Part two of News Shopper's Shop a Dog campaign (From News Shopper)
Get involved: Send pictures, video, news and views - text NEWS SHOPPER to 80360 or email us
Shop a Dog is News Shopper's new campaign to bring justice to the victims of dog attacks and help prevent further maulings across south-east London and north Kent
9:00am Wednesday 5th October 2011 in News By Dan Keel & Kelly Smale
News Shopper launches campaign against dangerous dogs
NEWS Shopper is running a series of features on dangerous dogs and we need YOUR help to get the law changed to make our parks and neighbourhoods safer for everyone.
A FATHER whose daughter was badly bitten by a dog is backing News Shopper's Shop a dog campaign.
Parys Smith, 11, had to stay in hospital for four days and needed 56 stitches to her leg after she was bitten by her friend's Staffordshire bull terrier, Keane, last year.
Police could not take any criminal action against its owner, Craig Hudson, as the incident happened on private property and the dog was not an illegal type.
Parys' dad Martin Smith, of Osborne Close, Elmers End, said: "She had a wound 6ins wide by 4ins. It was like the top of her thigh had been ripped off.
"My daughter was scarred for life but they said I had to go through private prosecution.
"I wasn't able to pursue that because he didn't have anything of value so they said it was not financially viable."
The father-of-six added: "Owners should be responsible for their dog's actions.
"You should be able to prosecute whether it's on the pavement, in the garden or in a house.
"I wasn't looking for financial gain. I was just looking for justice for my daughter.
"Every angle I looked at, because of legislation, rules and regulations, I was fighting an uphill battle."
Keane was put down nine weeks after the attack following a petition by residents in the road, where both families lived.
Mr Smith, 51, said: "My daughter wouldn't go out the front unless she was with more than two people. It was horrendous for her.
"She's ok now but has quite a big scar."
He added: “I back this campaign 100 per cent. It would prevent dog attacks and make owners more responsible.
"People have to be on the other side of it to appreciate what the victim goes through."
What we want
- Increase the sentence for owning a banned dog - in line with carrying a knife.
- Extend the law to include dog attacks on private land - therefore protecting workers such as postmen and carers.
- Increase the prison sentences for owners convicted of allowing their dog to attack humans.
- Force all Staffordshire Bull Terriers to wear a muzzle in public.
- Simplify the court process so that banned dogs can be destroyed immediately.
You can win yourself a free News Shopper mug by sending in a photo of a banned dog. All you need to do is email the image to newsroom@london.newsquest.co.uk with your name, address, phone number and exact details of where you took the photo.
Alternatively post them to Shop A Dog, News Shopper, Mega House, Crest View Drive, BR5 1BT. We'll pass on all the images to the police.
Statistics from The NHS Information Centre
From May 2010 to April 2011 there were 29 admissions to Bromley PCT and 51 to Lewisham PCT for people bitten or struck by a dog.
Your Say
Dawn Elimlahi, of Bourneside Gardens, Downham:
“Staffordshire bull terriers, rottweilers and dobermans should be muzzled and if they attack anything from a cat to a person they should be put to sleep because they have tasted blood.”
Lucy Brooks – emailed
“You could be responsible for the death of innocent pets simply because of their looks. It's nothing more than genocide.”
Georgina Cooper, of Crofton Road, Orpington:
“I feel all dogs should be muzzled in public. You can’t trust any dog with a child. I do believe every dog has the potential with children to turn on them. I think it’s a fantastic campaign.”
Diane Simons – emailed
“New Shopper might drop the breed issue and get photos of the Labradors that bite. It’s a stupid hate campaign which is inciting racism in dogs.”
Comments(76)
Excalibur
says...
9:22am Wed 5 Oct 11
Just look at some of the ridiculous comments contained in the story - “I feel all dogs should be muzzled in public. You can’t trust any dog with a child". What an absolutely stupid and totally ignorant comment to make.
Humans do far more damage to each other every day than dogs will ever do. There are far greater problems that need tackling in our society. Sort it out News Shopper and put this ill-conceived campaign out of its misery.
sickened......
says...
9:35am Wed 5 Oct 11
Where did you get your information?
I was bitten as a child by a yorkshire terrier which had also bitten other people. Was there a campaign to have all yorkshire terriers muzzled? Of course not as it would have been ridiculous.
I suggest these so called reporters actually do some research before they start spouting nonsense about something they obviously know nothing about.
Can't believe they would actually want their names printed as being the reporters...........
......
MFCLION89
says...
9:44am Wed 5 Oct 11
the d scoffer
says...
9:50am Wed 5 Oct 11
the wall
says...
10:01am Wed 5 Oct 11
"I wasn't able to pursue that because he didn't have anything of value so they said it was not financially viable."
Then said:
"I wasn't looking for financial gain. I was just looking for justice for my daughter.
Yeah right pal, pull the other one.
It would be interesting to know what was the build up to all these dog bites.
Like playing tug of war and the dogs teeth catch your hand. Teasing a dog and wounding it up so it bites.
News Shopper you have failed again.
Virtual-Monster
says...
10:11am Wed 5 Oct 11
A ‘one strike’ rule would be good. If a dog shows unwarranted aggression or bites someone then it should be destroyed without recourse to the Courts. What responsible dog owner would then allow or encourage their dog to be aggressive?
The real issue (as it always has been) is that many dogs are owned by idiots and you just cannot legislate for stupid people.
'Status' dogs owned by hoodie wearing Chavs represent a far greater risk to the public at large than the specific breeds identified as dangerous dogs.
