Following yesterday's indication that the authorities had finally woken up, here come the apologists barking and snapping at the people pointing out the problem.
First up were the useless West Midlands farce, no doubt eager to deflect blame from themselves, describing the crazed animal as 'a puppy' that was 'suffering from heat exhaustion'. One might wonder at a police farce that shows more concern for a killer animal than the girl it was mauling. Police certainly didn't pause when one of their own was mauled by one of their own dogs, did they?
Hot on their heels and snarling aggressively comes Zoe Williams, who has as much form as the XL Bully breed, for whom it's 'doggy classism and racism':
...it was never only about the dogs – it was also about the owners. When people muttered: “It’s not the dogs – it’s the owners”, it felt heavily class-coded; that these were the types of dogs kept by the wrong type of people.
...
Sociologists in the US describe something similar but refracted through race, Julie LaBagnara contending that “middle- and upper-class ‘white dogs’… receive social allowances that dogs associated with people of colour do not”.What would we do without sociologists, eh, Zoe..?
So, yes, there may well be 'a path through this that starts with a muzzle order and doesn’t go immediately to the gallows', but leaving out the gallows to appease people like you hasn't exactly been an unqualified success story with people, has it?
4 comments:
This is another reason why Clarkson's Law be allowed to be debated.
Penseivay
" contending that “middle- and upper-class ‘white dogs’… receive social allowances that dogs associated with people of colour do not"
I must have missed all the cases of people killed by labradoodles, spaniels and golden retrievers then.......
My family used to bread German Shepherds (German bloodlines, all class A, most Schutzehund trained) and we seriously (I mean in depth) researched and evaluated 'every' potential buyer (and still gave most litters to either the police, army or rescue services).
Why? Because they are a large, strong and 'dominant' breed, and 'require' competent handling and training (from puppyhood) 'not' to turn into a 'problem' (as did happen to the breed, if you remember so many years ago because, like now, 'the wrong' people bought them as fashion accessories and ... as weapons to bolster their egos).
Yes, even such breeds 'can' be raised and kept safely, but ... it requires a strong, capable, knowledgeable and experienced owner/handler. Such dogs, post a poor owner, 'can' yet again be trained and socialised (but still always remain a potential threat).
But ... there (as we know all too well) are very few people who fit the criteria to safely/responsibly own such a breed (and we'll forget about any actual need), and there are now (due to fashion) millions of these dogs (and most bred by unscrupulous profiteers and thus of both doubtful genetic lineage and upbringing), way more than the tiny minority of people who 'could' control them.
So? It's both a straw-man argument 'and' a (typically) callous one (hey, it's only other people and children they are mauling and killing after all), right Zoe?
Call me 'reactionary' if you want but if Zoe has the 'right' to own such a weapon-dog, then I get the right to shoot it (and beat her to death with the leash) if it attacks me and mine. That's only fair, right?
"This is another reason why Clarkson's Law be allowed to be debated."
Spot on!
"I must have missed all the cases of people killed by labradoodles, spaniels and golden retrievers then......."
Well, quite! As I said on the previous post, the footage of his neighbours trying to rescue Ian Price from the two hellbeasts killing him is horrific.
The 'any dog can be dangerous' crowd should be made to watch it to show them how wrong they are...
"...and most bred by unscrupulous profiteers and thus of both doubtful genetic lineage and upbringing..."
Which is what makes these things pose a unique threat, quite unlike that from a German Shepherd...
Post a Comment