortiy beleiving the dog to be of one breed when it is papered, microchipped and refistered as another - this is a scary prospect for any responsible dog owner and I am disgusted that you would encourage such legislation - punish the deed not the breed i say

pit mom wrote:
Wow, so much ignorance in this article! Who ever wrote this really needs to get EDUCATED on dogs before spilling so much fiction and BS!! It's NOT the dogs that are at fault, it's the humans! I feel bad for people who get attacked by dogs, however, most times these "attacks" could be prevented by either the dog's owner or the human who gets bit! My pit bull is NOT aggressive! Never has been in the 4 years I've had him, however, after working for a boarding kennel, I must admit I have been bit. Not by one of your so called "dangerous dogs", but by a hound mix. Also we had a BEAGLE and we had to put her down after she tried to attack my son when he was 6 months old! ANY dog can bite and ANY dog can cause damage to a human. Instead of adding to pathetic breed bans, which in a way you have proven, do not work, spend the tax payers money on EDUCATION and bite PREVENTION! Stop tearing beloved pets out of children's arms and killing them! Anyone who supports Breed Bans are nothing more than ABUSERS! Get a grip, stop spreading fear and causing chaos!

like

i am appalled by this - why are some breeds condemned - yes i am truelly sorry about what this lady has endured, no one should have to suffer this, but I truelly beleive that it is not a specific breed problem - that staffies are not all vicious dogs, indeed most are loving loyal pets. It is the owners of any breed of dog or animal that is reared to be agressive or not controlled and therefore causes such horrific injuries that should be punished. all animals have the capacity to do harm from a minor scale to what we see in this picture - a cuddly fluffy not deemed dangerous dog can do the same! so why pick on the staffies and other brees mentioned above? as concerning is the legislation that allows "authorities" to seize and destroy a dog that they " think" is one of these breeds - with no reason or excuse - i kniw people who have been on the receiving end of this incompetence - the authortiy beleiving the dog to be of one breed when it is papered, microchipped and refistered as another - this is a scary prospect for any responsible dog owner and I am disgusted that you would encourage such legislation - punish the deed not the breed i say

may i just add to the comment above - why should my dog wear a muzzle at my door? i have a post box at my gate for the postman, my dogs are inside my house supervised by me and not allowed run loose outside.... i have a gate that you must open to enter my land - a door you must knock on for me to open - i will open my door if you are welcome and my dogs will accept that a visitor is welcome - none of my dogs are aggresive - but i hope that if ever someone enters unwelcomed they will stop the intruder! please do not tarnish all dg owners and certain breeds with this - what you talk of is irresponsibile owners

shaner,bournemouth wrote:

crazydoglady wrote:

shaner,bournemouth wrote:

meme6 wrote:
Reading your article i can tell that N/S staff are not dog lovers this is nothing but a witch hunt.Don't they know that magistrates & police are fully aware that people do not always know a dog is a banned breed when its bought as a puppy.They do not destroy dogs for the sake of it they put restrictions on them and send them home where they belong.I have first hand experience because the puppy that was bought for me 4 years ago was a lovely little 'staff' who grew into a great big staff who was taken away and deemed a 'pitball' type dog ( a pitball is not a breed).He was in police kennels for 5 weeks we went to court and explained that he is a family pet ,much loved and part of the family.He was insured,micro chipped etc etc & they could see we were responsible owners.They put restrictions on him gave me a conditional discharge and no fine or court costs.The magistrate told us they were there not there to destroy family pets.It cost us nothing but heart ache our lovely dog 5 weeks of misery and the police a fortune in kennal cost's & vet's fee's.He has got a tattoo inside his leg,3rd party liability insurance has to be muzzled & on a lead in public but shouldn't all dogs.Every dog is potentially dangerous what dog could be more snappy & growl's more than a Jack Russell ?? When are the N/S going to realise its NOT THE DOG ITS THE OWNER.They would be better spending the time & resources on SHOP A BENEFIT CHEAT rather than trying to have much loved family pets destroyed.

Since when was a Pitbull not a breed?

Actually, under section 1 of the dangerous dogs act, the pitbull terrier is defined as a TYPE of dog, not a breed of dog. This enables them to label any dog with the requisite number of physical characteristics to be deemed a pitbull terrier TYPE dog. Any breed, or crossbreed can be classed as a PBT if it ticks enough of the boxes. There have been KC registered staffordshire bull terriers with 5 generation pedigrees deemed pitbulls under this law.

Exactly. A 'Pitbull type' meaning something as close to a Pitbull as possible. Pitbull terrier is a breed, fact! An Amstaff is also a Pitbull. In the US your dog could be an American Staffordshire or a Pitbull, it just depends who it is registered with.

The UK kennel club does not recognise the pitbull as a breed. Go on their website and look for yourself. Or check the Defra guildelines for identifying PBTs. You'll see they have two different sets of criteria, because they're not sure how to define PBT. For this reason, their is no DNA test available to determine if your dog is a PBT, as it is NOT a breed under UK law, but a type. Visit DDAWatch's website if you want to check this for yourself.

The American kennel club is completely different, they have defined both the PBT and the Amstaff as distinct breeds, separate from the 'English' staffordshire bull terrier. But this makes no odds in the UK, if your dog ticks the TYPE boxes, its breed becomes irrelevant.

Give it a rest you clowns. This really amazes me, this local paper has stories of people getting murdered, kids abused, old people getting murdered and robbed in their own homes and hardly a comment. The mention of a poxy Staff and all you A holes creep out of the wood work. A sad reflection of our society really. Before you ask I'm a dog owner and love my dogs.

shaner,bournemouth wrote:
At last. Yes i agree that it is not a recognised breed in this country but there is pure pitbulls over here. I know of a few people that own pure pitbulls and not what is described in the dangerous dogs act as a 'Pitbull type'.
A Labrador cross could be labelled a 'Pitbull type'. The actual Pitbull breed is lovely, no different to a Stafford, just bigger.
I'm sorry to hear you had to deal with BSL yourself and i wouldn't wish it upon anybody, because it can happen to anybody.
What breed exactly is your dog? I've heard of full KC registered Staffords being labelled as 'Pitbull type' when they are clearly Staffords.

When we got him at 3 months old we were told a staff but he grew too big to be a staff.We have since been told an American Red Nose Staffy ?? And American Staff.If you saw photos you could tell me as you seem to know so much about these dogs or maybe there is one like him in one of your books.He is a beautiful dog & i havent seen another like him.What ever his true breed or type is doesnt matter to us because he is just adorable,so good natured and not one bit dangerous.What he went through was so cruel to be locked up in kennal for almost 6 weeks away from his family he came back to us so thin & he did nothing wrong.He hates his muzzle but if he is seen in public without it he will be taken away and destroyed - what a depressing thought

MFCLION89 wrote:
So now begins the witch hunt against Stafordshire Bull Terriers. How incredibly unfair to those of us who have bought our staffs up to be loveable friendley dogs. This should not be made "law" at all it should be on the owners head weather or not thier dog wears a muzzke in public. In the unfortunate event that a dog does attack it can then be said in court that you were warned to muzzle your dog so now you have no excuse. Thats the way it should work. No "breed" of dog is more likley to attack than any other, the problem comes with the way the dog is trained and brought up. Totally unfair. I have a staff and a Jack Russel, and the Russel's more likely to give you some than the staff. Hence why he wears a muzzle when outside and the staff does not.

what is the new shopper doing, instead of targeting a specific breed start a campaign about changing the dangerous dogs act to making the owner responsible not the dog regardless of the breed - there are more labrador bites in the uk than any other dog, where is your damning picture of a labrador in this report? I agree this is just a witch hunt that will make no difference to the current law.

HRH GypoJoseph wrote:
Give it a rest you clowns. This really amazes me, this local paper has stories of people getting murdered, kids abused, old people getting murdered and robbed in their own homes and hardly a comment. The mention of a poxy Staff and all you A holes creep out of the wood work. A sad reflection of our society really. Before you ask I'm a dog owner and love my dogs.

just maybe the law relating robbers, murderers and paedophiles is fair and just - the dangerous dogs act is not. and if you read the paragraph below the list banned breeds in the article it, you will see the exact contradictory comments that cause the problems, i'd be very interested to hear what dogs you.

I love my staffie! he is a kind caring dog who has never bitten anyone. I am personally far more concerned about the ofstead report released after the tragic death of Baby Peter, 3 children a week dying of abuse & neglect in this country, however I'm sure your right to be far more concerned with salacious headlines after all snarling dogs make much better copy than the thought of 150 plus dead children in one year - every year...
By the way here is a link to another papers report on the baby Peter affair.
http://www.dailymail
.co.uk/news/article-
1093435/Three-childr
en-killed-abuse-Engl
and-EVERY-week-Baby-
P-probe-reveals.html

As the owner of 4 staffies i cannot believe the ignorance toward the breed it is unbelievable that so called journalists can get away with writing so much rubbish. You will not find a more loving & loyal breed of dog anywhere. You should take a look at the number of bites inflicted by so called lap dogs. SBT's are wonderful animals there is no such thing as a bad dog just irresponsible owners who teach their dogs to be aggressive. By targeting a certain breed you are no better than a racist! It really is time we all took responsibility for teaching our children to respect animals maybe that way less of these incidents would occur no matter what breed is involved. Also how dare you attach an image of an SBT to this article when you do not know what breed was responsible! One day people like you will have something better to do with your time than starting witch hunts against innocent dogs why not write about things that people are really concerned about. I hope your shop a dog win a mug campaign is a failure as you would be wasting alot of people's time & causing needless heartbreak for families. Can you actually tell the difference between a legal dog & an illegal banned breed dog? Not many can which is why BSL doesn't work it just punishes family pets PUNISH THE DEED NOT THE BREED!!!

maybe the news shopper should get their facts right about dog breeds before publishing a story. Staffordshire bull terriers are not an aggressive breed and its the people trying to turn them into a vicious breed that should be targeted for their cruelty to animals, staffords in general are loving and especially loving to children and anyone who opens a book about dog breeds would see this, these rubbish lies about these dogs shouldn't be published and most of the so called staffords that have been aggressive aren't even real staffs!

hellen874, Patterdale Terriers. OK

newshopper that is a truly shameful peice of journalism.i would also like to point out to you that the photo you have used is NOT a staffordshire bull terrier. the website that you have taken the picture from is not from the the uk which should have become clear to you if you had actually tried to read more than three sentences and is littered with unintelligable inaccuracies. Do your research and you will learn that the dog pictured has completly the wrong shaped head and jaw to be a SBT. almost without exception the dogs that people think are sbt are actually crossbreed/sbt and so would be exempt from newshopper ridiculous proposal to muzzle.This campaign is making your paper a laughing stock

HRH GypoJoseph wrote:
hellen874, Patterdale Terriers. OK

Maybe Mr 'Patterdale terrier' would like this law to include the muzzling of that breed too and restrictions such as on a 12" leash and a branding tattoo just to make sure they are easily identified by anyone wishing to discriminate against them and its owner and put the fear of god into anyone passing???? DDA doesn't care if your dog isn't vicious just how it looks!

I am horrified that you have not only put a friend’s photo up of her dog as an example without her permission.
He is loving and gentle as are all my Stafford’s too.
If they are so aggressive then why has the government picked two of my dogs to go into schools to teach them about dog safety?

OH I see this publication has deleted MY Comments....interest
ing....I see you may be a little worried of the copyright issue then. REMOVE MY PHOTO or I WILL NOT STOP commenting, writing, ringing and believe me I will pursue legal action.....This publication is a joke and needs a good shake up.....

REMOVE MY PHOTO NOW IT IS COPYRIGHTED!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!

OH I see this publication has deleted MY Comments....interest
ing....I see you may be a little worried of the copyright issue then. REMOVE MY PHOTO or I WILL NOT STOP commenting, writing, ringing and believe me I will pursue legal action.....This publication is a joke and needs a good shake up.....

REMOVE MY PHOTO NOW IT IS COPYRIGHTED!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!

jglass, I don't feel the need to own a dog with a 'reputation'. If you do well you will have to deal with the consequences.
PS wind ya neck in.

jglass, I don't feel the need to own a dog with a 'reputation'. If you do well you will have to deal with the consequences.
PS wind ya neck in.

japonica wrote:
newshopper that is a truly shameful peice of journalism.i would also like to point out to you that the photo you have used is NOT a staffordshire bull terrier. the website that you have taken the picture from is not from the the uk which should have become clear to you if you had actually tried to read more than three sentences and is littered with unintelligable inaccuracies. Do your research and you will learn that the dog pictured has completly the wrong shaped head and jaw to be a SBT. almost without exception the dogs that people think are sbt are actually crossbreed/sbt and so would be exempt from newshopper ridiculous proposal to muzzle.This campaign is making your paper a laughing stock

Your an idiot....the featured picture IS a pedigree register SBT and is also Champ titled......Stafford
s come is all shapes and sizes and this is what makes them such an easy target for BSL and rubbish articals like this one.......ROMOVE MY PHOTO REMOVE MY PHOTO REMOVE MY PHOTO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!

