Charlotte Nickson’s beloved Labrador, Layla, was left shaking with fear and covered in cuts after the attack outside Sainsbury’s in Coventry city centre.Not a pet dog this time. Layla's a working dog, and that special provision leaps into play.
The owner of the other dog pleaded guilty to being in charge of a dangerous dog which caused injury to an assistance dog.You see, there's a special provision because attacks on guide dogs are considered extra heinous. Now, I don't much agree with this, but at least it means that justice will be d....
Oh, FFS!
Brian Devoisey, 30, of Ridgethorpe, Willenhall, was fined just £45, as well as having to pay £100 compensation to Charlotte, who is partially sighted mainly due to albinism, and £50 court costs.
The maximum sentence for the offence is three years in prison on top of a fine and/or compensation. Courts also have the power to disqualify owners from keeping dogs.Then start using it!
2 comments:
The statistics tell us that crime is falling but I suspect not as much as it would have us believe and not for most of the reasons given. The former because of data manipulation that we are all too aware of but tend to shrug off. The later is because of free market capitalism despite state interventionism and protectionism which if it continues too grow at the rate it is will negate all the gains that capitalism(I do not use that word in the Marxist sense) has made. Capitalism has made us more wealthy year on year so the need to steal is declining and it has brought us great technological advances that has changed how much of crime today is committed. So theft of goods has been made much more difficult so that is in decline. Harm to the person is not. Nor is drug/gang related crime. Cyber crime is now the growth industry but still in it's infancy so is not as yet impacting enough on the crime statistics. Except calling people names and exercising freedom of speech on the web is now apparently sufficient excuse for more of us to be added to that statistic.
Being soft on crime as illustrated by your article today is a phenomena that has grown out of the left advocating social justice at any price and government acquiescing so as to keep prison budgets down. It has also grown out of them demanding the addressing of the causes of crime and that the definition of victim be widened to anyone who can claim a deprivation. The former they fail to understand is being taken care of naturally by capitalism. The very thing they wish to supplant with a system of their own which has been proven to be counterproductive and unworkable many times. The latter as with being soft on crime removes much of the deterrent factor leaves the public more vulnerable to criminal acts and allows criminals even terrorist to escape their just and due punishment. I am not advocating the abandonment of human rights, which no doubt lefties would accuse me of for writing this comment, but the proper application of them. To me human rights should be prioritised and more weight given to those who are the victims directly or indirectly(all the general public who are not guilty of anything except wanting to be protected) of crime not those who are the perpetrators as is the modern way.
"Being soft on crime as illustrated by your article today is a phenomena that has grown out of the left advocating social justice at any price and government acquiescing so as to keep prison budgets down. "
And it doesn't help - it won't appease the mob, and it'll just piss off the law-abiding majority. As we can see this morning, in the police assisting in the drug-dealer's supporters in closing off the slip road to the M62!
But of course, it's always the squeaky wheel that gets the grease..
Post a Comment