Maybe all Chavs and hoodies should be muzzled in public and kept on a short leash rather than their dogs and we would see a far better society?
angeldustdreaming
says...
10:13am Wed 5 Oct 11
sickened......
says...
10:41am Wed 5 Oct 11
After the Newshopper piece of trash written last week it put Batterseas' campaign to home and care for these dogs back about 5 years with it's ill written nonsense.
Battersea and other rescue centres such as Foal Farm and Edenbridge dog centre have been homing animals for years including these dogs for whom many go to family homes.
These people know more about these breeds than your reporters, perhaps it is time to hand over your reporting to experts instead of idiots.........
I also agree that if you target one type of breed it should also be brought in for all dogs. Is your report suggesting that muzzling all staffs will bring injuries caused by dogs to nil? No I doubt that it would.
If this report had been about a 'breed' or 'type' of person it would no doubt be a racist report.
Should all men be castrated because of a minority of paedophiles?, should all drivers be banned from drinking because some see fit to get behind a wheel after a night out? Even better Newshopper lets start a campaign to ban all reporters because some are rubbish at what they do..........
jca111
says...
10:41am Wed 5 Oct 11
Its easy to run emotional stories about attacks. But laws created on pure emotion or as a reaction are usually bad laws.
Laws created on logic and practicallity usually are better.
So please NS, stop this stupid, stupid campaign. Apologise for mis-judging readers reaction, and move on.
Why not look at the number of admissions caused by cars? It will be much higher that dog bites and accidents. So create a campaign against speeding, or mobile phone use in the car. Then you might do something usefull. I doubt you would do that tho - 'cos you probs all drive and speed and use your mobile in the car (I've seen journos from NS do this, I live near the offices). But this is far more dangerous than most dogs.
jca111
says...
10:41am Wed 5 Oct 11
Its easy to run emotional stories about attacks. But laws created on pure emotion or as a reaction are usually bad laws.
Laws created on logic and practicallity usually are better.
So please NS, stop this stupid, stupid campaign. Apologise for mis-judging readers reaction, and move on.
Why not look at the number of admissions caused by cars? It will be much higher that dog bites and accidents. So create a campaign against speeding, or mobile phone use in the car. Then you might do something usefull. I doubt you would do that tho - 'cos you probs all drive and speed and use your mobile in the car (I've seen journos from NS do this, I live near the offices). But this is far more dangerous than most dogs.
ade12001
says...
10:50am Wed 5 Oct 11
DartfordStone
says...
11:38am Wed 5 Oct 11
the wall
says...
11:52am Wed 5 Oct 11
ade12001 wrote:So if some wind up a dog and it bites, the dog should be put down and the owner locked up. You're a clever one!
I think every dog should be chipped by LAW then all dogs must be MUZZLED with hefty fines and imprisonment for owners who refuse, only last week on the Sussex Downs we saw a dog attack so its gone too far now and somethink needs to be dahn! well done the Shopper the peoples paper! yeah!
Why don't you just stay on the Croydon Guardian site?
Ash&Chris
says...
12:56pm Wed 5 Oct 11
EverardEdbutt
says...
1:57pm Wed 5 Oct 11
.
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
EverardEdbutt
says...
1:59pm Wed 5 Oct 11
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
caz2905
says...
3:27pm Wed 5 Oct 11
1. How many extra dogs will end up being dumped if we have to pay £500 per year to keep them?
2. Muzzle all dogs, why punish thousands in friendly dogs, would you like one strapped to your face?
3. Staffordshire's are not dangerous by nature, why do you keep mentioning them speciically?
4. Where are you stories about other breeds which have bitten?
5. The DDA does need to be changed but your persecution of Staffies is just as stupid as the law already is.
6.Owners have to be made responsible, not a certain breed.
7. Not just for the money, re-read what you said - clearly shows you were after money.
8.I would like to see you address BSL and how many innocent dogs have been killed due to this pathetic legislation.
9. Have you done any proper research, if so you must agree it is fine to kill family, loving pets and yes that includes puppies.
10. In my opinion you campaign and related articles are full of misleading information, will lead to the killing of innocent dogs and destroy families, but will not protect the public.
You are, by the nature of your mispotrayal of one named breed, doing a huge amount of damage to these dogs and their owners. This particular breed of dog has suffered so much because of vicious, untruthful media coverage like this. I know that both the Battersea and the Dogs Trust have contacted you with regards to this. Maybe you should get your information from people who ACTUALLY know what they are talking about, rather than the rubbish you have put into print.
dizzyj
says...
3:35pm Wed 5 Oct 11
No?? I thought not.
You would much prefer to insult the intelligence of your readers by editing your original article to suit yourselves as you go along, and even worse, removing your own poll which was showing that 80% of people do not want Staffordshire Bull Terriers to be forced to wear muzzles in public. How would you even enforce this piece of nonsense anyway when it is already the case that experts spend years in court wrangling over whether a dog is of a breed or type, wasting vast amounts of taxpayers money in the process.
The Breed Specific Legislation already in place has done NOTHING to improve safety against dog bites which is precisely the reason why there is an active and urgent campaign to repeal the Dangerous Dogs Act and replace it with more effective legislation - which will target irresponsible owners and not specific breeds of dog. You say that only 5 of the 163 'attacks' in the area were by Staffies, so are we not permitted to know which breeds of dog were responsible for the other 158? I would willingly bet hard cash that there were a fair few cuddly 'Andrex' Labradors and cute Chihuahuas and Jack Russels in there. They don't suit your 'racial profiling' very well though do they? I am sure that if people were better educated about how to behave around dogs it would go a very long way to reduce the incidence of bites as in almost all instances the dog is reacting to a situation forced upon it (even unwittingly) by humans.