HRH GypoJoseph wrote:
hellen874, Patterdale Terriers. OK

LOL so you own Patterdale and want to lecture staffy owners, the following is taken directly from dogbreed info -The Patterdale Terrier is a laid back terrier, not as yappy as some other terriers. It enjoys "curling up at the heating duct" in the house. Although the Patterdale Terrier's small size could qualify him as a toy dog, his abilities and gameness deems him as a solid terrier; his determination and toughness demand his inclusion in the mastiff group. They are game and tough when hunting. Hunters often take three or four dogs with them on an outing. The Patterdale Terrier is a good watchdog. This is not a dog for the non-terrier fan or the faint-hearted. The Patterdale Terrier is a robust, independent hunter bred solely for functional services as a ratter and hunting companion. Its Bull Terrier bloodlines make it too fierce to work as a hunter with pack hounds. They are particularly hard and persistent. Many Foxhound owners would not thank you for attempting to bolt his fox with a hard bitten Patterdale, for the dog is more likely to get hold and have a go, possibly kill the fox rather then allow him to bolt, thus spoiling the hunt with the hounds. It is an excellent digger, intently willing to encounter and attack any mammal that has gone to ground. The Patterdale filled, and still does, fill that need. The interest of local breeders ensures it survival. The breed is not easy to obedience train. The Patterdale should not be trusted with non-canine pets. Be sure this breed needs a firm, confident, consistent pack leader, to avoid behavior problems from developing. Not recommended for the average pet owner. They need to have their minds challenged along with plenty of mental and physical exercise. If they sense you are not as strong minded as they are, the dog will believe they are alpha and the humans will run into issues. Do not allow this dog to develop Small Dog Syndrome.

MFCLION89 wrote:
So now begins the witch hunt against Stafordshire Bull Terriers. How incredibly unfair to those of us who have bought our staffs up to be loveable friendley dogs. This should not be made "law" at all it should be on the owners head weather or not thier dog wears a muzzke in public. In the unfortunate event that a dog does attack it can then be said in court that you were warned to muzzle your dog so now you have no excuse. Thats the way it should work. No "breed" of dog is more likley to attack than any other, the problem comes with the way the dog is trained and brought up. Totally unfair. I have a staff and a Jack Russel, and the Russel's more likely to give you some than the staff. Hence why he wears a muzzle when outside and the staff does not.

Firstly I am the owner of 3 dogs, one is staffie x. Secondly I have been the victim of a dog attack, not just a small bite, a real attack that had me in and out of hospital (as a child of 11) for over a year, with 4 operations of reconstructive surgery. Thirdly the dog that attacked me had attacked before, three of four times, and guess what!!! This dog was NOT CLASSISSFIED AS A DANGEROUS BREED OF DOG. For you the idiots that write on the shoppers link that all dogs, or one certain breed of dog is dangerous, do you actually KNOW anything about dogs? It is like saying all humans, or one particualar race of humans are all dangerous! Of course dogs can be dangerous, as can people (how many idiots nearly kill people when behind the wheel of a car; how many murderers are banged up and how many are still killing; how many children suffer at the hands of those they trust?) but dogs mainly are dangerous if they are allowed to be and have been raised incorrectly. A friend has two male staffies who are well raised and submissive in every manner. I agree dog attacks are awful, and DANGEROUS dogs should be kept under control,(or yes if it attacks and maims, then PTS) however to say one or two breeds are dangerous is a lack of knowledge from those not in the know. Please do not witch hunt dogs that are perfectly nice loyal family dogs.

A letter that I have sent to the News Shopper....

To whom it may concern,

I have just read your full page article with regards to your campaign against dangerous dogs. Although I applaud your attempt in tackling a very real and disturbing issue that can affect all, I am writing to tell you that you are way off base as to what you are proposing and that your campaign will amount to nothing more than the victimisation of innocent dog owners and the demonization of an entire breed of dog, governed by nothing more than emotion rather than rational thought.

Your campaign is based primarily around the current common political notion. This notion is a simple one, cut the weeds rather than destroy the root - please keep this in mind and refer back to it while reading what I am going to write and to refer to it when going over your campaign proposals.

What you are proposing is first, for any owner of a banned breed to be punished with the same punishment as someone carrying a knife. This sounds like sense to someone who knows no better, to someone who does simple research and thinks for a moment, this proposal is totally flawed. Why? It is because banned breeds do not always equal vicious dog and a vicious dog does not equal a banned breed, it is entirely based around the nurturing of the owner. Breed specific legislation as introduced in 1991 has done nothing to curb dog attacks, why is this? It is because the people who are primarily responsible for the ill treatment of animals and the training of them to become aggressive are not as stupid as some might think, they will simply go on to breeds that are legal. Every and any dog has the ability to become a dangerous weapon, is it the knife that killed the victim, or the person that plunged the knife in to the victim?

You are also proposing banning Staffordshire Bull Terriers. First of all, most attacks that are carried out involving Staffs are Staff cross breeds rather than pure Staffs, secondly, what exactly is that going to solve? My partner and I have a Staff and have her along with a Labrador and New Foundland. Out of all our dogs she is the best behaved and the most loving. She obeys commands and she even goes to work with my Fiancée. Under your guidelines, she would be put to sleep and we would be thrown in jail. Is that right? No, it’s a classic example of how this subject has been thought with emotion and not reason. The people who use such dogs have moved on to other dogs now, as the Police lookout for groups with status dogs. What is the new status dog? The Siberian Huskey! Are you going to ban that dog in a few years? Then what? They'll go on to some other breed, then another, then another, when does it stop? It stops when people stop snipping the weed and target the root!

You are proposing nothing new, just an extension of what is already on the table and it doesn't work.

It is along the lines of RSPCA's politically motivated proposal. There was even talk of a dog licence! Even though licensing does nothing but create a revenue for government, paid for by the law abiding citizen, while the main culprits walk away laughing, as proven with TV and Driving licences.

What will work?

The following is what I believe will work.

The abolition of breed specific legislation.
The increase of animal neglect and cruelty to a minimum sentence of 5 years prison and £10,000 fine, to be deducted from weekly/monthly welfare benefits if necessary.
Any death resulting from a dog that can be proven to be a result from animal neglect, cruelty and/or no control to be trialled as murder.
Any attack as a result of neglect, cruelty or no control over the dog to have a minimum of £5,000 fine, to be deducted from weekly/monthly welfare benefits if necessary and to be paid to victim and a 3 year prison sentence.
Any dog that is proven to being used as a weapon by individual(s) to carry a minimum sentence of 2 years and a fine of £3,000.
If ownership cannot be determined within a group of individuals then all individuals’ bare responsibility of ownership and all must be given the same sentence.
Greater awareness and education with regards to the responsilibilty of care be given in schools to promote animal welfare.

These measures would see dog attacks become almost non-existent. They will never come in to place and they won't because, as always, no one has the courage to say that this is what is needed. Like everything in this country, they snip at the weed and not the root, or tarnish the entire country with the same brush. Who gets punished in the end? Victims of dog attacks, responsible dog owners and of course, the dog that knows no better!

Your campaign although noble, is seriously flawed and with the added incentive of a mug if you take a picture of someone with a banned breed, it turns it in to some form of tragic comedy. One that could result in numerous incidents and lawyers knocking on your door.

My true wish is that you post this in your next edition as an alternative argument to your campaign, or better still, an alternative campaign. I still have hope in objectivity within the press, it would be great if I could be proven right.

Thank you ever so much for your time.

I have a Staffordshire Bull Terrier, he is the perfect pet.....he is great with children, other dogs and the general public as well as being highly intelligent.....he is best friends with my cat.....not all dog owners should be painted with the same brush and afterall any dog is an animal.....bring the dog up as a pet and it will stay a pet...bring it up as an enemy and thats where the muzzles should be enforced. My dog would be very distressed with a muzzle and not needed.....i am a responsilble dog owne and staying that way.

This morning I have woken to an email from the very distressed owner of Billie - the Staffordshire Bull Terrier Champion (Australia) shown in this article. Not only is the Editor of this paper denying that they stole the photograph (copyrighted) but that they are going to keep the photo of a much loved, safe, healthy, happy pet, as an example of a breed that should be muzzled at all times on this page, and moreover, delete any reference to the fact that it was stolen. As yet they haven't but the photo remains. Apparently, they took the photo from Wikipedia, where it is freely available. Really? That's odd, because it's not. http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Staffordshi
re_Bull_Terrier . Moreover, if it was, shall we say, is the fact that it was stolen from the photographic copyright owner by someone else good enough reason to breach copyright law? No. If you steal a car and sell it to someone else has the purchaser not also committed an offence? YES. Now, looking deeper at Wiki's rules for copying of material, they permit copying of TEXT. Wiki also helpfully, in their terms, given these instructions: "You can re-use content from Wikimedia projects freely, with the exception of content that is used under "fair use" exemptions, or similar exemptions of copyright law". So, Newsshopper, you have broken copyright law and, on behalf of the owner of the photograph being irresponsibly used for your immoral purposes, please remove it immediately.

I think reading the comments its safe to say that the News Shopper has gone off base with this and done exactly what I knew it would do. It's brought an important topic to light, but in the wrong way.

If the News Shopper refuses to change its stance then I for one don't want to ever see this paper pushed through my letter box again. I also hope that if the photo copyright issue is true, then the person who's photo that is takes this paper to court.

I also believe that a protest should be arranged. I for one am sick and tired of good hard working people getting stepped on. This campaign, although I'm sure had good intentions, will cause more distress than anything else. If the intentions are noble, then they should listen to reason!

The people that will suffer are never the ones that are responsiblie for this issue. I for one am sick of this happening in every aspect of life in this country.

No wonder we are bottom as worse place to live in Europe!

amason51 wrote:
Wonder where the News Shopper is? Perhaps all Staffie owners should visit and let them see how friendly the breed is. The two "reporters" must be guilty of incitement or something

Its here

http://g.co/maps/d4c
8k

amason51 wrote:
Wonder where the News Shopper is? Perhaps all Staffie owners should visit and let them see how friendly the breed is. The two "reporters" must be guilty of incitement or something

Its here

http://g.co/maps/d4c
8k

BSLisWRONG wrote:
OH I see this publication has deleted MY Comments....interest

ing....I see you may be a little worried of the copyright issue then. REMOVE MY PHOTO or I WILL NOT STOP commenting, writing, ringing and believe me I will pursue legal action.....This publication is a joke and needs a good shake up.....

REMOVE MY PHOTO NOW IT IS COPYRIGHTED!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!

Which photo are you claiming to be yours? If its the SBT - that photo is published on wiki. Did you place that photo on Wiki? If you did, you did it under general public licence, which means that NS is perfectly allowed to use it without crediting.

If its its yours on wiki, and you didn't place it there - take up the issue with Jimmy Wales - not NS.

denisef650 wrote:
This morning I have woken to an email from the very distressed owner of Billie - the Staffordshire Bull Terrier Champion (Australia) shown in this article. Not only is the Editor of this paper denying that they stole the photograph (copyrighted) but that they are going to keep the photo of a much loved, safe, healthy, happy pet, as an example of a breed that should be muzzled at all times on this page, and moreover, delete any reference to the fact that it was stolen. As yet they haven't but the photo remains. Apparently, they took the photo from Wikipedia, where it is freely available. Really? That's odd, because it's not. http://en.wikipedia.

org/wiki/Staffordshi

re_Bull_Terrier . Moreover, if it was, shall we say, is the fact that it was stolen from the photographic copyright owner by someone else good enough reason to breach copyright law? No. If you steal a car and sell it to someone else has the purchaser not also committed an offence? YES. Now, looking deeper at Wiki's rules for copying of material, they permit copying of TEXT. Wiki also helpfully, in their terms, given these instructions: "You can re-use content from Wikimedia projects freely, with the exception of content that is used under "fair use" exemptions, or similar exemptions of copyright law". So, Newsshopper, you have broken copyright law and, on behalf of the owner of the photograph being irresponsibly used for your immoral purposes, please remove it immediately.

You are just wrong. The photo is on wikipedia under public domain licence.

http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/File:Staffo
rdshire_Bull_Terrier
.jpg

"This work has been released into the public domain by its author, Rileypie at the wikipedia project. This applies worldwide.

"In case this is not legally possible:
Rileypie grants anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law."

If the owner of this photo *DID NOT* place it on wikipedia, then you must take the issue up with wiki. NS used the photo in good faith. If the owner of the photo did place it on wiki, then I am sorry they cannot pick and choose who uses it just because they dont' like its context. That's the way Public Domain licences works

I am not trying to justify NS for this awful article however, but I don't want the argument against it to be detracted by something that may be beyond NS's control. If wiki has the photo published under public domain, and it is not, you must take issue with wikipedia.

HRH GypoJoseph wrote:
Give it a rest you clowns. This really amazes me, this local paper has stories of people getting murdered, kids abused, old people getting murdered and robbed in their own homes and hardly a comment. The mention of a poxy Staff and all you A holes creep out of the wood work. A sad reflection of our society really. Before you ask I'm a dog owner and love my dogs.

There is a difference! Although the crimes that you mentioned may affect us all and disgusting in their own right, what the News Shopper is suggesting directly affects many readers who are the owners of the dogs that these people want to ban! The News Shopper is actively promoting the destruction of banned breeds and the addition, thus destruction of additional breeds, breeds that many of us own and the imprisonment of the owners. If you can't see the difference between those crimes and what the issue is here, then just stick to reading about those crimes and ignore the dangerous dog article/page. That's all I can suggest.

crazydoglady wrote:

shaner,bournemouth wrote:

crazydoglady wrote:

shaner,bournemouth wrote:

meme6 wrote:
Reading your article i can tell that N/S staff are not dog lovers this is nothing but a witch hunt.Don't they know that magistrates & police are fully aware that people do not always know a dog is a banned breed when its bought as a puppy.They do not destroy dogs for the sake of it they put restrictions on them and send them home where they belong.I have first hand experience because the puppy that was bought for me 4 years ago was a lovely little 'staff' who grew into a great big staff who was taken away and deemed a 'pitball' type dog ( a pitball is not a breed).He was in police kennels for 5 weeks we went to court and explained that he is a family pet ,much loved and part of the family.He was insured,micro chipped etc etc & they could see we were responsible owners.They put restrictions on him gave me a conditional discharge and no fine or court costs.The magistrate told us they were there not there to destroy family pets.It cost us nothing but heart ache our lovely dog 5 weeks of misery and the police a fortune in kennal cost's & vet's fee's.He has got a tattoo inside his leg,3rd party liability insurance has to be muzzled & on a lead in public but shouldn't all dogs.Every dog is potentially dangerous what dog could be more snappy & growl's more than a Jack Russell ?? When are the N/S going to realise its NOT THE DOG ITS THE OWNER.They would be better spending the time & resources on SHOP A BENEFIT CHEAT rather than trying to have much loved family pets destroyed.

