ANNOUNCEMENT : ALL OF ROYAL MAIL'S EMPLOYMENT POLICIES (AGREEMENTS) AT A GLANCE (Updated 2021)... HERE
ANNOUNCEMENT : PLEASE BE AWARE WE ARE NOT ON FACEBOOK AT ALL!
CWU BITE BACK CAMPAIGN
-
k979aaa
- Posts: 12578
- Joined: 03 Sep 2007, 19:14
- Gender: Male
- Location: THE NORTH
CWU BITE BACK CAMPAIGN
Find out the deltail's of this on the cwu.org website members page.
-
k979aaa
- Posts: 12578
- Joined: 03 Sep 2007, 19:14
- Gender: Male
- Location: THE NORTH
Re: CWU BITE BACK CAMPAIGN
How does one cut and paste anyone please!.k979aaa wrote:Find out the deltail's of this on the cwu.org website members page.
-
POSTMAN
- SITE ADMINISTRATOR
- Posts: 32724
- Joined: 07 Aug 2006, 03:19
- Gender: Male
DOG ATTACKS ON POSTAL WORKERS - THE DANGEROUS DOGS ACT - CWU "BITE-BACK" CAMPAIGN LAUNCHED
Following the recent horrendous attack on Sheffield Postman Paul Coleman who was attacked by two savagely out-of-control dogs, the CWU Health, Safety and Environment Department has launched a campaign to change what I can only describe as the hopelessly deficient 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act (DDA). It is almost universally acknowledged that the Dangerous Dogs Act (DDA) doesn't work. It has neither prevented nor reduced the large number of dog attacks in the UK.
Paul Coleman has only recently left hospital and was initially in intensive care and nearly lost his right arm. In a sustained attack, the two dogs had to be beaten off Paul by rescuers using metal bars and one dog was shot dead at the scene by armed response police officers. It took the Officers a while to get there so you can just imagine how long this attack went on. Paul underwent no less than eight operations, including skin grafts and repairs to bite wounds which penetrated down to the bone tearing off huge lumps of flesh. I would like to pay tribute to the excellent work and support given by South Yorkshire Branch Area Safety Representative Darrell Bennett.
In the same area last year Rotherham Postman Terry Johnson, was attacked by an Alsatian and suffered 41 bite marks and was so severely injured he could only walk with the aid of crutches after the attack.
Prior to that, Barnsley Postman Noel Harrison, needed 56 stitches in face wounds and was disfigured for life after being savaged by a Bull Mastiff.
Over the last year some terrible tragic dog attack cases have appeared in the news such as that of five years' old Ellie Lawrenson, who was mauled to death by an uncle's Pit Bull Terrier in St Helens, Merseyside and 22-month-old Kira Neal who had her face torn off and nearly lost an eye whilst playing close to her mum in Bournemouth pub garden when the a dog which was on a lead at the next table, suddenly pounced without warning.
Behind all this comes the 5000 to 6000 Dog attack incidents on Postal Delivery Staff every year that seems to go unnoticed by the many, including the government. To date, the response every time we've raised it with ministers has been strong resistance to amend the DDA which ministers say is robust enough to deal with dangerously out of control dogs, despite criticism of the law by many including the CWU.
The statistics don't support what the government are saying and that's why we feel it's time for changes to the Dangerous Dogs Act and we've launched our "Bite-Back" campaign and hope that enough support can be brought to bear on Ministers and the government to review the Law.
The Government's latest figures show that more than one person a day in Yorkshire is treated in hospital after being attacked by dogs and after the Paul Colman attack, there have been meetings and discussions with Sheffield MP Anne Smith as well as with South Yorkshire Police to ensure the culpable owner is prosecuted and with Sheffield City Council, to impress upon them the need for more efforts to minimise the risk of attacks on postmen and women, calling for more liaison with their Local Authority Dog Wardens.
I am currently seeking a meeting with Prime Minister Gordon Brown with the intention of taking along victim, Postman Paul Coleman and his Area Safety Rep Darrell Bennett. If the Prime Minister agrees to meet us it might help if Paul shows Gordon his injuries and tells him first hand just what it's like to go through this hell when all our members want to do is to deliver letters safely.
The support of the CWU team of 12 supported MPs has been enlisted as well as Lord Tony Clarke and Lord Tony Young the two former CWU Senior Officers.
The subject has been discussed with Lord Bill McKenzie the Health and Safety Minister. Following that David Hanson MP the Justice Minister and Hilary Benn MP the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have also been lobbied on the issue with calls for action.
Defra Minister Jeff Rooker has recently set up a working group to look at the DDA legislation around dangerous dogs but the group's remit is too narrow and they are charged primarily with producing "guidance" to dog owners and enforcers but we don't want it to stop there. What we want are firm recommendations on changing the law and secondly the working group is made up of representatives from the Police, dog interest groups and animal welfare organisations drawn from the Associate Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare (APGAW) - an all-party parliamentary group made up of MPs, Peers and associate animal welfare organisations. This working group doesn't include representatives of victims or trade unions and the point has been made that once again our members' problems are being overlooked. However, a CWU written submission has been sent to the working group to put the CWU's views on dog attacks and the need for action.
We have also been pressing Royal Mail since CWU conference last June to completely overhaul and revise the current Royal Mail Dog Attack Policy and procedures and meetings are scheduled to take place with the new Royal Mail Letter Operations Director and Head of Corporate Social Responsibility to take this forward. The good news here is that we have an agreement "in-principle" to introduce a revised, toughened up process which better protects our delivery members and clamps down on offenders by modelling a revised Dog Attack Policy on the nationally agreed "Walk-Safe" Assaults Policy. We want Royal Mail to take a harder line in future with owners of nuisance dogs. Other things we want from Royal Mail is for the introduction of a new dog attack training initiative as there hasn't been one for years; A review of the provision, use and effectiveness of Personal Protective Equipment (Dog deterrents) and an urgent Audit of all Royal Mail Delivery Offices Dog Attack Policy application and Risk Assessments. We also want to look at developing and producing a Dog Attack Pocket Card Guide.
