Mujtaba Ilyas, 26, was taken to court after his Japanese Akita was twice caught wandering the streets of Brierfield.
Now other dog owners are being warned they will also be prosecuted if their animals are found without a tag as part of a major clampdown.Mujtaba Ilyas, in a move that will surprise no-one, least of all frequent commenter Furor Tuetonicus, is a trainee solicitor!
This should be good...
Speaking after the case Ilyas said his four-year-old dog Kuma, had escaped on 7 and 11 November from his backyard.
He said: “Obviously I accept responsibility because it’s my dog, but it was a total accident.”Promising start!
“He was found twice in a space of five days. I had a faulty latch on the gate in the backyard and I went to get it fixed straight after collecting him from the pound where the dog warden had kept him the first time. But it is a type of lock that won’t always click shut.”Hmmm, a poor workman always blames his tools, Iilyas! Why not buy one which works all the time?
“I showed the bench my receipt for a collar and tag for him. Because he’s such a big dog I had to order one from Pets at Home, which is when he escaped the second time.”Oh, just flubbed it on the dismount!
Still, at least he won't have to worry about the new microchipping fiasco-to-come!
On the coming microchipping fiasco I'm intrigued by all these statements by the proponents of it that it will 'help reunite owners with their lost and stolen pets'.
Are these people unaware that a microchip in a dog is not proof of ownership to the person registered against that microchip? That there are multiple cases of dogs being stolen, subsequently identified by their microchip (often when taken to the vet) but the true owner not being able to regain possession of his or her dog? That the police just say it is a civil matter, even when the original theft was reported as a crime?
Or could they actually know all this, and be being a bit economical with the actualite?
The law abiding will have their dogs micro chipped, the criminals won't. Yet another tax on the law abiding.
I'm "law-abiding" and I wont be having my dog so chipped. It is a dry run for us humans and they will use it to re-instate the dog licence fee which is what they want. £60 one time to start and then £60 a year.
I would have my dog chipped as a voluntary thing but these cunts aren't going to dictate to me anymore.
The crazy thing is they are proposing that 'if' your dog is found roaming the streets unchipped it will only then be required to have one implanted... or be fined.
Does that sound like Mr & Mrs Chav is going to rush out to have Tyson The Third tagged? Or do you think they'll ignore it until their hand is forced?
"Or could they actually know all this, and be being a bit economical with the actualite?"
'Are they morons, or are they lying to us?' Hmmm.
It's a question we always have to wrestle with, isn't it?
"Yet another tax on the law abiding."
Yup! Although the smart ones will get it done in the grace period when the dog welfare groups are paying!
"I would have my dog chipped as a voluntary thing but these cunts aren't going to dictate to me anymore."
Maybe this is finally the straw that breaks the camel's back? Let's hope so!
"Does that sound like Mr & Mrs Chav is going to rush out to have Tyson The Third tagged? Or do you think they'll ignore it until their hand is forced?"
We all know - apart from maybe one or two high profile cases - Mr & Mrs Chav will be as unbothered by this as all the other laws they ignore.
Targeted will be the elderly and the forgetful and the people who take in strays and don't get around to getting them to the vets because they are too busty working to pay for Mr & Mrs Chav...
Post a Comment