Since when was a Pitbull not a breed?

Actually, under section 1 of the dangerous dogs act, the pitbull terrier is defined as a TYPE of dog, not a breed of dog. This enables them to label any dog with the requisite number of physical characteristics to be deemed a pitbull terrier TYPE dog. Any breed, or crossbreed can be classed as a PBT if it ticks enough of the boxes. There have been KC registered staffordshire bull terriers with 5 generation pedigrees deemed pitbulls under this law.

Exactly. A 'Pitbull type' meaning something as close to a Pitbull as possible. Pitbull terrier is a breed, fact! An Amstaff is also a Pitbull. In the US your dog could be an American Staffordshire or a Pitbull, it just depends who it is registered with.

The UK kennel club does not recognise the pitbull as a breed. Go on their website and look for yourself. Or check the Defra guildelines for identifying PBTs. You'll see they have two different sets of criteria, because they're not sure how to define PBT. For this reason, their is no DNA test available to determine if your dog is a PBT, as it is NOT a breed under UK law, but a type. Visit DDAWatch's website if you want to check this for yourself.

The American kennel club is completely different, they have defined both the PBT and the Amstaff as distinct breeds, separate from the 'English' staffordshire bull terrier. But this makes no odds in the UK, if your dog ticks the TYPE boxes, its breed becomes irrelevant.

I know the KC does not recognise it as a breed and i know what you have explained, what i mean is,, just because it is not recognised, does not mean they don't exist and they are'nt here. I know there is pure Pitbulls over here because i know people that own them. Pitbulls were imported over here years ago. Its bit like saying polar bears don't exist because we don't recognise them in this country

My original post was deleted, what a shock! Love the false democracy that we are living under!

That's ok...

I'll just post it again! :)

My letter emailed to NS

To whom it may concern,

I have just read your full page article with regards to your campaign against dangerous dogs. Although I applaud your attempt in tackling a very real and disturbing issue that can affect all, I am writing to tell you that you are way off base as to what you are proposing and that your campaign will amount to nothing more than the victimisation of innocent dog owners and the demonization of an entire breed of dog, governed by nothing more than emotion rather than rational thought.

Your campaign is based primarily around the current common political notion. This notion is a simple one, cut the weeds rather than destroy the root - please keep this in mind and refer back to it while reading what I am going to write and to refer to it when going over your campaign proposals.

What you are proposing is first, for any owner of a banned breed to be punished with the same punishment as someone carrying a knife. This sounds like sense to someone who knows no better, to someone who does simple research and thinks for a moment, this proposal is totally flawed. Why? It is because banned breeds do not always equal vicious dog and a vicious dog does not equal a banned breed, it is entirely based around the nurturing of the owner. Breed specific legislation as introduced in 1991 has done nothing to curb dog attacks, why is this? It is because the people who are primarily responsible for the ill treatment of animals and the training of them to become aggressive are not as stupid as some might think, they will simply go on to breeds that are legal. Every and any dog has the ability to become a dangerous weapon, is it the knife that killed the victim, or the person that plunged the knife in to the victim?

You are also proposing banning Staffordshire Bull Terriers. First of all, most attacks that are carried out involving Staffs are Staff cross breeds rather than pure Staffs, secondly, what exactly is that going to solve? My partner and I have a Staff and have her along with a Labrador and New Foundland. Out of all our dogs she is the best behaved and the most loving. She obeys commands and she even goes to work with my Fiancée. Under your guidelines, she would be put to sleep and we would be thrown in jail. Is that right? No, it’s a classic example of how this subject has been thought with emotion and not reason. The people who use such dogs have moved on to other dogs now, as the Police lookout for groups with status dogs. What is the new status dog? The Siberian Huskey! Are you going to ban that dog in a few years? Then what? They'll go on to some other breed, then another, then another, when does it stop? It stops when people stop snipping the weed and target the root!

You are proposing nothing new, just an extension of what is already on the table and it doesn't work.

It is along the lines of RSPCA's politically motivated proposal. There was even talk of a dog licence! Even though licensing does nothing but create a revenue for government, paid for by the law abiding citizen, while the main culprits walk away laughing, as proven with TV and Driving licences.

What will work?

The following is what I believe will work.

The abolition of breed specific legislation.
The increase of animal neglect and cruelty to a minimum sentence of 5 years prison and £10,000 fine, to be deducted from weekly/monthly welfare benefits if necessary.
Any death resulting from a dog that can be proven to be a result from animal neglect, cruelty and/or no control to be trialled as murder.
Any attack as a result of neglect, cruelty or no control over the dog to have a minimum of £5,000 fine, to be deducted from weekly/monthly welfare benefits if necessary and to be paid to victim and a 3 year prison sentence.
Any dog that is proven to being used as a weapon by individual(s) to carry a minimum sentence of 2 years and a fine of £3,000.
If ownership cannot be determined within a group of individuals then all individuals’ bare responsibility of ownership and all must be given the same sentence.
Greater awareness and education with regards to the responsilibilty of care be given in schools to promote animal welfare.

These measures would see dog attacks become almost non-existent. They will never come in to place and they won't because, as always, no one has the courage to say that this is what is needed. Like everything in this country, they snip at the weed and not the root, or tarnish the entire country with the same brush. Who gets punished in the end? Victims of dog attacks, responsible dog owners and of course, the dog that knows no better!

Your campaign although noble, is seriously flawed and with the added incentive of a mug if you take a picture of someone with a banned breed, it turns it in to some form of tragic comedy. One that could result in numerous incidents and lawyers knocking on your door.

My true wish is that you post this in your next edition as an alternative argument to your campaign, or better still, an alternative campaign. I still have hope in objectivity within the press, it would be great if I could be proven right.

Thank you ever so much for your time.

Deniston wrote:
My original post was deleted, what a shock! Love the false democracy that we are living under!

That's ok...

I'll just post it again! :)

My letter emailed to NS

To whom it may concern,

I have just read your full page article with regards to your campaign against dangerous dogs. Although I applaud your attempt in tackling a very real and disturbing issue that can affect all, I am writing to tell you that you are way off base as to what you are proposing and that your campaign will amount to nothing more than the victimisation of innocent dog owners and the demonization of an entire breed of dog, governed by nothing more than emotion rather than rational thought.

Your campaign is based primarily around the current common political notion. This notion is a simple one, cut the weeds rather than destroy the root - please keep this in mind and refer back to it while reading what I am going to write and to refer to it when going over your campaign proposals.

What you are proposing is first, for any owner of a banned breed to be punished with the same punishment as someone carrying a knife. This sounds like sense to someone who knows no better, to someone who does simple research and thinks for a moment, this proposal is totally flawed. Why? It is because banned breeds do not always equal vicious dog and a vicious dog does not equal a banned breed, it is entirely based around the nurturing of the owner. Breed specific legislation as introduced in 1991 has done nothing to curb dog attacks, why is this? It is because the people who are primarily responsible for the ill treatment of animals and the training of them to become aggressive are not as stupid as some might think, they will simply go on to breeds that are legal. Every and any dog has the ability to become a dangerous weapon, is it the knife that killed the victim, or the person that plunged the knife in to the victim?

You are also proposing banning Staffordshire Bull Terriers. First of all, most attacks that are carried out involving Staffs are Staff cross breeds rather than pure Staffs, secondly, what exactly is that going to solve? My partner and I have a Staff and have her along with a Labrador and New Foundland. Out of all our dogs she is the best behaved and the most loving. She obeys commands and she even goes to work with my Fiancée. Under your guidelines, she would be put to sleep and we would be thrown in jail. Is that right? No, it’s a classic example of how this subject has been thought with emotion and not reason. The people who use such dogs have moved on to other dogs now, as the Police lookout for groups with status dogs. What is the new status dog? The Siberian Huskey! Are you going to ban that dog in a few years? Then what? They'll go on to some other breed, then another, then another, when does it stop? It stops when people stop snipping the weed and target the root!

You are proposing nothing new, just an extension of what is already on the table and it doesn't work.

It is along the lines of RSPCA's politically motivated proposal. There was even talk of a dog licence! Even though licensing does nothing but create a revenue for government, paid for by the law abiding citizen, while the main culprits walk away laughing, as proven with TV and Driving licences.

What will work?

The following is what I believe will work.

The abolition of breed specific legislation.
The increase of animal neglect and cruelty to a minimum sentence of 5 years prison and £10,000 fine, to be deducted from weekly/monthly welfare benefits if necessary.
Any death resulting from a dog that can be proven to be a result from animal neglect, cruelty and/or no control to be trialled as murder.
Any attack as a result of neglect, cruelty or no control over the dog to have a minimum of £5,000 fine, to be deducted from weekly/monthly welfare benefits if necessary and to be paid to victim and a 3 year prison sentence.
Any dog that is proven to being used as a weapon by individual(s) to carry a minimum sentence of 2 years and a fine of £3,000.
If ownership cannot be determined within a group of individuals then all individuals’ bare responsibility of ownership and all must be given the same sentence.
Greater awareness and education with regards to the responsilibilty of care be given in schools to promote animal welfare.

These measures would see dog attacks become almost non-existent. They will never come in to place and they won't because, as always, no one has the courage to say that this is what is needed. Like everything in this country, they snip at the weed and not the root, or tarnish the entire country with the same brush. Who gets punished in the end? Victims of dog attacks, responsible dog owners and of course, the dog that knows no better!

Your campaign although noble, is seriously flawed and with the added incentive of a mug if you take a picture of someone with a banned breed, it turns it in to some form of tragic comedy. One that could result in numerous incidents and lawyers knocking on your door.

My true wish is that you post this in your next edition as an alternative argument to your campaign, or better still, an alternative campaign. I still have hope in objectivity within the press, it would be great if I could be proven right.

Thank you ever so much for your time.

Its NS property - they are entitled to edit or delete the comments as they want to. It does however show that NS are afraid!

But you do have free speach - you are perfectly entitled to create your own website, and delete any comments made by NS.

Deniston wrote:
My original post was deleted, what a shock! Love the false democracy that we are living under!

That's ok...

I'll just post it again! :)

My letter emailed to NS

To whom it may concern,

I have just read your full page article with regards to your campaign against dangerous dogs. Although I applaud your attempt in tackling a very real and disturbing issue that can affect all, I am writing to tell you that you are way off base as to what you are proposing and that your campaign will amount to nothing more than the victimisation of innocent dog owners and the demonization of an entire breed of dog, governed by nothing more than emotion rather than rational thought.

Your campaign is based primarily around the current common political notion. This notion is a simple one, cut the weeds rather than destroy the root - please keep this in mind and refer back to it while reading what I am going to write and to refer to it when going over your campaign proposals.

What you are proposing is first, for any owner of a banned breed to be punished with the same punishment as someone carrying a knife. This sounds like sense to someone who knows no better, to someone who does simple research and thinks for a moment, this proposal is totally flawed. Why? It is because banned breeds do not always equal vicious dog and a vicious dog does not equal a banned breed, it is entirely based around the nurturing of the owner. Breed specific legislation as introduced in 1991 has done nothing to curb dog attacks, why is this? It is because the people who are primarily responsible for the ill treatment of animals and the training of them to become aggressive are not as stupid as some might think, they will simply go on to breeds that are legal. Every and any dog has the ability to become a dangerous weapon, is it the knife that killed the victim, or the person that plunged the knife in to the victim?

You are also proposing banning Staffordshire Bull Terriers. First of all, most attacks that are carried out involving Staffs are Staff cross breeds rather than pure Staffs, secondly, what exactly is that going to solve? My partner and I have a Staff and have her along with a Labrador and New Foundland. Out of all our dogs she is the best behaved and the most loving. She obeys commands and she even goes to work with my Fiancée. Under your guidelines, she would be put to sleep and we would be thrown in jail. Is that right? No, it’s a classic example of how this subject has been thought with emotion and not reason. The people who use such dogs have moved on to other dogs now, as the Police lookout for groups with status dogs. What is the new status dog? The Siberian Huskey! Are you going to ban that dog in a few years? Then what? They'll go on to some other breed, then another, then another, when does it stop? It stops when people stop snipping the weed and target the root!

You are proposing nothing new, just an extension of what is already on the table and it doesn't work.

It is along the lines of RSPCA's politically motivated proposal. There was even talk of a dog licence! Even though licensing does nothing but create a revenue for government, paid for by the law abiding citizen, while the main culprits walk away laughing, as proven with TV and Driving licences.

What will work?

The following is what I believe will work.

The abolition of breed specific legislation.
The increase of animal neglect and cruelty to a minimum sentence of 5 years prison and £10,000 fine, to be deducted from weekly/monthly welfare benefits if necessary.
Any death resulting from a dog that can be proven to be a result from animal neglect, cruelty and/or no control to be trialled as murder.
Any attack as a result of neglect, cruelty or no control over the dog to have a minimum of £5,000 fine, to be deducted from weekly/monthly welfare benefits if necessary and to be paid to victim and a 3 year prison sentence.
Any dog that is proven to being used as a weapon by individual(s) to carry a minimum sentence of 2 years and a fine of £3,000.
If ownership cannot be determined within a group of individuals then all individuals’ bare responsibility of ownership and all must be given the same sentence.
Greater awareness and education with regards to the responsilibilty of care be given in schools to promote animal welfare.

