Quizzes & Puzzles7 mins ago
Lad killed by dog.
Pitbull 'type' Dog.
Dead 4 year old.
Liverpool.
Grandmother.
Midnight.
Its like a dot to dot!
"This is yet another disadvantaged family let down by a system which betrays them time after time, leaving no choice but to engage in criminal activity, in this case breed fighting dogs for the showring".
Can you guess which newspaper the above little pearl was from?
Dead 4 year old.
Liverpool.
Grandmother.
Midnight.
Its like a dot to dot!
"This is yet another disadvantaged family let down by a system which betrays them time after time, leaving no choice but to engage in criminal activity, in this case breed fighting dogs for the showring".
Can you guess which newspaper the above little pearl was from?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by flip_flop. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
True madmaggot ,but it works in other countries .I have family in germany who keep dogs but they have to pay to do so .All dogs are required by law to have a tag and a licence depending on state laws and breed of dog.
Some breeds are required by law to be muzzled in public places. Heavy fines are imposed if these laws are not adhered to .
We have a dangerous dogs law in this country but it obviously isn't implicated strongly enough .
I can understand law abiding owners and breeders being upset at having to pay to keep and breed dogs but when you see this sort of thing happening surely it makes sense to have some sort of legislation and licence in place if only to make these irresponsible people think twice before getting these sort of dogs .
Apart from which it would make an awful lot of people, who aren't neccesarily cruel and have dogs just as a status symbol or cuddly toy, and are perhaps thoughtless when it comes to owning a dog of any breed , think twice ....
You see so many dogs needing a home through no fault of their own .
Some breeds are required by law to be muzzled in public places. Heavy fines are imposed if these laws are not adhered to .
We have a dangerous dogs law in this country but it obviously isn't implicated strongly enough .
I can understand law abiding owners and breeders being upset at having to pay to keep and breed dogs but when you see this sort of thing happening surely it makes sense to have some sort of legislation and licence in place if only to make these irresponsible people think twice before getting these sort of dogs .
Apart from which it would make an awful lot of people, who aren't neccesarily cruel and have dogs just as a status symbol or cuddly toy, and are perhaps thoughtless when it comes to owning a dog of any breed , think twice ....
You see so many dogs needing a home through no fault of their own .
I agree with the whole license thing. But the sad fact is that if it should be made law thousands of dogs will be killed as a result of not just the dangerous breeds but those who cannot afford the asking price of the license. I don't have a great deal to spare but I would find it for my old mutt because I love him.
Old people prehaps who have the smaller dogs for company and friendship might be allowed to be exempt, but it is needed for bigger breeds. It isn't just the Rottie breeds or the pitbull types that might. Every dog is capable but thankfully most, due to good owners do not.
It is a sad state of affairs that if such legislation was made on dog licenses, then many dogs will die. not only by the state and charity run kennels but by the hands of rotten, nasty owners like the ones described here, who will just beat the poor souls to death.
How can this be implemented without damaging the dogs or the good, responsible owners?
Old people prehaps who have the smaller dogs for company and friendship might be allowed to be exempt, but it is needed for bigger breeds. It isn't just the Rottie breeds or the pitbull types that might. Every dog is capable but thankfully most, due to good owners do not.
It is a sad state of affairs that if such legislation was made on dog licenses, then many dogs will die. not only by the state and charity run kennels but by the hands of rotten, nasty owners like the ones described here, who will just beat the poor souls to death.
How can this be implemented without damaging the dogs or the good, responsible owners?
Obviously I am having a little trouble getting through to some of you.
I will repeat, yes for all intent and purposes the parents where responsible for the child's death.
But I repeat again they are a dysfunctional family, therefore the responsibility that they can't shoulder themselves, should be taken over by the services that are already in place to swing into action when needed in cases such as this.
Let me put it even simpler, a person who is mentally unhinged, sets fire to his house, with a child in the house.
The social services where informed days previously that the child was at risk, due to the person's mental state, but they failed to act.
A neighbour calls the fire service but they fail to attend the scene.
The outcome of these events, the child dies.
Yes we know that the person who started the fire is in technically responsible for the child's death. But seeing that the person who lit the fire, was mentally unbalanced (dysfunctional) the full blame for the child's death in this case is shared by both social services and the fire service.
I will repeat, yes for all intent and purposes the parents where responsible for the child's death.
But I repeat again they are a dysfunctional family, therefore the responsibility that they can't shoulder themselves, should be taken over by the services that are already in place to swing into action when needed in cases such as this.
Let me put it even simpler, a person who is mentally unhinged, sets fire to his house, with a child in the house.
The social services where informed days previously that the child was at risk, due to the person's mental state, but they failed to act.
A neighbour calls the fire service but they fail to attend the scene.
The outcome of these events, the child dies.
Yes we know that the person who started the fire is in technically responsible for the child's death. But seeing that the person who lit the fire, was mentally unbalanced (dysfunctional) the full blame for the child's death in this case is shared by both social services and the fire service.
I haven't read all posts but I totally agree with Old Git. There are many families who don't realise potential risks in their environment to those who are vulnerable. I've seen dogs fighting infront of children or pan handles not turned to the side, once someone had simmering soup on the gas with the handles being easily reachable by the toddler running around in the kitchen. It was a nightmare and I told her, that she should place the soup on the back hob. And thats not all, she's a good parent but when it comes to potential risk assessment she hasn't much of a clue. Afew weeks ago that same child had a cut to her forehead from falling into the glass table. Could have been much worse? Since the dogs were illegal the Police should have acted.
Latest Posts
Society & Culture16 mins ago
Technology24 mins ago
What's A Pain That You Actually Like?
Body & Soul25 mins ago
Crosswords65 mins ago