Finally, had you written an article claiming that just 5 of the 163 stabbings in your area had been carried out by people of one ethnicity, and then called for all people of that racial group to be handcuffed in public you would yourselves be facing prosecution for inflaming racial hatred.
Thank you for showing everybody the perfect example of a sensationalist, ill-informed and un-researched piece of journalism though, not that we don't see enough of it already.
P.S. I note that your site terms say "Do not post anything that is false, abusive or malicious." How ironic.
Obviously doesn't apply to your articles."
please do not remove my comment ,it's neither false ,abusive or malicious
HRH GypoJoseph
says...
3:53pm Wed 5 Oct 11
Ohh "Danger Will Robinson". Look out Dan and Kelly the men in black are commin' for ya.
claires01
says...
3:57pm Wed 5 Oct 11
For starters you cannot blame badly behaved dogs for the way they are blame their owners, its just like badly behaved children in shops.
Also it simply is not possible to muzzle all dogs, British Bulldogs cannot and should not be muzzled this can kill them as it causes them problems with breathing, so what am I meant to do when I want to take my bullie for a walk and am not able to muzzle him if this ridiculous law is passed.
My grand-parentas had a yorkshire terrier, snappy little thing that bit on a number of occasions and this was their fault they encouraged her to guard toys etc and as a baby I simply didn't understand that was what she was doing, but these are classed as OK as they are tiny and 'friendly', I know people with border collies who are so highly strung they are tempremental and have been known to turn. It just goes to show any breed regardless can turn and bite.
Its all about common sense and knowing your dog.
I wouldn't have a problem paying for a dog licence although I think the figures that have been mentioned are a bit extreme.
I have had dogs since the day my parents bought me home from hospital and my little one who is due in November will also have a dog in their life.
People need to start taking responsibility for their animals and their actions and people need to stop picking on breeds and get their facts straight.
AndreaP
says...
3:59pm Wed 5 Oct 11
Mr Smith says: "He added: “I back this campaign 100 per cent. It would prevent dog attacks and make owners more responsible. " Ummm, no, it wouldn't prevent dog attacks. It would lead to the murder of innocent animals.
caz2905
says...
4:10pm Wed 5 Oct 11
HRH GypoJoseph wrote:HRH GypoJoseph
"I know a number of people have reported last week's article to the Powers That Be"
Ohh "Danger Will Robinson". Look out Dan and Kelly the men in black are commin' for ya.
you have shown the mentality of people who agree with this rubbish.
Jose Jacobs
says...
4:12pm Wed 5 Oct 11
jca111 wrote:The dog wisperer and i say there is no such thing as a dangerous dog if the dog is well trained people children dont tease dont scream abuse and stand still keep calm the family are pack leaders,Dogs helped owners neeed the training Why blame a dog should we put down a dangerous person and fine
NEWSSHOPPER - Listen to your readers, get out of your ivory tower. Most of your readers do not want this. Its easy to run emotional stories about attacks. But laws created on pure emotion or as a reaction are usually bad laws. Laws created on logic and practicallity usually are better. So please NS, stop this stupid, stupid campaign. Apologise for mis-judging readers reaction, and move on. Why not look at the number of admissions caused by cars? It will be much higher that dog bites and accidents. So create a campaign against speeding, or mobile phone use in the car. Then you might do something usefull. I doubt you would do that tho - 'cos you probs all drive and speed and use your mobile in the car (I've seen journos from NS do this, I live near the offices). But this is far more dangerous than most dogs.
the family get the book and dvd
as
AndreaP
says...
4:52pm Wed 5 Oct 11
caz2905 wrote:Exactly. I wouldn't want to lose MY job in today's climate, perhaps these people don't need to earn a living.
HRH GypoJoseph wrote: "I know a number of people have reported last week's article to the Powers That Be" Ohh "Danger Will Robinson". Look out Dan and Kelly the men in black are commin' for ya.HRH GypoJoseph you have shown the mentality of people who agree with this rubbish.
HRH GypoJoseph
says...
5:06pm Wed 5 Oct 11
What I don't get is with all these responsible dog owners on here is why there's so much dog crap on the streets and in the parks ? Stick the dog licence fee up, end of story. If you cant afford it don't get a dog.
Staffie owner
says...
5:08pm Wed 5 Oct 11
Deed not Breed I am sorry this little girl got bitten but you can't tar all Staffies, with the same brush. This is so wrong on all levels what dog is next on your hit list when you have done with Staffies, Labs, Poodles, Jack Russells You are unbelievable and this is the most disgusting piece of scaremongering I have ever read. Think you should put a poll up on who thinks you should lose your job !!
AndreaP
says...
5:27pm Wed 5 Oct 11
HRH GypoJoseph wrote:You really are a numpty aren't you? Why would the people who don't
Here they all come, the lunes are loose again. We only need a couple of the looney tunes from the previous story and we'll have a full house. What I don't get is with all these responsible dog owners on here is why there's so much dog crap on the streets and in the parks ? Stick the dog licence fee up, end of story. If you cant afford it don't get a dog.
care about their dogs bother with getting a dog licence? Why would they bother what people think? It's because the responsible owners clean up after their dogs that you're not swimming in it. get back under your bridge!
caz2905
says...
5:32pm Wed 5 Oct 11
HRH GypoJoseph wrote:As i say again, you have shown the type of person you are, name calling and insults.
Here they all come, the lunes are loose again. We only need a couple of the looney tunes from the previous story and we'll have a full house.