These measures would see dog attacks become almost non-existent. They will never come in to place and they won't because, as always, no one has the courage to say that this is what is needed. Like everything in this country, they snip at the weed and not the root, or tarnish the entire country with the same brush. Who gets punished in the end? Victims of dog attacks, responsible dog owners and of course, the dog that knows no better!

Your campaign although noble, is seriously flawed and with the added incentive of a mug if you take a picture of someone with a banned breed, it turns it in to some form of tragic comedy. One that could result in numerous incidents and lawyers knocking on your door.

My true wish is that you post this in your next edition as an alternative argument to your campaign, or better still, an alternative campaign. I still have hope in objectivity within the press, it would be great if I could be proven right.

Thank you ever so much for your time.

Its NS property - they are entitled to edit or delete the comments as they want to. It does however show that NS are afraid!

But you do have free speach - you are perfectly entitled to create your own website, and delete any comments made by NS.

Ahhh my apologies to News Shopper, my original post was there, I wasn't wearing my glasses...I'll give you that point, News Shopper!

Why is there no quotes from a reputable source such as the Kennel Club or Dogs Trust?
Why was the Poll taken down?
Why is it all one sided?

Let's march on the NS HQ with our staffs !

Unbelievable!I own a Patterdale Terrier,and 2 Staffies.They are all lovely.The Patterdale is the boss and puts the other 2 in there place!I do feel for those that have been attacked by dogs.I was bitten when i was younger by a Jack Russell,i did not blame the dog,i was young and pushed my luck with it.I am responsible for my dogs and if i felt anyone of them,despite their breed was in any way a danger i would muzzle them BUT they are not and would think i had gone mad if i took them out with a muzzle on!!Bit like the journalists who wrote this!!!Muzzle all Staffies????The most popular breed in this country???I agree something needs to be done about backstreet breeders as there are so many dogs in rescue,but it is bad owners not bad dogs!!What next German Shepards,Dobermans,G
reat Danes,Jack Russells????Get a grip News Shopper!!!Ban BSL,it is so wrong,try telling America that their favorite breed needs to be destroyed.Owners at the end of the day are responsible for their dogs,no matter what breed!!Bad reporting guys

IF NS is running this big campaign, and its so important to them.....


... why have none of the editors or journalists responded to any of the comments on here yet? I know they sometimes do on other articles, why have they got their head in the sand on this one?

I think it's safe to say that this campaign has back fired! I just hope that nothing serious comes about from some fool who would actually take a picture of someone with a perceived Pit. A Pit is a TYPE not a BREED. You're going to have crazy people running around woods, taking pictures of everyone's dog and sending them in. There are a lot of people out there who will take offence to that. There are a lot of those people out there who would react quite badly if they notice some tool with a camera hiding in the bushes.
This could do more than fail, this could end up with someone's lawyer placing the blame of his client's face being busted up due to being influenced by a poorly written and very subjective article. Of course it wouldn't be right to blame NS, but there have been too many cases brought to court for less! I sure hope you guys have done your legal homework! You certainly didn't do your subject matter homework!

smcwormald wrote:
Unbelievable!I own a Patterdale Terrier,and 2 Staffies.They are all lovely.The Patterdale is the boss and puts the other 2 in there place!I do feel for those that have been attacked by dogs.I was bitten when i was younger by a Jack Russell,i did not blame the dog,i was young and pushed my luck with it.I am responsible for my dogs and if i felt anyone of them,despite their breed was in any way a danger i would muzzle them BUT they are not and would think i had gone mad if i took them out with a muzzle on!!Bit like the journalists who wrote this!!!Muzzle all Staffies????The most popular breed in this country???I agree something needs to be done about backstreet breeders as there are so many dogs in rescue,but it is bad owners not bad dogs!!What next German Shepards,Dobermans,G reat Danes,Jack Russells????Get a grip News Shopper!!!Ban BSL,it is so wrong,try telling America that their favorite breed needs to be destroyed.Owners at the end of the day are responsible for their dogs,no matter what breed!!Bad reporting guys

Yeah, if they know they've messed up then come out and say it. If they stand by the article, come out and support it. Give us an argument for this article. I have yet to read a comment in support of it. I've spoken to other people who have read it, both dog owners and non-dog owners, an attack victim (though even I was an attack victim when I was a child many years ago) who say that it is dreadful journalism and even a case for borderline incitement.
I am going to assume that they have thought long and hard about this article and reviewed it several times before publication.
I look forward to the next News Shopper, if there is nothing of the backlash and they still support the initial article, I will be shocked. I will also know that the press are in the same league as the politicians.
They will listen, when listening benefits them.

I think we should create a camapign. Shop-A- Journo

If you see a journo in the wild, then take a photo, send it to me. I'll put it on a web site and give you a mug.

Ohh, and muzzle all journos as well.

jca111 wrote:

BSLisWRONG wrote: OH I see this publication has deleted MY Comments....interest ing....I see you may be a little worried of the copyright issue then. REMOVE MY PHOTO or I WILL NOT STOP commenting, writing, ringing and believe me I will pursue legal action.....This publication is a joke and needs a good shake up..... REMOVE MY PHOTO NOW IT IS COPYRIGHTED!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!

Which photo are you claiming to be yours? If its the SBT - that photo is published on wiki. Did you place that photo on Wiki? If you did, you did it under general public licence, which means that NS is perfectly allowed to use it without crediting. If its its yours on wiki, and you didn't place it there - take up the issue with Jimmy Wales - not NS.

I have and they have admitted the image was loaded by a person who took it from me with out permission and it has been removed from there pages.......The image was never put anywhere with my consent other then my own personal website with a copyright attached so NS DOES NOT HAVE the right to display it in there artical just as Wikipedia did not!!! The image is COPYRIGHTED and I will be pursuing this matter in any means that is required.....and as this has gone to print I will seek damages also!!

BSLisWRONG wrote:

jca111 wrote:

BSLisWRONG wrote: OH I see this publication has deleted MY Comments....interest ing....I see you may be a little worried of the copyright issue then. REMOVE MY PHOTO or I WILL NOT STOP commenting, writing, ringing and believe me I will pursue legal action.....This publication is a joke and needs a good shake up..... REMOVE MY PHOTO NOW IT IS COPYRIGHTED!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!

Which photo are you claiming to be yours? If its the SBT - that photo is published on wiki. Did you place that photo on Wiki? If you did, you did it under general public licence, which means that NS is perfectly allowed to use it without crediting. If its its yours on wiki, and you didn't place it there - take up the issue with Jimmy Wales - not NS.

I have and they have admitted the image was loaded by a person who took it from me with out permission and it has been removed from there pages.......The image was never put anywhere with my consent other then my own personal website with a copyright attached so NS DOES NOT HAVE the right to display it in there artical just as Wikipedia did not!!! The image is COPYRIGHTED and I will be pursuing this matter in any means that is required.....and as this has gone to print I will seek damages also!!

May I suggest you are unlikely to win any damages against NS.

They will have used the image in good faith at the time of using the image.

They should, however, now remove any images that you can prove is yours immediately. I see that wikipedia has.

Have you written/emailed directly the editor (or if they have one the image editor). A comment on a website will probably not count as notification of copy-rite abuse.

jca111 wrote:

BSLisWRONG wrote:

jca111 wrote:

BSLisWRONG wrote: OH I see this publication has deleted MY Comments....interest ing....I see you may be a little worried of the copyright issue then. REMOVE MY PHOTO or I WILL NOT STOP commenting, writing, ringing and believe me I will pursue legal action.....This publication is a joke and needs a good shake up..... REMOVE MY PHOTO NOW IT IS COPYRIGHTED!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!

Which photo are you claiming to be yours? If its the SBT - that photo is published on wiki. Did you place that photo on Wiki? If you did, you did it under general public licence, which means that NS is perfectly allowed to use it without crediting. If its its yours on wiki, and you didn't place it there - take up the issue with Jimmy Wales - not NS.

I have and they have admitted the image was loaded by a person who took it from me with out permission and it has been removed from there pages.......The image was never put anywhere with my consent other then my own personal website with a copyright attached so NS DOES NOT HAVE the right to display it in there artical just as Wikipedia did not!!! The image is COPYRIGHTED and I will be pursuing this matter in any means that is required.....and as this has gone to print I will seek damages also!!

May I suggest you are unlikely to win any damages against NS. They will have used the image in good faith at the time of using the image. They should, however, now remove any images that you can prove is yours immediately. I see that wikipedia has. Have you written/emailed directly the editor (or if they have one the image editor). A comment on a website will probably not count as notification of copy-rite abuse.

Yes they have been notified by email but have declined to respond......I will not back down till it is removed and I have support from all over the world

BSLisWRONG wrote:

jca111 wrote:

BSLisWRONG wrote:

jca111 wrote:

BSLisWRONG wrote: OH I see this publication has deleted MY Comments....interest ing....I see you may be a little worried of the copyright issue then. REMOVE MY PHOTO or I WILL NOT STOP commenting, writing, ringing and believe me I will pursue legal action.....This publication is a joke and needs a good shake up..... REMOVE MY PHOTO NOW IT IS COPYRIGHTED!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!

Which photo are you claiming to be yours? If its the SBT - that photo is published on wiki. Did you place that photo on Wiki? If you did, you did it under general public licence, which means that NS is perfectly allowed to use it without crediting. If its its yours on wiki, and you didn't place it there - take up the issue with Jimmy Wales - not NS.

I have and they have admitted the image was loaded by a person who took it from me with out permission and it has been removed from there pages.......The image was never put anywhere with my consent other then my own personal website with a copyright attached so NS DOES NOT HAVE the right to display it in there artical just as Wikipedia did not!!! The image is COPYRIGHTED and I will be pursuing this matter in any means that is required.....and as this has gone to print I will seek damages also!!

May I suggest you are unlikely to win any damages against NS. They will have used the image in good faith at the time of using the image. They should, however, now remove any images that you can prove is yours immediately. I see that wikipedia has. Have you written/emailed directly the editor (or if they have one the image editor). A comment on a website will probably not count as notification of copy-rite abuse.

Yes they have been notified by email but have declined to respond......I will not back down till it is removed and I have support from all over the world

I agree you shouldn't back down. I just don't want you to jump to legal action which will cost you and you will probably not win - provided that NS take the image is taken down from the website and also make sure they remove it from the e-edition which is available online.

Cos even if they remove from the website, I bet the keep it on the e-edition.

As to the printed edition, at the time that was published it was used in good faith. Obviously that has now been proven wrong, but you are unlikely to win any damages from that.

HRH GypoJoseph, I will NOT wind my neck in, I was making a well delivered point, I own two staffies/staffy crosses not as you so eloquently put it 'because the have a reputation' they came to me by default, so get yourself an education and stop assuming everyone has one because they want to 'look hard'

JasminWoodcock wrote:

jca111 wrote:

BSLisWRONG wrote:

jca111 wrote:

BSLisWRONG wrote:

jca111 wrote:

BSLisWRONG wrote: OH I see this publication has deleted MY Comments....interest ing....I see you may be a little worried of the copyright issue then. REMOVE MY PHOTO or I WILL NOT STOP commenting, writing, ringing and believe me I will pursue legal action.....This publication is a joke and needs a good shake up..... REMOVE MY PHOTO NOW IT IS COPYRIGHTED!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!

Which photo are you claiming to be yours? If its the SBT - that photo is published on wiki. Did you place that photo on Wiki? If you did, you did it under general public licence, which means that NS is perfectly allowed to use it without crediting. If its its yours on wiki, and you didn't place it there - take up the issue with Jimmy Wales - not NS.

I have and they have admitted the image was loaded by a person who took it from me with out permission and it has been removed from there pages.......The image was never put anywhere with my consent other then my own personal website with a copyright attached so NS DOES NOT HAVE the right to display it in there artical just as Wikipedia did not!!! The image is COPYRIGHTED and I will be pursuing this matter in any means that is required.....and as this has gone to print I will seek damages also!!

May I suggest you are unlikely to win any damages against NS. They will have used the image in good faith at the time of using the image. They should, however, now remove any images that you can prove is yours immediately. I see that wikipedia has. Have you written/emailed directly the editor (or if they have one the image editor). A comment on a website will probably not count as notification of copy-rite abuse.

Yes they have been notified by email but have declined to respond......I will not back down till it is removed and I have support from all over the world

I agree you shouldn't back down. I just don't want you to jump to legal action which will cost you and you will probably not win - provided that NS take the image is taken down from the website and also make sure they remove it from the e-edition which is available online. Cos even if they remove from the website, I bet the keep it on the e-edition. As to the printed edition, at the time that was published it was used in good faith. Obviously that has now been proven wrong, but you are unlikely to win any damages from that.

Since the NS has been made aware in writing and via telephone that the picture should not not have been used by wikipedia and that it has a copywrite they are legally required to take this down from the website and I see it is still up. The continued exposure of the picture on the website as I understand it is against the law. Furthermore it is causing prolongued anxiety and distress to the owner. I will be speaking to a canine law firm today to see what action can be taken. Once again, if anyone would like to get in touch with me at jasmin.woodcock@gmai l.com I am actively campaigning against this article and the NS so if you would like to get involved or would just like updates do get in touch. Jasmin

You are starting to sound like a crack pot. Are you in/from the USA ?

Well thank you Newsshopper I knew this would happen - this hysterical item has begun to (excuse the pun) bite.
I own a Westie and my back garden although fenced looks onto the street, since this article appeared I have had people walk past and if the dog barks have said "I'm reporting your dog to the Newsshopper"!!! My dog cannot get out and cannot jump the fence but of course that doesn't seem to stop the people (some of them neighbours) now screeching at her instead of just ignoring her.
Also my daughter owns a very quiet staffy and she has had 2 people come from the Housing Association as a person or persons have complained about her dog. It's never been any trouble UNLIKE the dog a few doors down that ripped somebodys cat apart recently!!!
The NS needs to apologise for the item to shop-a-dog and read the statistics and stop causing hysteria.

the wall wrote:
Let's march on the NS HQ with our staffs !

