A Rottweiler which mauled its owners' 13-month-old grandson to death had been kept in a yard and not walked for five months, an inquest has heard.You'd think a clearer case of an 'accident' waiting to happen couldn't be made. But coroner David Hinchcliffe clearly believe this was a case where 'more regulation' would do the trick:
Mr Hinchliff added: "I would like to see if the law in this country can become such that there are stricter controls, particularly on dangerous dogs, so that their breeding and distribution can be controlled more stringently than is the case at the moment."Christ, where to start...?
Well, for the first thing, describe 'dangerous dogs' Is this one? Or this?
Secondly, there are already plenty of rules against mistreatment of animals - for instance, the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which the RSPCA lobbied for. Do you think the Hirsts knew of its existence, or cared? What use a law that the owners don't comply with, and no-one enforces! It isn't going to stop anyone doing what the Hirsts did:
The inquest heard how the child's grandparents had bought the dog around six months previously from someone they knew in the pub, who had himself bought it as a puppy from an unregistered breeder.But no doubt some NuLab drone is even now eagerly fetching a big raft of new useless legislation, (that will bring unneeded anxiety to responsible owners, provide jobsworths with another petty power to lord over those they've taken a dislike to, and lawyers a constant stream of income) then rolling over to have his tummy tickled by the Prime Mentalist, eager to curry votes.
We need a Dangerous Dogs Act. That will do the trick.
Also, if we close all the pubs (the government is doing it's best on this anyway), no dogs will be bought from 'someone you know in the pub'.
It is bound to work; how can it fail? Gordon and his lot are in charge.
"...how can it fail? Gordon and his lot are in charge."
Answered your own question, there :)
Post a Comment