What I don't get is with all these responsible dog owners on here is why there's so much dog crap on the streets and in the parks ? Stick the dog licence fee up, end of story. If you cant afford it don't get a dog.
Maybe you should do some research on the topic being discussed.
You will note that we are all in favour and are infact calling for changes to the DDA but blanket banning or persecuting certain breeds does not work.
You however I feel are just here to post stupid unrelated remarks.
I will not rise to your silly behaviour any more and hopefully you will be removed as you have nothing worth saying on this topic.
Stuart Bellinger
says...
5:35pm Wed 5 Oct 11
HRH GypoJoseph
says...
5:49pm Wed 5 Oct 11
Most of us drive responsibly but pay high insurance premiums through irresponsible drivers. Just my opinion, ( if that's OK with you Caz ) but dog ownership should carry a high premium ( a licence fee that's high ) just in case you are too dumb to get my point.
I own dogs and would pay, I suppose you are to cheap to pay up.
3pink3
says...
6:15pm Wed 5 Oct 11
I muzzle my dog and he is always on a lead I have not made my dog aggressive an operation and going into kennels made my dog aggressive but people judge and give me dirty looks outside when I walk him not everyone some people stop and talk. I have parents who's child are running off towards the dog and you tell the parent to get their kid and they dont, is that really the dogs fault. dogs attack for a reason. As for on your property if anyone broke in my home my dog would protect us and his home and that's the way it should be, not all breeds are bad and peole penalizing staffs and rotweilers you obviously do not know much about dogs. People do far worse to each other in life and they dont get out down. news shopper have managed this campaign in the wrong way, shame on you and shame on all you people who wil have part to play in the suffering of these dogs.
sbtuk731
says...
9:17pm Wed 5 Oct 11
What we want
- Increase the sentence for owning a banned dog - in line with carrying a knife. (That's the spirit make it even more appealing to yobs!)
- Extend the law to include dog attacks on private land - therefore protecting workers such as postmen and carers. (I believe its already an offense to let that happen??)
- Increase the prison sentences for owners convicted of allowing their dog to attack humans. (Well you have good point there, maybe)
- Force all Staffordshire Bull Terriers to wear a muzzle in public. (And this will solve what??)
- Simplify the court process so that banned dogs can be destroyed immediately. (Again what will this solve??)
You can win yourself a free News Shopper mug by sending in a photo of a banned dog. All you need to do is email the image to newsroom@london.news
quest.co.uk with your name, address, phone number and exact details of where you took the photo.
Alternatively post them to Shop A Dog, News Shopper, Mega House, Crest View Drive, BR5 1BT. We'll pass on all the images to the police. (So you're going to turn, lives being ruined, families being torn apart into a competition???)
Your score:
1/5 FAIL!
This is all rather silly, really.... isn't?
treesrgreen
says...
10:57pm Wed 5 Oct 11
a) "yoofs" trying to look macho as they swagger along with dog either off the lead or wearing a metal studded collar
b) the scum who ill-treat/starve/abu
se them to get them ready for fighting
c) people who have no idea how to look after a dog and think chaining it up or shutting it away in a small cage is caring for it
often become aggressive through fear or trying to survive. It's interesting that we didn't have an aggressive/dangerous dog culture years ago - when the only people who owned a dog were people who loved and cared for them.
Now it's a status symbol - my dog's harder than your dog cr@p.
And I can't even say what I would really like to say about some of the scum who have a dog.
Mudchute Rambler
says...
9:26am Thu 6 Oct 11
EverardEdbutt
says...
9:47am Thu 6 Oct 11
Dog poo causes more problems then a dogbite.
It is such an easy thing to deal with too. I always carry plastic gloves (the ones you get free at the pumps at the petrol station) they are nice and big so no-one can claim they dont fit. Put one on, place your hand over the dog mess and remove the glove resulting in a neat little parcel that can be disposed off correctly.
Re-introduce the dog licence.
Make micro chipping compulsory.
All dogs have to be fully insured with public liability insurance.
Restrict ownership to adults 21 years and over.
Dogs can only be bought from registered breeders who will microchip all pups before they are sold.
Police council wardens etc should have access to handheld scanners: No microchip and the dog is confiscated.
They can tell in an instant if your car is insured we need a similar system for dogs.
Target the right groups, you are going about this the wrong way. The real problem is irresponsible backyard breeding and crossing Mastiffs with pitbulls and Dogue de Bordeaux to produce animals whose intended use is clear to see.
Above all:
PUNISH THE DEED, NOT THE BREED.
Targeting staffs is wrong, just as it would be wrong to target black youths in an attempt to curb street crime
pandaeyes26
says...
12:09pm Thu 6 Oct 11
Any animal can be dangerous, but it is their owners that should be to blame. No animal is more dangerous than humans. We rape, molest, abuse, fight, kill and much worse. We also teach animals how to behave. If any animal is dangerous, it is down to their human owner.
amason51
says...
1:00pm Thu 6 Oct 11
.com/hot/dog-bite-st
atistics/
Hope the link works. I see The Gyp is still at it. He has been told this is an adult forum for adults with opposing views. Name calling and rudeness should be left in the playground.
the wall
says...
1:11pm Thu 6 Oct 11
Date:29 September 2011
Source:Battersea Dogs & Cats Home
Yesterday (28 September) the South East news website News Shopper launched a campaign called 'Shop A Dog', in response to an attack on a 90 year old woman by a Staffordshire Bull Terrier.
The Home has sent the following response to News Shopper's Letters Editor:
"Battersea Dogs and Cats Home is very disappointed to read of the launch of the News Shopper’s Shop A Dog campaign.