I'm with you 'the wall'. Just take care though as there are so many necks wound all the way out I can see traffic problems around Petts Wood. The next news flash from the Newsshopper will be, "Petts Wood inundated with Barbara Woodhouse impersonators, all with poxy yappy Staffs."
As it happens I don't mind a Staff, I find though I cant eat a whole one.

It would seem that Jasmin Woodcock is of the type that likes to stick her oar in a bit of a campaign. Tell us how's the chip shop battle is going?

http://www.greenwich
.co.uk/connect/topic
/boycott-old-dover-r
d-fish-bar

http://www.facebook.
com/Blackheath.SE3

Tell me how did this go today 'speaking to a canine law firm today to see what action can be taken' Are we getting ruff justice ?.........
Did Barkers and Paws canine law firm help or just laugh at you ?
What law is the news paper breaking ?
Do you really think that this would have got off the ground ?
If you want to go down the copy right road ( is it you that owns the photo) then a copy right law firm would be better.

Hopefully when all the Staffy owners meet at NS HQ the two "reporters" Dan Keel and Kelly Smele will be their. Surely people do not believe anything that is posted on Wikipedia or indeed "copy" off it?. It is well known that people place false and malicious comments and it is easily manipulated. surely what these two "reporters" have started is malicious claptrap. Please read up on the breed

http://www.dogbreedw

orld.com/staffordshi

re_bull_terrier?imag

es=staffordshire_bul

l_terrier&i=5

I copied and clicked this link and it took me to NS.....am I missing something?

Who is "The Wall"

the wall wrote:
It would seem that Jasmin Woodcock is of the type that likes to stick her oar in a bit of a campaign. Tell us how's the chip shop battle is going? http://www.greenwich .co.uk/connect/topic /boycott-old-dover-r d-fish-bar http://www.facebook. com/Blackheath.SE3 Tell me how did this go today 'speaking to a canine law firm today to see what action can be taken' Are we getting ruff justice ?......... Did Barkers and Paws canine law firm help or just laugh at you ? What law is the news paper breaking ? Do you really think that this would have got off the ground ? If you want to go down the copy right road ( is it you that owns the photo) then a copy right law firm would be better.

I am a local resident and I was very saddened by this feature as are a lot of other dog owners. Please feel free to be as abusive and insulting as you wish as you are only serving to make yourself seem even more ignorant than you clearly are.

JasminWoodcock wrote:

the wall wrote: It would seem that Jasmin Woodcock is of the type that likes to stick her oar in a bit of a campaign. Tell us how's the chip shop battle is going? http://www.greenwich .co.uk/connect/topic /boycott-old-dover-r d-fish-bar http://www.facebook. com/Blackheath.SE3 Tell me how did this go today 'speaking to a canine law firm today to see what action can be taken' Are we getting ruff justice ?......... Did Barkers and Paws canine law firm help or just laugh at you ? What law is the news paper breaking ? Do you really think that this would have got off the ground ? If you want to go down the copy right road ( is it you that owns the photo) then a copy right law firm would be better.

I am a local resident and I was very saddened by this feature as are a lot of other dog owners. Please feel free to be as abusive and insulting as you wish as you are only serving to make yourself seem even more ignorant than you clearly are.

Can I just also ad that I don't know when it be became so laughable for people to care about what's going on in their community. Why do you need to be so spiteful?

"My real worry is that loving family pets and their owners are going to be victimised"

Hey please come into the REAL world, we are after all said and done talking a dog. If you hadn't noticed the new head line is about a young lady being sexually assaulted in Orpington. Ohh sorry its only an alleged assault. No worry then lets all get our panties in a bunch about a Staffy. You sad morons.
Most of you need to go look in the mirror and ask yourselves what you are looking at. I just wonder what sad individual contacted you all to rouse from your mundane lives to post of the NS. Never mind go stick your heads back up you Rses and walk your Staffs.

Don't you just love the way the gutter press try to twist things? They quote 163 dog attacks in 2 years, 5 attacks by Staffs over 3 years. Why include an extra year for the Staff attacks? Were the numbers not high enough within the 2 year period to justify the sensationalism? What of the other 158 attacks that weren't by Staffs, aren't you going to call for all of the breeds involved to be muzzled? Oh well,
at least we now know where all of the News of the World gutter press have found employment.
If anyone wants to know the TRUTH about Staffs, have a look at what the Kennel Club has to say about them. Ot ask a vet. Even better, get off your backside, volunteer at a dog Rescue and find out for yourself, instead of believing the nonsense in this paper.

"Shop a Dog, Win a Mug" - no thanks, why would I want one of your reporters?

PLEASE ALL READ THE FOLLOWING

I have recently been thinking and it come to my mind that this is EXACTLY the same line that the London Mayor's Office have taken. Kit Malthouse is on a personal crusade to rid the world of Staffs and Pit Types, regardless of whether or not it would make any difference to dog attack statistics.

Listen to this, in order to give the impression that his fascist take on dog breeds is backed by many. In the reception of the Mayor's Office, they had a petition. The receptionists would say, please sign our partition, we're trying to put through a bill to give tougher sentences to irresponsible dog owners. What they didn't say was that in the small print, the bill is filled with garbage like this!
People, you should always know what you're signing in detail, before signing support for anything!
So Kit is walking around with a partition filled with thousands of names, most of which hadn't a clue what they signed up for.
Oh it get's better...
Remember by mention of the RSPCA's political motivation? Well, the RSPCA works closely with the Dangerous Dogs Unit, very closely, some would say that certain members work too closely together.
All of the above have pledged support for this insane bill that would basically create chaos and financially would not be viable anyway. If there is a claim that it would be financially viable, then the issue of redundancies and cut backs throughout local government and the Met need to be raised. As clearly these people have money to burn!

My guess, being honest here, is that these reporters have contacted the Mayor's Office and this is what has come back. I think there has been minimal investigation work and I think they have gone along these lines as given by the Mayor's Office.

If everyone wants to protest, I'd add the Mayor's Office to places to protest.

This is just another example of lies, betrayal and government doing what they do best, smashing the honest citizen! I've got enough contacts in government to know that everything and I mean everything, is bent in this country! The difference between this place and the leadership within countries like North Korea, Iran and China, is that none of those claim to be a democracy. For what they do to your face, this country will do behind your back. Britain, we love it!

Having searched the site you say you got the staffy pic from and not being able to find the pic under Staffordshire Bull Terriers can you give exact link.
Also that site is hardly anyhing to go by is it with its bad grammer and worse still the false information it gives about breeds ie that the Staffordshire is "cultivated" in UK and breed as a fighting dog.......first you dont cultivate dogs and second the SBT is not breed as a fighting dog its people that make them fight...they are a lovely breed in the right hands just like any other dog.

This article and the whole shop a dog campaign spectacularly highlights the ignorance of this paper's "journalists".

They are out of touch with their readers an audience who they should be writing for and appealing to, and obviously have not done their research on staffies.

It doesn't take a genius to work our that many people in Kent and the UK, love and own dogs, especially staffies for their warm hearted and loving nature.

My one is three and I have only ever experienced positive comments and praise from strangers and passers by. In fact, a lot of people, esp children, stop and make such a fuss of him.

Come on New Shopper, get your act together! Get your FACTS right, improve your journalism and start covering issues that your READERS can identify with.

Well we have done our bit, rescued a Staffie cross who was dumped in Battersea park at just 12 weeks old, all he wants is a home, food and lots and lots of love, which he's getting.
Please follow the video link.
http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=wG3r3wH1v
Nk&feature=related

I am glad I am not the only Staffie owner who was angered by this article of the NS.
Why publish something like this, when obviously they don't have a clue as to what they are talking about.
And to offer a mug of all things for shopping a dog. Th mind boggles.

Our Staff has been attacked by Westies, Shitzus, Alsations and a Dalmation. In each case our Staff has been minding her own business.
But they are not classed as dangerous dogs are they.

What I would like the Newsshopper to run an article on, are the people who get themselves a dog, then don't bother taking it for a regular long walks everyday, don't bother to clean its mess up from the back yard, and shout at it all day to either get in or get out.
Would these same people treat a child this way.
Why get a dog only to keep it shut up in the kitchen, or in a kennel outside all day.
Why get a dog at all, if you are not prepared to put in the time and effort to look after it. A dog has sense and feelings just like a child. So why do people treat their dogs this way.

A dog should be socialised with other dogs from an early age and the only way this can happen is if the owner takes it for regular walks and it meets other dogs.

If people treated their children the same way as some people treat their dogs, they would get done for child cruelty.

Like everyone on here has been saying it is the owners not the dogs.
If they want to stop dog attacks, target the owners not the dogs.

If a child was out of control, who would you blame the child or the parent?

If the Newsshopper wants to do something constructive, then try and run articles to better educate owners of dogs to be more responsible for their dogs by taking them for regular walks and cleaning up after them, whether that be outside or in the garden.

It is mostly dogs that are not socialised, and owners who don't have a clue how to handle a dog, that cause the most problems.

Thanks to your irresponsible reporting, I have been approached 4 times this weekend and told I own a dangerous dog and it should be destroyed. I own am American Bulldog (micro-chipped, fully insured with a £5 million public liability component and registered) She is a Scotts Standard/performance
.
http://i297.photobuc
ket.com/albums/mm212
/dannydee1978/My%20A
merican%20Bulldog/mi
lly29.jpg
I am fed up with unknowledgeable people claiming she is a dogo
You have started a witch-hunt and innocent dogs WILL DIE due to this rabble rousing reporting.
Where you get your information from I do not know but clearly you don't use Google, or do you and simply ignore any stats that CANNOT be massaged to suit your agenda?

Below is a list of dogs most likely to bite.

http://www.dogbitecl
aims.co.uk/dangerous
-breeds.html

Spot the staffie, thats right in a lowly 8th place. Strange when you consider most attacks this paper reports on are claimed to be staffs, consider further the popularity of Staff's and that puts paid to the suggestion they are a problem.
It is the small ankle biting dogs that prove to be the most aggresive but I dont see any papers calling on its readers to 'Shop a Daschund or Jack Russell'

Consider further the way that incidents involving dogs are recorded and the picture looks a lot different

http://mydogmagazine
.com/hot/dog-bite-st
atistics/

Coincidentally statistics showing hospital admissions cannot be taken at face value due to dog bites, or collisions with dogs (simply being knocked into or over by a dog) are recorded under 'Dog bites and strikes'

Also your picture of the Pit Bull is a very bad example. Take the test News Shopper staff, I bet you don't find the pitbull
http://www.pitbullso
ntheweb.com/petbull/
findpit.html

stoptherubbish wrote:
also mr or mrs newsshopper the picture you have put on the article of the dog that says stop that dog is not a staff it looks like a mongrel

I suspect it is a picture of a Dobermann Pinscher, which is probably owned by an American due to the cropped ears

I have posted on this subject before before using the moniker 'Atmydesk'

http://www.newsshopp
er.co.uk/opinion_blo
gs/blogs/5079008.Ban
_vicious_dogs/

Here is my comment if the above link doesnt work:

I own an American Bulldog and trust my dog completely, I also have a 3 year old daughter who has grown up with my dog.
You will never find a more gentle, docile dog.
Again this is an unfortunate incident which will again thrust these so called 'Dangerous Dogs' into the limelight again.
The first point I would make is the owner having a small council house should not have housed 3 dogs in such a confined area. I have found through my families many years in dog breeding (We bred Dobermann pincshers for 20 years and my grandparents bred Chow's for almost 40 years)
you should never have more then one family dog. A dog by its very nature will try to assert its dominance over others in its pack (and by having more then 1 dog in a household you are creating that pack mentality)
I will only ever have one dog in my house at a time and she (My American Bulldog) is my extra family member.
These large breeds, indeed all breeds of dog need a strong, firm master who will establish his authority as 'The Alpha Male' once you have this authority you must never let your dog undermine you or the battle is all but lost.
Most domestic breeds will try to please their owners and im afraid that these days a lot of dog owners are 'Stella drinking, Spliff smoking Hoodies' who have these status dogs in place of a knife. It is a big problem on council estates the length and breadth of the country, Teenagers walking around with what is essentially a weapon at the end of a leash.
There was a documentary on BBC3 not so long ago called 'My weapon is my dog' in this documentary many teenagers admitted that they have a staff or other 'bulltype' breed as protection or a replacement for a knife "afterall you cant be arrested for possession of a dog" is the general comment made.
I HATE these people with a passion, they have single handedly demonised a complete genre of dogs.
I believe that all dogs should be owned by an adult (Over 21) all dogs should be licensed and micro-chipped at birth (or atleast before they change hands) all potential dog owners should have to take basic dog obedience and training courses too. There needs to be a dog register where all the licensed animals appear, Police and other authorities should be able to stop dogs at will and scan them with the handheld microchip scanners (The cost of these scanners is not prohibitive) and any dog that doesnt appear to be microchipped and have a corresponding entry on The National Dog register should be removed until its identity can be proved either way.
All dog owners should also be in possession of an adequate insurance policy that includes public liability.
It is worth noting too that the majority of dog bites in this country are not caused by 'Bull breeds' You stand a far greater chance of being bitten by a Labrador or a Jack Russell Terrier then being bitten by a Staffordshire Bull Terrier or other Bulltype breed. consider this fact when you compare the amount of Staffs you see on Britain's streets to the amount of Dachshunds, Chihuahua's and Jack Russell's you see on Britain's streets.
Why did I mention these harmless little dogs you might be thinking, well it may surprise you to discover that those 3 little breeds hold the top three spots in a list of aggressive breeds.

Have a look here, this site contains the most relevant data I could find with regards to dogbites and aggression and goes someway into proving my points as valid.
www.dogbiteclaims.co


.uk/compensation/dan


gerous-breeds.html

People have inbuilt preconceptions as to what a dog is. It is the next generation that I feel for, they are being programmed to be afraid of dogs, any dogs. All to often whilst walking my dog I find parents will pull their child away from your dog or say something equally silly like "That dog will bite you if you get too close"

It is time that The Dangerous Dogs act was revoked and replaced with something that will work, in the almost 20 years since the DDA's conception, ask yourself just how effective has it been in combating these so called 'Dangerous Dogs'?
Also to dog owners everywhere, dont get complacent, your breed of choice will be demonised sometime soon. It used to be German Sheperds and Alsatians that were 'Dangerous Dogs, then came the turn of the Rottweillers now it is the turn of the 'Bull type breeds'.

I am a responsible dog owner, I understand the psychology behind the dogs pack mentality (Very important if you are to establish yourself as Top Dog 'The Alpha Male'.
I always have control of my dog whilst out walking her, she is always on her lead and harness when in public places, I also carry plastic gloves and a couple of carrier bags everytime I walk her, If there is one thing that gets my goat with other dog owners it is their obvious inability to clean up after their pet, there is nothing worse then having to navigate a route across a pavement to avoid all the piles of dog excrement that have been left by lazy and irresponsible dog owners.
An American Bulldog is like most other dogs of its type and size and as such needs to be walked atleast twice a day for atleast an hour at a time plus have access to a decent sized garden, they need to be kept mentally stimulated and need to know their boundaries. Dogs are a bit like children in that respect. A dog should have only one owner if everyone in the household tries to command the dog then it normally goes wrong.
It is extremely sad that another child is going to have to face life with possibly horrific scars all because his/her parent took on more then they could handle.
One last point, The owner should have known that keeping a **** in season in close proximity to a young male (Infact any male dog that has not been castrated) is going to cause territorial issues.

Maybe we should all descend on The News Shoppers offices with our so called 'Dangerous Dogs'
They stand more chance of drowning from all the slobber then anyone of them attacking.

PaulErith wrote:
All dogs are aggressive and should wear mussles in public.

not all dogs are aggressive, i have four dogs, a collie, a westie cross, a yorkie and a staff and none of these are agressive. why should dogs which have been trained, socialised and brought up with young children be muzzlled in public. i agree that dogs which have bitten or showed aggressive behaviour should be muzzled but not every dog and not every staffie. blame the dog not the breed.

JasminWoodcock wrote:

JasminWoodcock wrote:

the wall wrote: It would seem that Jasmin Woodcock is of the type that likes to stick her oar in a bit of a campaign. Tell us how's the chip shop battle is going? http://www.greenwich .co.uk/connect/topic /boycott-old-dover-r d-fish-bar http://www.facebook. com/Blackheath.SE3 Tell me how did this go today 'speaking to a canine law firm today to see what action can be taken' Are we getting ruff justice ?......... Did Barkers and Paws canine law firm help or just laugh at you ? What law is the news paper breaking ? Do you really think that this would have got off the ground ? If you want to go down the copy right road ( is it you that owns the photo) then a copy right law firm would be better.

I am a local resident and I was very saddened by this feature as are a lot of other dog owners. Please feel free to be as abusive and insulting as you wish as you are only serving to make yourself seem even more ignorant than you clearly are.

Can I just also ad that I don't know when it be became so laughable for people to care about what's going on in their community. Why do you need to be so spiteful?

The only thing laughable is you and how you have gone and told the news paper exactly what you are going to do! There is a saying which you should learn 'keep some powder dry'

Please do show me were I have been " abusive and insulting " I asked some questions about how it went at the so called " canine law firm " ? What were you hoping to gain from this ? Also how is the news paper breaking the law ? Anyone can run a campaign ( within reason) doesn't mean that it will get off the ground. But you didn't like me asking these questions did you........ so you attacked with name calling ( ignorant / spiteful / abusive ). There is nothing wrong with caring but there are ways of doing thing and your way to be honest was quite sad to read. Do tell what a " canine law firm " are going to do about some rag news paper that most people just take the Mickey out of ? It's not a National, it's known for these sort of yellow journalism. What were you hoping to gain from this ? It would be very nice to know how many of the above people who have left a comment live in the News Shopper area.


Meanwhile in other news : Detectives are investigating an allegation of sexual assault on a 17-year-old girl. / Motorcyclist taken to hospital after colliding with bus /
Officers have released an e-fit of a man they would like to speak to in connection with a rape in Mountsfield Park / Student stabbed in Bromley Common .

the wall wrote:

JasminWoodcock wrote:

JasminWoodcock wrote:

the wall wrote: It would seem that Jasmin Woodcock is of the type that likes to stick her oar in a bit of a campaign. Tell us how's the chip shop battle is going? http://www.greenwich .co.uk/connect/topic /boycott-old-dover-r d-fish-bar http://www.facebook. com/Blackheath.SE3 Tell me how did this go today 'speaking to a canine law firm today to see what action can be taken' Are we getting ruff justice ?......... Did Barkers and Paws canine law firm help or just laugh at you ? What law is the news paper breaking ? Do you really think that this would have got off the ground ? If you want to go down the copy right road ( is it you that owns the photo) then a copy right law firm would be better.

I am a local resident and I was very saddened by this feature as are a lot of other dog owners. Please feel free to be as abusive and insulting as you wish as you are only serving to make yourself seem even more ignorant than you clearly are.

Can I just also ad that I don't know when it be became so laughable for people to care about what's going on in their community. Why do you need to be so spiteful?

The only thing laughable is you and how you have gone and told the news paper exactly what you are going to do! There is a saying which you should learn 'keep some powder dry' Please do show me were I have been " abusive and insulting " I asked some questions about how it went at the so called " canine law firm " ? What were you hoping to gain from this ? Also how is the news paper breaking the law ? Anyone can run a campaign ( within reason) doesn't mean that it will get off the ground. But you didn't like me asking these questions did you........ so you attacked with name calling ( ignorant / spiteful / abusive ). There is nothing wrong with caring but there are ways of doing thing and your way to be honest was quite sad to read. Do tell what a " canine law firm " are going to do about some rag news paper that most people just take the Mickey out of ? It's not a National, it's known for these sort of yellow journalism. What were you hoping to gain from this ? It would be very nice to know how many of the above people who have left a comment live in the News Shopper area. Meanwhile in other news : Detectives are investigating an allegation of sexual assault on a 17-year-old girl. / Motorcyclist taken to hospital after colliding with bus / Officers have released an e-fit of a man they would like to speak to in connection with a rape in Mountsfield Park / Student stabbed in Bromley Common .

First of all, I should imagine the vast majority of people who have commented on this have done so due to seeing it in the News Shopper, which would mean they live in the local area. I for one live in Bexley Village.
Secondly, you mention another news story to try and give it more importance than this issue. We are all aware of crimes such as the one that you have mentioned and we all hope that sentences would increase and the Police would become more like how they used to be, a competent Police Force devoid of political interference (I'm ex Met by the way) and courts willing to stick two fingers up at the EU power house to hand out solid sentences and government who should build more prisons rather than just let criminals walk free early. Alas, it has not panned out that way, but just because people are rallying to this cause, does not mean they do not rally to finding the scum behind that crime.
However, let us put things in to perspective. This campaign affects thousands may be more, dog owners. This could basically destroy your dog, who to many is more like a member of the family, than a pet. This campaign could sling owners in prison. This campaign could cause more harm than good through its stupidity.
Are we, as dog owners, to stand here and say nothing? There is a chance that any one of us could be victim of a foul crime, but with this campaign we are looking directly down the barrel of a gun! This is why people are rallying to this cause. We are all well aware of the other crimes, which we want justice for, but that success stands in the hands of the police and courts as well as perhaps public vigilance. This campaigns' success stands firmly on people being willing to drop to their knees and submit. This can actually be defeated.
If you cannot understand this, then there is not much more to say. You have your opinion and we have ours.

Staff Owner2 wrote:
Like all dogs Staffordshire Bull Terriors are agressive if they have been trained to or have not been trained properly. Maybe it would be helpful if you focused on the owners and the possibility of making sure that all dog owners are liscensed to have a dog and that this should be enforced rather than penalising those dogs that have a perfectly good temperament.

OMG!!! cannot believe what i was reading! You cannot single out specific breed types it shoul be DEED NOT BREED as any dog has the potential to bite. I do not own a bull breed but know plenty of nice dogs come on this is doggie racism!!!!!!

Deniston wrote:

the wall wrote:

JasminWoodcock wrote:

JasminWoodcock wrote:

the wall wrote: It would seem that Jasmin Woodcock is of the type that likes to stick her oar in a bit of a campaign. Tell us how's the chip shop battle is going? http://www.greenwich .co.uk/connect/topic /boycott-old-dover-r d-fish-bar http://www.facebook. com/Blackheath.SE3 Tell me how did this go today 'speaking to a canine law firm today to see what action can be taken' Are we getting ruff justice ?......... Did Barkers and Paws canine law firm help or just laugh at you ? What law is the news paper breaking ? Do you really think that this would have got off the ground ? If you want to go down the copy right road ( is it you that owns the photo) then a copy right law firm would be better.

I am a local resident and I was very saddened by this feature as are a lot of other dog owners. Please feel free to be as abusive and insulting as you wish as you are only serving to make yourself seem even more ignorant than you clearly are.

Can I just also ad that I don't know when it be became so laughable for people to care about what's going on in their community. Why do you need to be so spiteful?

The only thing laughable is you and how you have gone and told the news paper exactly what you are going to do! There is a saying which you should learn 'keep some powder dry' Please do show me were I have been " abusive and insulting " I asked some questions about how it went at the so called " canine law firm " ? What were you hoping to gain from this ? Also how is the news paper breaking the law ? Anyone can run a campaign ( within reason) doesn't mean that it will get off the ground. But you didn't like me asking these questions did you........ so you attacked with name calling ( ignorant / spiteful / abusive ). There is nothing wrong with caring but there are ways of doing thing and your way to be honest was quite sad to read. Do tell what a " canine law firm " are going to do about some rag news paper that most people just take the Mickey out of ? It's not a National, it's known for these sort of yellow journalism. What were you hoping to gain from this ? It would be very nice to know how many of the above people who have left a comment live in the News Shopper area. Meanwhile in other news : Detectives are investigating an allegation of sexual assault on a 17-year-old girl. / Motorcyclist taken to hospital after colliding with bus / Officers have released an e-fit of a man they would like to speak to in connection with a rape in Mountsfield Park / Student stabbed in Bromley Common .

First of all, I should imagine the vast majority of people who have commented on this have done so due to seeing it in the News Shopper, which would mean they live in the local area. I for one live in Bexley Village.
Secondly, you mention another news story to try and give it more importance than this issue. We are all aware of crimes such as the one that you have mentioned and we all hope that sentences would increase and the Police would become more like how they used to be, a competent Police Force devoid of political interference (I'm ex Met by the way) and courts willing to stick two fingers up at the EU power house to hand out solid sentences and government who should build more prisons rather than just let criminals walk free early. Alas, it has not panned out that way, but just because people are rallying to this cause, does not mean they do not rally to finding the scum behind that crime.
However, let us put things in to perspective. This campaign affects thousands may be more, dog owners. This could basically destroy your dog, who to many is more like a member of the family, than a pet. This campaign could sling owners in prison. This campaign could cause more harm than good through its stupidity.
Are we, as dog owners, to stand here and say nothing? There is a chance that any one of us could be victim of a foul crime, but with this campaign we are looking directly down the barrel of a gun! This is why people are rallying to this cause. We are all well aware of the other crimes, which we want justice for, but that success stands in the hands of the police and courts as well as perhaps public vigilance. This campaigns' success stands firmly on people being willing to drop to their knees and submit. This can actually be defeated.
If you cannot understand this, then there is not much more to say. You have your opinion and we have ours.

Another thing how can members of the public possibly identify different breeds ??!! When i walk my mums dog people ask if its a fox.........need i say more?

Deniston wrote:

the wall wrote:

JasminWoodcock wrote:

JasminWoodcock wrote:

the wall wrote: It would seem that Jasmin Woodcock is of the type that likes to stick her oar in a bit of a campaign. Tell us how's the chip shop battle is going? http://www.greenwich .co.uk/connect/topic /boycott-old-dover-r d-fish-bar http://www.facebook. com/Blackheath.SE3 Tell me how did this go today 'speaking to a canine law firm today to see what action can be taken' Are we getting ruff justice ?......... Did Barkers and Paws canine law firm help or just laugh at you ? What law is the news paper breaking ? Do you really think that this would have got off the ground ? If you want to go down the copy right road ( is it you that owns the photo) then a copy right law firm would be better.

I am a local resident and I was very saddened by this feature as are a lot of other dog owners. Please feel free to be as abusive and insulting as you wish as you are only serving to make yourself seem even more ignorant than you clearly are.

Can I just also ad that I don't know when it be became so laughable for people to care about what's going on in their community. Why do you need to be so spiteful?