Whilst our heartfelt sympathies go to every person who is a victim of a dog attack and we share your concerns about vicious and aggressive dogs, we wholeheartedly disagree that this is due to the breed of dog. We believe this is down to how the dog has been trained and socialised by an owner. Any dog can be aggressive when they are in the wrong hands but, in the right environment and with the right owner, dogs such as Staffordshire Bull Terriers can make wonderful, loyal and loving pets.
Battersea, and other animal charities, face the huge problem of being left to deal with the consequences of those who take on bull breed dogs such as Staffies for the wrong reasons and then dump them or neglect them. Last year, Battersea took in 2,472 Staffordshire Bull Terriers, many of which have fallen into the hands of unscrupulous owners who train them to be aggressive or to fight. These dogs are often left injured, neglected and unsocialised through no fault of their own and we have to work extremely hard to help them to trust people again and to become the fantastic family pets they would have been had their owners cared for them properly.
Battersea has long been lobbying the Government to amend the flawed Dangerous Dog Act to place the onus on the owner rather than the dog itself. Breed specific legislation has not addressed the real cause of ‘status’ dogs. We believe that existing dog laws should be modernised to maintain relevance and effectiveness for changing dog control needs. We want the Government to announce new legislation that will support and promote responsible ownership, safeguard public safety and protection of canine welfare.
However, as pointed out in your article, we do agree that legislation should be extended to cover all places, including private property, to afford the same protection to people such as police officers and postmen as those in public places, should an attack happen.
By encouraging Staffordshire Bull Terriers to be seen as dangerous, your campaign is fuelling the abuse and abandonment of a much-maligned breed which does not deserve its negative reputation."
Backstairs
says...
1:53pm Thu 6 Oct 11
T Randall
says...
2:14pm Thu 6 Oct 11
HRH GypoJoseph
says...
2:16pm Thu 6 Oct 11
amason51 wrote:Name calling is it you clown. You address me as HRH Gypo for short. Not the Gyp.
http://mydogmagazine
.com/hot/dog-bite-st
atistics/
Hope the link works. I see The Gyp is still at it. He has been told this is an adult forum for adults with opposing views. Name calling and rudeness should be left in the playground.
How dare you, now run along and stand corrected.
jglass
says...
2:59pm Thu 6 Oct 11
http://www.publicati
ons.parliament.uk/pa
/cm201011/cmhansrd/c
m110706/halltext/110
706h0001.htm
j.j.
says...
3:03pm Thu 6 Oct 11
3pink3
says...
3:10pm Thu 6 Oct 11
Virtual-Monster wrote:You think that if a dog shows aggression they should be put down what even if they dont bite someone, what kind of a person are you. some dogs develop aggression from kennels or operations not just the idiots that train them to be aggressive. It's people with attitudes like yours why this world is such a messed up place
There is no question that 'dog' legislation needs to be strengthened and amalgamated to make it more cohesive and easier to navigate.
A ‘one strike’ rule would be good. If a dog shows unwarranted aggression or bites someone then it should be destroyed without recourse to the Courts. What responsible dog owner would then allow or encourage their dog to be aggressive?
The real issue (as it always has been) is that many dogs are owned by idiots and you just cannot legislate for stupid people.
'Status' dogs owned by hoodie wearing Chavs represent a far greater risk to the public at large than the specific breeds identified as dangerous dogs.
Maybe all Chavs and hoodies should be muzzled in public and kept on a short leash rather than their dogs and we would see a far better society?
3pink3
says...
3:13pm Thu 6 Oct 11
ade12001 wrote:You saw one dog attack and are then judging all other dogs, if you saw a teenager doing wrong would you then judge all teenagers as well, it's arrogant and judgemental people we can do without and should be muzzled.
I think every dog should be chipped by LAW then all dogs must be MUZZLED with hefty fines and imprisonment for owners who refuse, only last week on the Sussex Downs we saw a dog attack so its gone too far now and somethink needs to be dahn! well done the Shopper the peoples paper! yeah!
3pink3
says...
3:16pm Thu 6 Oct 11
Gavinp
says...
3:33pm Thu 6 Oct 11
Also i wonder how many of these dangerous dogs live in small houses with a small garden.
Bring back the dog liscense so everyone is vetted and to make sure the house is suitable for the dog. The amount of people i know of who have staffies in postage stamp size gardens with not a scrap of grass in site is unreal.
EverardEdbutt
says...
5:04pm Thu 6 Oct 11
Someone is going to get injured through this silly mindless campaign. We know that BSL needs to be replaced but what you are suggesting is akin to The Salem Witch Trials of 1692
Local lady
says...
6:39pm Thu 6 Oct 11
I know of six complaints to the Press Compalints Commission over this already, there are sure to be more. You will never escape working for the NS if you continue with this fabrication of the truth, your names will be tarnished by the lies.
You know what they say, journos who work for local papers over the age of 25 will never make anything of themselves!
Come on Newshopper why not campaign for better conditions for pensioners/stop people spitting in the streets or even stop people riding bikes on pavements anything is better than making false claims about breeds of dog you have never met.
AndreaP
says...
7:25pm Thu 6 Oct 11
j.j. wrote:What??? Seriously? ALL breeds in the world are capable of injury. As has previously been stated, at one time Rottweilers and German Shepherds were considered 'status dogs' so do you hold the same view of these as well?
What I don't understand is why a respectable person would get a dog that is strongly associated with anti behaviour. With all the breeds in the world to choose from, you would think that a law obeying and tax paying citizen would not select the canine equivalent of a burberry cap.
AndreaP
says...