The only thing laughable is you and how you have gone and told the news paper exactly what you are going to do! There is a saying which you should learn 'keep some powder dry' Please do show me were I have been " abusive and insulting " I asked some questions about how it went at the so called " canine law firm " ? What were you hoping to gain from this ? Also how is the news paper breaking the law ? Anyone can run a campaign ( within reason) doesn't mean that it will get off the ground. But you didn't like me asking these questions did you........ so you attacked with name calling ( ignorant / spiteful / abusive ). There is nothing wrong with caring but there are ways of doing thing and your way to be honest was quite sad to read. Do tell what a " canine law firm " are going to do about some rag news paper that most people just take the Mickey out of ? It's not a National, it's known for these sort of yellow journalism. What were you hoping to gain from this ? It would be very nice to know how many of the above people who have left a comment live in the News Shopper area. Meanwhile in other news : Detectives are investigating an allegation of sexual assault on a 17-year-old girl. / Motorcyclist taken to hospital after colliding with bus / Officers have released an e-fit of a man they would like to speak to in connection with a rape in Mountsfield Park / Student stabbed in Bromley Common .

First of all, I should imagine the vast majority of people who have commented on this have done so due to seeing it in the News Shopper, which would mean they live in the local area. I for one live in Bexley Village. Secondly, you mention another news story to try and give it more importance than this issue. We are all aware of crimes such as the one that you have mentioned and we all hope that sentences would increase and the Police would become more like how they used to be, a competent Police Force devoid of political interference (I'm ex Met by the way) and courts willing to stick two fingers up at the EU power house to hand out solid sentences and government who should build more prisons rather than just let criminals walk free early. Alas, it has not panned out that way, but just because people are rallying to this cause, does not mean they do not rally to finding the scum behind that crime. However, let us put things in to perspective. This campaign affects thousands may be more, dog owners. This could basically destroy your dog, who to many is more like a member of the family, than a pet. This campaign could sling owners in prison. This campaign could cause more harm than good through its stupidity. Are we, as dog owners, to stand here and say nothing? There is a chance that any one of us could be victim of a foul crime, but with this campaign we are looking directly down the barrel of a gun! This is why people are rallying to this cause. We are all well aware of the other crimes, which we want justice for, but that success stands in the hands of the police and courts as well as perhaps public vigilance. This campaigns' success stands firmly on people being willing to drop to their knees and submit. This can actually be defeated. If you cannot understand this, then there is not much more to say. You have your opinion and we have ours.

" I should imagine " - this sums up most of your post unfortunately.
If people complained as much about not having enough prisons and short sentences as they are about this local rag ran campaign, then this country would not be half bad.

This campaign isn't even going to get feet let a loan take off. This has really brought out the drama queens.

You say ' This could basically destroy your dog ' What ? How is that going to happen ? See what I mean by drama queens.

You also say ' This campaign could sling owners in prison ' How ? It's not law it some cheap stunt done by some local rag news paper and you are carrying on like it's in the Magna Carta . See drama queens!

the wall wrote:

Deniston wrote:

the wall wrote:

JasminWoodcock wrote:

JasminWoodcock wrote:

the wall wrote: It would seem that Jasmin Woodcock is of the type that likes to stick her oar in a bit of a campaign. Tell us how's the chip shop battle is going? http://www.greenwich .co.uk/connect/topic /boycott-old-dover-r d-fish-bar http://www.facebook. com/Blackheath.SE3 Tell me how did this go today 'speaking to a canine law firm today to see what action can be taken' Are we getting ruff justice ?......... Did Barkers and Paws canine law firm help or just laugh at you ? What law is the news paper breaking ? Do you really think that this would have got off the ground ? If you want to go down the copy right road ( is it you that owns the photo) then a copy right law firm would be better.

I am a local resident and I was very saddened by this feature as are a lot of other dog owners. Please feel free to be as abusive and insulting as you wish as you are only serving to make yourself seem even more ignorant than you clearly are.

Can I just also ad that I don't know when it be became so laughable for people to care about what's going on in their community. Why do you need to be so spiteful?

The only thing laughable is you and how you have gone and told the news paper exactly what you are going to do! There is a saying which you should learn 'keep some powder dry' Please do show me were I have been " abusive and insulting " I asked some questions about how it went at the so called " canine law firm " ? What were you hoping to gain from this ? Also how is the news paper breaking the law ? Anyone can run a campaign ( within reason) doesn't mean that it will get off the ground. But you didn't like me asking these questions did you........ so you attacked with name calling ( ignorant / spiteful / abusive ). There is nothing wrong with caring but there are ways of doing thing and your way to be honest was quite sad to read. Do tell what a " canine law firm " are going to do about some rag news paper that most people just take the Mickey out of ? It's not a National, it's known for these sort of yellow journalism. What were you hoping to gain from this ? It would be very nice to know how many of the above people who have left a comment live in the News Shopper area. Meanwhile in other news : Detectives are investigating an allegation of sexual assault on a 17-year-old girl. / Motorcyclist taken to hospital after colliding with bus / Officers have released an e-fit of a man they would like to speak to in connection with a rape in Mountsfield Park / Student stabbed in Bromley Common .

First of all, I should imagine the vast majority of people who have commented on this have done so due to seeing it in the News Shopper, which would mean they live in the local area. I for one live in Bexley Village. Secondly, you mention another news story to try and give it more importance than this issue. We are all aware of crimes such as the one that you have mentioned and we all hope that sentences would increase and the Police would become more like how they used to be, a competent Police Force devoid of political interference (I'm ex Met by the way) and courts willing to stick two fingers up at the EU power house to hand out solid sentences and government who should build more prisons rather than just let criminals walk free early. Alas, it has not panned out that way, but just because people are rallying to this cause, does not mean they do not rally to finding the scum behind that crime. However, let us put things in to perspective. This campaign affects thousands may be more, dog owners. This could basically destroy your dog, who to many is more like a member of the family, than a pet. This campaign could sling owners in prison. This campaign could cause more harm than good through its stupidity. Are we, as dog owners, to stand here and say nothing? There is a chance that any one of us could be victim of a foul crime, but with this campaign we are looking directly down the barrel of a gun! This is why people are rallying to this cause. We are all well aware of the other crimes, which we want justice for, but that success stands in the hands of the police and courts as well as perhaps public vigilance. This campaigns' success stands firmly on people being willing to drop to their knees and submit. This can actually be defeated. If you cannot understand this, then there is not much more to say. You have your opinion and we have ours.

" I should imagine " - this sums up most of your post unfortunately. If people complained as much about not having enough prisons and short sentences as they are about this local rag ran campaign, then this country would not be half bad. This campaign isn't even going to get feet let a loan take off. This has really brought out the drama queens. You say ' This could basically destroy your dog ' What ? How is that going to happen ? See what I mean by drama queens. You also say ' This campaign could sling owners in prison ' How ? It's not law it some cheap stunt done by some local rag news paper and you are carrying on like it's in the Magna Carta . See drama queens!

I don't thnik you have done your research at all, let alone read ALL of my comments.
This campaign is pathetic and done by two individuals who if this is the best they can do in journalism, they should find another trade. HOWEVER, this is not confined to this local free paper, who most people wouldn't pay a penny for anyway.
This is what the Mayor's Office is exactly trying to push forward. This is what the RSPCA (the most useless and politically motivated of all charities) whom are linked (in more ways than one) with the Met's Dangerous Dogs' Unit are also lobbying for. This is not confined to these idiots, this goes all the way to Westminster. There are MP's who are trying to lobby for a more rational proposal and are backed by many of the other, more noble, animal charities. However, it is the GLA, RSPCA and Met that could easily use their clout to push through their extreme proposal, that would see more dogs thrown out on the streets, responsible owners prosecuted, more money wasted and more dog attacks, to conclude, absolute chaos in what could be seen as some form of canine holocaust. Harrow council, I believe, have already hired a man to go around picking up Pits and sending them to the Met's Dog Unit, so many aren't even Pits, doesn't matter to him as long as he meets the quota! Met officers unofficially even say we don't touch a dog unless we perceieve it to be a problem or it is reported as a problem. However, Old Kit at the Mayor's Office has a real personal hatred for seemingly every dog breed associated with working class people and wants this to become standard and wants more breeds added to the Dangerous Dog bill. Even though there is no evidence to suggest this would even dent dog attacks. Which it hasn't in the 20 years that it has existed!
Do your research, no body is being a drama queen, just certain people showing ignorance to a subject they seem to know little about, but still have a big opinion to push. This is a massive public safety issue, but even bigger political one!

Lets just have Kit Malthouse PTS (Put To Sleep) and have done with it.

Join up at the DDA-watch page on Facebook and get your voice heard!

http://www.facebook.
com/pages/DDA-Watch/
366883744658

Kitty only got 4,500 signatures - That petition like most others went in the bin.

Why not turn up on his fakebook page:
http://www.facebook.
com/Dangerous.Dogs.P
etition

i read this artical in the paper the other day and my jaw hit the ground, HOW can you sugest that a breed of dogs need muzzling i thought this county was waking up and seeing its the OWNERS that dont handle, train, feed, care about the dog(s) that is the problem. if you want to muzzle a staffie, boxer, pitbull etc... just because some have attacked, then muzzles all dogs. then what happens to the working collies, guild dogs, police dogs, wheelchair dogs are you going to muzzle them too? dogs are a WORKING ANIMALS they need jobs, food, love, and constant training

why not ask for dogs to be licened and a test on the dogs to see if it needs muzzling or not!

First of all Newsshopper have airbrushed the image of a Dobermann to make it look like a dog from hell - wrong! Then they have made accusations about breeders and breeds which is wrong. Many of their comments and ideas are verging on incitement - wrong.
Anyone not happy with this feature and campaign simply report them to the Press Complaints Commission. It is a simple online form and takes minutes to complete.
http://www.pcc.org.u
k/index.html

When you study how laws are created they use the 'Dangerous Dogs Act' as an example of bad legislation drafted too quickly. It's no wonder 'The Sun' claimed it was introduced because of its 'campaign'. The best you can find is February 2010, it was 18 months ago. Going on this rationale you would be campaigning to ban all cars when you consider how many injuries and deaths you have reported in the last 18 months and no, I don't have a dog. Newsshopper, you should have taken advice and tried another campaign, like the changes to the law that will make it easier for people to be sacked.

Why not write about decent dog breeders and honest campaigns there are plenty about?

Just type in 'Dog saves' into Google and you will see countless examples of dogs saving people:

http://news.bbc.co.u
k/1/hi/7577275.stm

http://today.msnbc.m
sn.com/id/34701355/n
s/today-good_news/t/
hero-dog-saves-boy-c
ougar-attack/#.TosCh
uw4knU

http://www.care2.com
/greenliving/dog-sav
es-life-of-3-year-ol
d-girl-lost-in-the-w
oods.html

And these all relate to heroic acts by Staffs, The very breed you are seeking to demonise

http://www.thisiscro
ydontoday.co.uk/Fami
ly-s-pet-dog-saves-b
aby-s-life/story-113
62495-detail/story.h
tml

http://edinburghnews
.scotsman.com/topsto
ries/Dog-saves-girl-
from-sex.3692990.jp

http://www.kentonlin
e.co.uk/thanet_extra
/news/2010/january/1
9/dog_rescues_thanet
_man.aspx

http://www.staffordm
all.com/bella-sa.htm


http://www.highbeam.
com/doc/1P1-51838680
.html

Why not do something worthwhile? This little dog was stolen in a brutal way. It happened in Canterbury, not far from the NS area so the dog could be around here. There is also details of the car that the thieves drove. Please help! Marnie needs us!
https://www.facebook
.com/#!/helpfindmarn
ie

Please help us find Marnie!
She was stolen in a brutal attack on her owners in Canterbury - not far from the NS area. Much better to work finding dogs that to abuse them in the above campaign:
https://www.facebook
.com/#!/helpfindmarn
ie

There has been a rise in dog-knapping recently. Many are held until a missing notice with a reward being offered is posted, at which time they claim to have found the dog wandering in the street/backgarden.
There has been an increase in dogs being stolen from the people walking them unfortunately it tends to be children and teenagers that make up the majority of victims as they are easy targets, the dog will be a loved family pet and they WILL want the dog back.
Many pet insurance policies now include a part that covers the cost of leafleting and a reward in the event your dog is lost or stolen.
Make sure your dog is microchipped, it is the only certain way to identify your dog if it is stolen and you see a dog you believe is yours. It costs little more then a tenner and can reunite you with your dog if it is picked up as a stray.

There has been a rise in dog-knapping recently. Many are held until a missing notice with a reward being offered is posted, at which time they claim to have found the dog wandering in the street/backgarden.
There has been an increase in dogs being stolen from the people walking them unfortunately it tends to be children and teenagers that make up the majority of victims as they are easy targets, the dog will be a loved family pet and they WILL want the dog back.
Many pet insurance policies now include a part that covers the cost of leafleting and a reward in the event your dog is lost or stolen.
Make sure your dog is microchipped, it is the only certain way to identify your dog if it is stolen and you see a dog you believe is yours. It costs little more then a tenner and can reunite you with your dog if it is picked up as a stray.

Local lady wrote:
Why not write about decent dog breeders and honest campaigns there are plenty about?

because its not newsworthy in their eyes

because its not news worthy in their eyes

Try and 'shop' my dogs and you'll soon see that humans are much more dangerous than animals. I've grown up with and around dogs with no problems my entire life.

Ask yourself how many people are harmed by their own species over the canine species, should we start gassing them en masse then? Oh, wait, that sounds familiar, now we know where all you rabid anti-dog posters get your lack of morals from...

Try and 'shop' my dogs and you'll soon see that humans are much more dangerous than animals. I've grown up with and around dogs with no problems my entire life.

Ask yourself how many people are harmed by their own species over the canine species, should we start gassing them en masse then? Oh, wait, that sounds familiar, now we know where all you rabid anti-dog posters get your lack of morals from...