8:13pm Thu 6 Oct 11
http://www.pitbullso
ntheweb.com/petbull/
findpit.html
Did you get it right or were you too busy trying to get the picture that will win you a mug????
lindyloo62
says...
8:42pm Thu 6 Oct 11
so does that mean they will all do it!!!!
alexjm11
says...
9:50pm Thu 6 Oct 11
KTW001
says...
8:36am Fri 7 Oct 11
4:52pm Wednesday 18th August 2010
Your headline - The dog in question was a German shepherd.
Will your next campaign be to muzzle all German Shepherds?
I am horrified by any dog attack, and I would support any campaign to make dog owners responsible for their animals actions - but to target one breed of dog is mis-guided at best.
Are we to be a nation of muzzled Staffies whilst other dogs are left to attack?? - insane!
By all means protect ours and our childrens safety - you will get no complaints from me - but please do not be obtuse and paronoid about one breed of dog.
reasonable75
says...
8:56am Fri 7 Oct 11
Maybe owners of dogs should use a collar that is colour coded to indicate if it is a non-banned breed?
I know of people who own this type of dog, they snarl and bark at anyone who comes near them - this could be frightening for a child - but apparantly they are staffs.
You can always find good and bad articles to go with every story - for each instance of dogs saving people there would be an equal number of dogs biting/attacking people
Some of the good have been listed, but an american bulldog (not a banned breed) killed a child in 2010
http://news.bbc.co.u
k/1/hi/england/86279
93.stm
and there was the tragic incident where police had to shoot a dog before the ambulance service could get to the child (who died)
http://news.bbc.co.u
k/1/hi/england/merse
yside/8386023.stm
Tasmin
says...
11:57am Fri 7 Oct 11
mrsphas
says...
11:57pm Fri 7 Oct 11
therefor i stand my the comment i made in that post
that, according to this article,if its not a staffy it cant have happened
lking87
says...
1:04am Sat 8 Oct 11
lking87
says...
6:29am Sat 8 Oct 11
Gavinp wrote:There are many reasons not to muzzle innocent, nonaggressive dogs in public, if you had an ounce of knowledge of animal behaviour or dog psychology you'd know that. Sometimes, due to the way the dog has been raised by it's humans it sadly becomes necessary, to protect the dog as much as people - but ask yourself, what message would it send to children if every dog they saw was muzzled? Ignorance breeds fear. Instead parents need to teach their children respect and that they can't just go up and pet every single dog they see. Why should dogs suffer and be punished for the mistakes and negligence of humans?
there is no reason not to muzzle any dog in public or at least i cant see any reason.
Also i wonder how many of these dangerous dogs live in small houses with a small garden.
Bring back the dog liscense so everyone is vetted and to make sure the house is suitable for the dog. The amount of people i know of who have staffies in postage stamp size gardens with not a scrap of grass in site is unreal.
Clare WB
says...
2:55pm Sat 8 Oct 11
It would be far more effective for you to campaign for:
1. the re-introduction of mandatory dog licences;
2. mandatory dog breeding licences (too many breeders do not care about dog welfare or if potential owners are suitable);
3. mandatory dog training (including learning about dog psychology to understand their behaviour); and
4. better pet food and package labelling (damaging chemicals and other rubbish are in many pet food brands, which affect behaviour and ingredient labelling are unclear). Dogs should be given natural food, e.g. raw meat/fish, fruit/veg and bones. Raw meat does not give dogs "a taste of blood" any more than me eating a rare steak makes me attack anybody.
Please, News Shopper, think about what a difference you could make in helping people to help dogs become the best they can be. Please re-think this campaign.
Incidentally, Staffies are nicknamed "the nanny dog" because they are known for being great with children.
Thank you.
j.j.
says...
1:22pm Mon 10 Oct 11
AndreaP wrote:I'm not saying that these dogs are any more dangerous than others, just commenting on their (anti) social image. I find it ironic that they are referred to as status dogs, as the status that they normally reflect is the holder's employment status. To me they are a sign of bad taste, comparable to track suits, burberry caps and Belgian techno music.
j.j. wrote: What I don't understand is why a respectable person would get a dog that is strongly associated with anti behaviour. With all the breeds in the world to choose from, you would think that a law obeying and tax paying citizen would not select the canine equivalent of a burberry cap.What??? Seriously? ALL breeds in the world are capable of injury. As has previously been stated, at one time Rottweilers and German Shepherds were considered 'status dogs' so do you hold the same view of these as well?
BNPerry
says...
1:49pm Mon 10 Oct 11
Hoonercat
says...
3:34pm Mon 10 Oct 11
emmasmith19
says...
6:25pm Mon 10 Oct 11
j.j. wrote:I can't speak for everyone, but the reason I ended up with my Staffie, is because after volunteering at Battersea, and socialising hundreds of dogs of all manner of breeds, she was the first one who was so ridiculously affectionate and genuinely wanting love that I had to take her home.
What I don't understand is why a respectable person would get a dog that is strongly associated with anti behaviour. With all the breeds in the world to choose from, you would think that a law obeying and tax paying citizen would not select the canine equivalent of a burberry cap.
In fact, it's attitudes like yours that increases the unfortunate image associated with this breed and stops the hundreds of others at Battersea finding new homes.
Anyone who has ever spent time with dogs knows that if a dog is loved, well trained and looked after properly then it will be a brilliant companion.
I am very sorry for the poor girl who was attacked, but I was once attacked my aunt's Dachshund who was usually a lovely dog, but I was giving it and some bigger dogs food and it obviously got competitive and ended up hanging from my arm by it's mouth!! He was not put to sleep because it was just an unfortunate accident. It so happens that staffies are much stronger.
Staffies are no more aggressive than any other breed. Speaking as someone who has spent a lot of time with hundreds of them, i've found them to be the most loving dogs i've ever met. I have previously owned a labrador and the dachshund.
And before you write me off as some sort of chav or 'yoof', I am a law obeying, tax paying citizen. I could have spent £2000 buying myself a pedigree king charles' spaniel (i'm sure they are exactly the 'cute' fluffy dogs you'd find acceptable) but personally, i'd much rather have my cuddly, affectionate, soppy 'burberry cap'.
From Emma & Phoebe (the staffie)
JuliaLewis
says...
6:36pm Mon 10 Oct 11
Hoonercat wrote:Hoonercat, if you believe in free speech you would not have posted what you did. I noticed it before it was taken down. It's fine to comment on editorial but not to try to encourage people to bring down a local paper just because you do not believe in what it is saying. That's very undemocratic. Write a letter to the editor instead.
I see the News Shopper has removed my comment on ways to fight this campaign, so much for freedom of speech. Makes you wonder how many other comments that they don't like have been removed?
Local lady
says...
7:27pm Mon 10 Oct 11
amason51
says...
9:17pm Mon 10 Oct 11
JuliaLewis wrote:but what this newspaper is saying isn`t a balenced report. 5 staffy attacks in 3 years out of 165 in 2 yrs is hardly a breed of dog roaming south east london/north east kent mauling people as this paper infers. Reporters who write this sort of piece and papers who print it should suffer the consequences. All newspaper reports must be balanced. The vast majority of Staffs are fantastic family pets, loving loyal and fun loving. Dan Keel and Kelly Smele should research the breed before presenting something bigoted and half baked as this campaign
Hoonercat wrote:Hoonercat, if you believe in free speech you would not have posted what you did. I noticed it before it was taken down. It's fine to comment on editorial but not to try to encourage people to bring down a local paper just because you do not believe in what it is saying. That's very undemocratic. Write a letter to the editor instead.
I see the News Shopper has removed my comment on ways to fight this campaign, so much for freedom of speech. Makes you wonder how many other comments that they don't like have been removed?
Hoonercat
says...
9:41pm Mon 10 Oct 11
JuliaLewis wrote:Julie, cast your mind back to when the NS first launched this campaign along with a poll asking if Staffies should be muzzled in public - promptly removed when the vote didn't go their way. The overwhelming majority of comments through both weeks have been against this campaign, yet to read the actual newspaper you would think it was an even split. The News Shopper is abusing its power to victimize a breed that it clearly know nothing about, undermining all the hard work that charities and rescues have done in educating the public as to what this breed is really about. Both Battersea and the Dogs Trust have spoken out against it, hundreds of local people have spoken out against it both on this site and on Facebook, yet still they persist with their witch hunt. The News Shopper clearly cannot grasp the responsibility that comes with being a local newspaper, they need to sack the editor and start afresh, and if boycotting their advertisers is the only way to achieve this the so be it.
Hoonercat wrote:Hoonercat, if you believe in free speech you would not have posted what you did. I noticed it before it was taken down. It's fine to comment on editorial but not to try to encourage people to bring down a local paper just because you do not believe in what it is saying. That's very undemocratic. Write a letter to the editor instead.
I see the News Shopper has removed my comment on ways to fight this campaign, so much for freedom of speech. Makes you wonder how many other comments that they don't like have been removed?
emmasmith19
says...
11:13am Tue 11 Oct 11
j.j. wrote:There are many staffie owners, myself included, who are none of the above.
AndreaP wrote:I'm not saying that these dogs are any more dangerous than others, just commenting on their (anti) social image. I find it ironic that they are referred to as status dogs, as the status that they normally reflect is the holder's employment status. To me they are a sign of bad taste, comparable to track suits, burberry caps and Belgian techno music.
j.j. wrote: What I don't understand is why a respectable person would get a dog that is strongly associated with anti behaviour. With all the breeds in the world to choose from, you would think that a law obeying and tax paying citizen would not select the canine equivalent of a burberry cap.What??? Seriously? ALL breeds in the world are capable of injury. As has previously been stated, at one time Rottweilers and German Shepherds were considered 'status dogs' so do you hold the same view of these as well?
Staffordshire bull terriers have been popular in this country for many years, it's unfortunate that in recent times there has been a rise in the number of people using them on the (totally incorrect) assumption that they would be a good 'status' dog. In fact, many of the dogs end up in rescue centres once these people have realised that they are not going to be the vicious protector they were hoping for.
However, attitudes like this do not help this loving breed, it's a shame that the media have also decided to brand staffies the devil dog of recent years. There may be some unsavoury people with staffies, but there are many more who are perfectly normal people who love staffies for their affectionate nature and because they are known as the 'nanny dog' because they are so good with children and as part of a family unit.
Luckily, in my experience, narrow minded opinions like yours are in the minority. I don't live around the News Shopper area, I just heard about this campaign and was so appalled that I had to write.
I walk my staffie mainly in Richmond Park, where she is always well received by dogs and people when she is either on or off her lead. I've even had people comment that they were perhaps slightly wary of staffies but they've met a few of them and realise that the vast majority are just big softies.
My only suggestion to you would be to actually meet a staffie, my guess would be that you've never actually spent much time with any dogs, (except maybe a toy dog or something else that you deem suitable for a middle class citizen) let alone a staffie.
I am definitely not alone when I say that I am a staffie owner who is employed, doesn't own a tracksuit or burberry cap and has no idea what belgian techno music is.