How disgusting! I can not believe you are truly serious! Have you never heard of DEED NOT BREED? BDCH's response to this is SPOT ON! I think the reporter who wrote this is out of date and too far out of touch to be able to give a realistic view on this topic! Perhaps reporters should be "forced" to wear muzzles in public? And perhaps a shock collar when they breath the wrong way! SBT's are loyal and loving IF raised correctly the same as ANY other breed! 3SBT attacks in the last three years, how many small fluffies or mongrel attacks were there?? There are so many people trying to campaign to have legislation changed for the better so that the people who use and abuse ALL breeds of dogs are the ones punished rather than a dog that "looks the type" and all your "articles" are doing is pushing things backwards! Isn't it the person weilding the knife and aiming the gun that is held responsible not the gun or the knife? Useless articles like these should be BANNED!

let me point you to a more upto date viscious dog attack, just this past june in fact
three year old child visciously savaged by a dog, leaving him with horrofic injuries, needing plastic surgery in the future
http://www.dailymail
.co.uk/news/article-
2003849/Boy-3-left-h
orrific-facial-injur
ies-Labrador-savages
-Poole-Harbour.html

oh wait, i forgot, its only staffys that need muzzling isnt it, having a LABARADOR maul a child, yes thats right i said LABARADOR, the andrex puppy dog, the ones that do all the good work as guide dogs, having one of those maul a child this madly doesnt count does it, its not a staffy so it doesnt count as a mauling according to your reporters

will you give me one of your judas ceramics if i send you a picture of a labarador, after all pictures and newspapers never lie do they?

and yes i do realise i spelt labrador incorrectly, but not til i hit submit
perhaps a muzzle should be sent my way too

and yes i do realise i spelt labrador incorrectly, but not til i hit submit
perhaps a muzzle should be sent my way too

cant believe they are allowed to write this crap, I've never met a nasty staffie, and how can a dog be banned just for looking like a banned dog when it actually isn't??? for gods sake u need to get real, more people are stabbed, beaten, murdered by people than dog attacks, should all people be classed the same??? No but that's what you are doing here.
a disgusting article!!!

It's sad to say that NS has refused to take note of the opinion of a majority and continue on with their campaign. I'm going to suggest the following that I will most definately be doing. 1) I no longer want this paper through my letter box and so will leave a notice on my letter box 2)I'm going to write to my MP with note of this trashy campaign and a workable alternative 3) I do believe a protest of unity by not just responsible Staff owners but all dog owners, as it is said, me today, you tomorrow. Huskey dogs are the next status dogs for yobs, take note, these people just move along the dog breeds and people like the NS encourage it!
if you're interested in organisaing a protest email me.
antishopadog@hotmail
.co.uk

When I recieved the activation email for my account it went into my junk folder. How appropriate!
I have seen your awful campaign posted over the internet but refuse to share it myself as you obviously crave publicity at any cost. This is the most horrendous, ignorant, sensationalist trashy piece of so called journalism I have ever come across and I'm appalled!! Whoever came up with this ridiculous campaign needs to be sacked immediately.
As your research obviously didn't go very far, I would like to inform you that the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is the second best breed of dog to own if you have children as recommended by the Kennel Club. It was also known as the Nanny dog in Victorian times, due to its excellent temperment with children.
Shop a dog and win a mug??? Good grief!!! You obviously have no dogs of your own. Wonder how you would feel if your much loved family pet was seized and taken away from you due to some malicious dog hater who wanted a free mug!
I also want to add, what is the point of muzzling all dogs in public? Surely if they are controlled on a lead there is no need? Any responsible person would ask the dog's owner if it was OK before approaching a strange dog, and if they didn't and got bitten, then surely the fault lies with them as they approached at their own risk.
I own four dogs - a German Shepherd, a Collie cross, and two Staffies. Out of the four, the Collie cross is the only one who can be snappy. One of my Staffies was at Crufts this year demonstrating Good Citizenship!
Drop this campaign. It can do no good, and only shows you up for your unprofessionalism and an example of bad sensationalist journalism.

Discusting and shocking, i have 2 staffys they live with a cat and 2 rabbits are they viscious NO have they ever attacked NO, i know plenty of people that own staffs and other so called dangerous breeds and they are soft as s***.
You dont even know what a staffy is its ridiculous i think u will find that the picture is a doberman, this is a staffy http://kennels.co.uk
/Terrier/Terrier.htm
l
so please before you type this kind of rubbish know what the hell you are on about.
Your paper is really the lowest of the low, you think this is going too stop the problem your living on another planet if you do, the amount of dog attacks compared to too the amount of murderers rapist pedofiles that are about living near us compared too dog attacks, dog attacks are minimal and humans are left too there own devices dogs arnt they are what we make them if we make them aggressive guess what they will be. Brought up correctly this breed is amazing,your targeting the wrong end off the leash and thats where your biggest mistake is, if you done your research you would see that staffys have a higher pass rate of their temprement than the majority of dogs.

I just hope the idiot people whos idea this dog shopper was wise up. your going about it all the wrong way.

Discusting and shocking, i have 2 staffys they live with a cat and 2 rabbits are they viscious NO have they ever attacked NO, i know plenty of people that own staffs and other so called dangerous breeds and they are soft as s***.
You dont even know what a staffy is its ridiculous i think u will find that the picture is a doberman, this is a staffy http://kennels.co.uk
/Terrier/Terrier.htm
l
so please before you type this kind of rubbish know what the hell you are on about.
Your paper is really the lowest of the low, you think this is going too stop the problem your living on another planet if you do, the amount of dog attacks compared to too the amount of murderers rapist pedofiles that are about living near us compared too dog attacks, dog attacks are minimal and humans are left too there own devices dogs arnt they are what we make them if we make them aggressive guess what they will be. Brought up correctly this breed is amazing,your targeting the wrong end off the leash and thats where your biggest mistake is, if you done your research you would see that staffys have a higher pass rate of their temprement than the majority of dogs.

I just hope the idiot people whos idea this dog shopper was wise up. your going about it all the wrong way.

I simply cannot believe the ignorance of this article. What were the other breeds involved in attacks as you have failed to mention any other?
Yet again the dogs are blamed for what HUMANS have trained them to do. When will you understand its the owner that makes the dogs the way they are?
ALL dogs have natural instinct and why are the dog owners not being brought to light here?

This is the most disgusting abuse of a newspapers powers to influence public opinion and feed on the fears of the uninformed. It is biased beyond belief.Where is the other side of the story? My friend has a Rottweiler that she takes on visits to old peoples homes to lift their spirits. A breed which some would like to add to the banned dogs list!!
Some years ago a dog trainer told me that, at that time, statistically you were most likely to be bitten by a Golden Retriever than any other breed of dog. I don't remember any calls to have them banned or muzzled in public. In fact I seem to remember that Blue Peter had a Golden Retriever at that time around children without any concerns from parents, but I wonder if the same would have been true if they had chosen a Staffy or Rottweiler as their show dog?
This just shows how our perception of a breed, especially how it looks, clouds our judgement. There are lots of breeds that have quite a reputation for biting but because they look cute or are small no one takes any notice. Any dog is capable of biting if it's been brought up badly. Its the owners that should be persecuted not the dog or breed.

What about all the Labradors, Collies, Terriers etc. if you check you will find these these breeds individually cause more problems with biting than Staffies. Someone has decided to attack Staffies and don't care what problems they cause, how many children they upset because of their prejudice against this breed of dog, if they were this prejudiced against another human they would be jailed. This person who wrote this needs to get his facts right, maybe he should be muzzled to stop his prejudiced writting or better still, pts him for the way he attacks. Silly man, hasn't he realised yet that the problem is the other end of a lead, the human who has the dog and not the dog.

Sorry, News Shopper, but this is a fantastically stupid, ill-informed and prejudiced campaign. Staffordshire Bull Terriers are generally delightful dogs. Before they became a popular status symbol among the wrong type of owner (a very recent development) Staffs were often known as the 'nanny' dog because of their tenderness and patience with children. They are one of only two breeds noted by the Kennel Club to be particularly suited to living with children. As most of the sensible people on this comment thread have said, it's impossible to identify a dangerous dog by what it looks like, just as you can't identify a dangerous human by what they look like. Any dog can be brutalised if they have a brutal owner. This summer I was bitten by a border collie - is a border collie a dangerous dog? As a child I was bitten by a dalmatian - is a dalmatian a dangerous dog? Of course not. All dogs are capable of aggression if they are treated badly or not properly trained. Please reconsider this campaign, News Shopper. We need restrictions on dog ownership, not restrictions on individual dogs.

Do you have permission to post those photos on the internet? Photos are copywrite to the person who took the photo and you need permission to copy them to another site.

A Pomeranian killed a baby in the USA so even small dogs can kill.

Having picked up a copy of this rag at the local Chinese, I see that the News Shopper is completely ignoring public opinion and continuing with this campaign. Reading the comments in the paper, you'd be forgiven for thinking that it's readers support the campaign, clearly not the case.
The News Shopper relies on advertising to exist. It doesn't care how much damage this campaign does as long as it gets people reading the rag. So here's what you need to do to stop this campaign:
Look through the News Shopper and list all those who advertise. Many of these businesses advertise every week with full page ads costing thousands of pounds, boycott these businesses. Email or phone them and tell them you will not be using their services for as long as they continue to advertise in this paper, and tell them why. Local business relies on local people to exist, the News Shopper relies on local business advertising to exist, threaten the livelihoods of both and the News Shopper will soon change its tune.
Like many in my area, I don't actually receive the News Shopper, so I would grateful if someone would be kind enough to post a list of advertisers.

It seems this is a free paper who relies on the advertisers to pay for it, by putting rubbish on like this it gets people reading an article and responding. By printing articles like this they are hoping to attracked more advertisers.

What a really nasty paper this is to attack dogs who can't defend themselves to put money into they pockets.

Instead of writting on here, write to the advertisers and tell them not to advertise in this rubbish called a paper. That is the best way to do harm to this paper. If enough people write to the advertisers they will stop.

I bet this is taken off but there are other ways of getting this message out.

When I first heard of your campaigh it was from Peter Singh, the dog behaviourist.It was at one of his monthly dog behaviour courses and every person present, with no exception, was disgusted!
It is well known that the News Shopper is not 'animal friendly' but how you can stoop as low as this is beyond comprehension. Whoever thought up this ignorant campaign should now think about bringing it to a swift conclusion!

From the response you have had from your readers it's obviously very unpopular, I do know that in America Staffies are known as the 'Nanny Dog' because they are so good with children. It is always the actions of the owners that result in a dog becoming aggressive, humans are to blame for the way we have bred them and ill-treated them. If a dog was to wear a muzzle uneccessarily it would cause more fear among parents and children, think about what you are suggesting before fear spirals out of control!

As for putting down all aggressive dogs, don't those dogs deserve a chance? They can be helped in the right hands, Peter Singh specialises in aggressive dogs and I have seen the results first hand for myself. Give the dog a chance!

What next? Dangerouse makes of car? Oh no, that would be the driver, wouldn't it?

Jan Yarker
Passive Pressure Animal Welfare Group
&
Animal Healer, Any breed!

Well, well well!

What did I say at the start? People go back and have a look. I said these guys have done little to no research, they've simply gone to the GLA and asked what old Kit has to say about it, which is very much word for word, his talk.

What do I get told (I never want this paper through my letterbox again) is in this week's NS? Kit Malthouse from the GLA fully supporting the campaign!

I told you all this was dodgy, there was no NS journalism here! This was political from the start! The GLA, along with the RSPCA (the most political motivated charity in existence) and certain individuals in the Met, who all work too close for comfort, if you know what I mean ;) run the same jargon and are influenced by the same political affiliates. This is rubbish! Why aren't people protesting? The same reason we never protest on anything that affects many of us, British apathy!

This will not go away, if this legalised crime syndicate get thier way, all breeds will be licenced and all but a King Charles will be banned and yet it will not make the slightest difference to dog attacks!

I knew it from the start the GLA were behind this and old Kit, who knows just as much about the Dangerous Dogs as he does about policing, was behind it all!

Read this while it is up, they will take my comment down pretty quickly, like they've done with other comments that they have had no argument against!

Deniston wrote:
PLEASE ALL READ THE FOLLOWING I have recently been thinking and it come to my mind that this is EXACTLY the same line that the London Mayor's Office have taken. Kit Malthouse is on a personal crusade to rid the world of Staffs and Pit Types, regardless of whether or not it would make any difference to dog attack statistics. Listen to this, in order to give the impression that his fascist take on dog breeds is backed by many. In the reception of the Mayor's Office, they had a petition. The receptionists would say, please sign our partition, we're trying to put through a bill to give tougher sentences to irresponsible dog owners. What they didn't say was that in the small print, the bill is filled with garbage like this! People, you should always know what you're signing in detail, before signing support for anything! So Kit is walking around with a partition filled with thousands of names, most of which hadn't a clue what they signed up for. Oh it get's better... Remember by mention of the RSPCA's political motivation? Well, the RSPCA works closely with the Dangerous Dogs Unit, very closely, some would say that certain members work too closely together. All of the above have pledged support for this insane bill that would basically create chaos and financially would not be viable anyway. If there is a claim that it would be financially viable, then the issue of redundancies and cut backs throughout local government and the Met need to be raised. As clearly these people have money to burn! My guess, being honest here, is that these reporters have contacted the Mayor's Office and this is what has come back. I think there has been minimal investigation work and I think they have gone along these lines as given by the Mayor's Office. If everyone wants to protest, I'd add the Mayor's Office to places to protest. This is just another example of lies, betrayal and government doing what they do best, smashing the honest citizen! I've got enough contacts in government to know that everything and I mean everything, is bent in this country! The difference between this place and the leadership within countries like North Korea, Iran and China, is that none of those claim to be a democracy. For what they do to your face, this country will do behind your back. Britain, we love it!

And here it is, what I said at the start of this month. I knew I was right!