With opinions as narrow minded as yours, you should work for News Shopper!
Gemma2212
says...
2:17pm Tue 11 Oct 11
Dollydog
says...
11:02am Wed 19 Oct 11
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 unnecessarily 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? Dangerous makes of car? Oh no, that would be the driver, wouldn't it?
Jan Yarker
Passive Pressure Animal Welfare Group
&
Animal Healer, Any breed!
Deniston
says...
1:44pm Wed 19 Oct 11
The editor has refused to respond to any communication from the animal charities that wish to discuss this issue with them. I think pretty much all of the London based charities have contacted News Shopper and have released various Press Releases, all of which have been ignored.
This tells you all you need to know.
If the NS was out for a just cause and had noble intentions to make a difference, then they would respond and work with these people who know more than the NS can ever know about the issue of Dangerous Dogs. However, the NS has chosen its own path and with guidance, I should imagine, from the GLA, they have chosen to ignore not only the majority of its readers, but anyone who wishes to give a logical argument against this trash.
They post comments in the News Paper that oppose the campaign, but these comments are one liners linking them to Nazis. Why don't you post some of the comments that create logical argument against the campaign? Scared that one page of those comments would make any fool who has fallen for this trash think twice?
I've never thought much of the NS, if you had to pay for it, it would've gone bust years ago, but this is absolute trashy journalism at its worst.
I've sent an email to my MP who has passed on my comments to the relevant Minister. I suggest many of you do the same.
I also never want this trash through my letter box again!
Deniston
says...
3:52pm Wed 19 Oct 11
j.j. wrote:How little you know about the issue of Dangerous Dogs and of breeds in particular. That is not your fault, this is where the media could help, instead of pushing a political agenda.
AndreaP wrote:I'm not saying that these dogs are any more dangerous than others, just commenting on their (anti) social image. I find it ironic that they are referred to as status dogs, as the status that they normally reflect is the holder's employment status. To me they are a sign of bad taste, comparable to track suits, burberry caps and Belgian techno music.j.j. wrote: What I don't understand is why a respectable person would get a dog that is strongly associated with anti behaviour. With all the breeds in the world to choose from, you would think that a law obeying and tax paying citizen would not select the canine equivalent of a burberry cap.What??? Seriously? ALL breeds in the world are capable of injury. As has previously been stated, at one time Rottweilers and German Shepherds were considered 'status dogs' so do you hold the same view of these as well?
The whole issue of Dangerous Dogs has been about for decades, but it took off when yobs, gangs and other associated grot started to feel the clamp down on knife crime. They need a weapon that carried a significantly less sentence, should anything happen, than a knife.
Now, you have always had the Pit type, these dogs can be breeds of any bull breed/medium-large breed combination, generally but not exclussively, the Molosser breed is often found in these types, which include your Mastiffs. The sentence for these dogs since '91 is more than your average dog, although Police have often turned a blind eye unless there has been complaints, officers have percieved a threat or seized during a raid.
People, when I say people, I mean yobs, gang members and associated grot, cottoned on to this when the clamp down on knife crime was happening. So they turned attention to legal breeds. As a pit type is generally a bull breed, they turned to Staffs. Staffs are fantastic pets, very eager to please and training them is very simple. I myself along with my partner, trained our rescue Staff in a matter of 8 weeks, she is now the most well behaved and loving dog I have ever known. However, due to their build, size, their ease of training and jaws like vice grips, they were easy choice for yobs. The Staff of today is generally crossed with lots of breeds, some are Pit Type breeds, few are actually pure Staffords, most are crossed to have an even bigger offspring.
Now we enter today and Staffs are still lovely dogs, in the right hands. However, as with the Rots and Dobermans, they have had bad press for a number of years and the media enjoys dictating to those who can't think for themselves, to think accordingly.
Why would someone have one? Because they make great pets, very loving and easy to train. There so many who need a home and so many that get put to sleep for no reason other than kennels are packed with these dogs.
What people need to understand now is that Staffs are still labeled as a Status Dog, but they are fading out as the Status Dog. A copper will clock a yobish teenager walking around with a Staff pulling hell for leather at the end of a chain, from a mile away. These people are moving on to other breeds, Siberian Huskey, being a particular breed gaining notice as a Status Dog.
Breed Specific legislation is a failure, scroll up to see my first post on the matter, but it is a failure. A dog is a car and not one breed can be labeled more dangerous than another. All dogs have the ability to harm and kill, no matter the size or the breed. The new legislation should be aimed at irresponsible owners, at harsh fines and prison sentences towards animal cruelty and irresponsible ownership in general. Deducted from benefits if necessary! If a gang has a dog that attacks or is seen to be out of control, all in the gang are given ownership and all face the same punishment. Dogs who gain free vet treatment from the likes of Blue Cross, PDSA etc should have compulsory neutering, all dogs should be microchipped and registered. However, this should be charged and should not lead to licencing. Licencing does nothing but create revenue for government! It does not work, look at TV and Driving, the majority comply, while the usual suspects throw the reminder out in to the street.
It is time to get tough and attack the root rather than snip the branch. Breed Specific Legislation is an absolute waste of time and money and has no bearing on dog attacks.
Through harsh punishment and education, this issue can be near on wiped out, but it will take everyone to campaign for this logical policy, rather than an emotional fuelled extention of what is on the table already, that does not work!
Deniston
says...
3:56pm Wed 19 Oct 11
strangebuthappy
says...
8:28pm Fri 21 Oct 11
d-statistics/statist
ics-page1/
smcwormald says...
9:16am Wed 5 Oct 11