I have also approached the HSE's Chief Executive Geoffrey Podger and Head of Utilities Group Mark Dawson regarding the issue and meetings are pending to discuss the HSE's "Enforcement Policy" on Dog Attacks. The Health and Safety Executive have expressed concerns about the management of Royal Mail's Dangerous Dog Policy procedures in the past and the need for more efforts to minimise the risk of attacks on postmen and women. In both 2005 and 2006 HSE Inspectors noted a failure to implement the Dog Attack Policy which had fallen into decline and compliance was poor. Therefore the issue for the HSE now is to get them to agree to investigate dog attacks and to take enforcement action where appropriate against Royal Mail if health and safety laws have been breached by Royal Mail, for example failure to undertake suitable and sufficient risk assessments and where managers should be taking action to protect our members from known high risk addresses and areas. Clearly the warnings and Improvement Notices previously issued haven't been enough. This is important because the Police only act 'after the event' so to speak in that they will investigate a crime by the dog owner and may prosecute the owner under the Dangerous Dogs Act. However, if Royal Mail managers have failed to take any action to avoid attacks, it will not even feature in the Police investigation. The HSE on the other hand are responsible for ensuring the employer minimises the risk 'before the event' and therefore have a responsibility to our 70,000 members on delivery out on the streets to examine if managers are discharged from their health & safety responsibilities and trying to prevent attacks from occurring in the first instance by assessing the high risk areas and addresses etc.
This is not just a case of amending the law as some seem to think - enforcement is the key because 'a Law not enforced is not a Law at all' and currently we have a very inconsistent approach to enforcing the DDA. We want Police to deal with DDA offences consistently across the UK and prosecute all offending owners. So another line of enquiry being pursued in the campaign is that of "enforcement" of the Dangerous Dogs Act by the Police. A meeting is being lined up with the Association of Chief Police Officers at their Victoria, London HQ to seek the issue of new guidance to the 43 UK Police Forces, in order to get Consistent enforcement of the DDA. The DD Act has cost the police vital resources, in manpower and millions of pounds in kennelling and associated costs when dogs are seized and held. Therefore some police forces are reluctant to pursue and prosecute DDA offences and we've got to change that.
I also want local authority Dog Wardens to be more pro-active and take action against owners of vicious dogs before they attack our members and we're seeking closer co-operation with Royal Mail. In this respect I intend to approach "LACORS" (the Local Authorities Coordinators of Regulatory Services) which is the local government central body responsible for overseeing local authority regulatory and related services in the UK.
Representations are going to be made to the Justice Minister and the Government's Sentencing Advisory Council about the level of punishment handed down by the courts in DDA cases. We want to see the Courts being empowered with a new range of penalties, providing a graduated system, through the courts if appropriate, to introduce Control Orders requiring one or more of the following; the dog to be destroyed, kept under proper control, kept subject to conditions such as being on a lead or muzzled, to be re-homed, the owner to be disqualified from being in charge or having possession of a dog for as long as a court deems appropriate and the owner to be required to pay up to £10,000 compensation for injury, loss or damage, £10,000 fine and/or six months imprisonment, or an unlimited fine and up to two years imprisonment in the Crown Court. And in cases where the owner can't pay - as lawyers call them "Men of Straw" (persons not worth suing, as lacking in any financial substance) we want a scheme set up by government like the Motor Insurers Bureau which deals with uninsured drivers in road crashes.
The Scottish Parliament is going to deal with the issue in the current session and I'm pleased that Central Scotland SMP Alex Neil is bringing a bill before the Scottish Parliament on Dangerous Dogs. Alex's proposed the "Control of Dogs (Scotland) Bill" proposes to modernise the law on dangerous dogs the way we would want to see it changed and he's issued a consultation document inviting responses from interested parties to be in by 14 April so we will be submitting our views and making a cross party approach as part of our campaign, approaching Alex Neil, the first minister and all party leaders. A briefing has been prepared for SMP's plus I've been in contact with Scottish Labour Group Leader Wendy Alexander in order to secure her support. This will hopefully bring added pressure to bear on the Westminster Government to introduce UK Law changes.
I'm also talking to other Trade Unions and the TUC because there's a similar risk of Dog attacks on Dustmen, Gas & Electricity meter readers etc and I want to get the other Unions supporting the campaign.
We've never stopped campaigning on this issue because the issue never subsides. I'm seeking the support of Branches and members with the campaign to raise the matter with their local MP and Local Authorities and Police Community Liaison Groups etc. In fact any organisation with a view and influence in order to raise the profile and put pressure on the government to change the law and for better enforcement from the Police and HSE. Something has got to be done to curb the number of severe dog attacks on our Royal Mail delivery members otherwise it will just continue and we'll see more members mutilated by dogs or delivery workers, suffering physical injury and having their mental health destroyed by traumatic incidents. The most important thing is that postal workers are able to go home at the end of their day as fit and healthy as when they arrived for work in the morning.
The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 contains powers enabling both local authorities and the police to deal with dangerous dogs as does the Dogs Act 1871. Under the law, LA's/ Borough Councils have the power to intervene in most cases where it is believed that the public have been placed at risk by a dog and in all cases where an actual attack has occurred. Dangerous dogs can either be reported directly to the Police or to the Local Authority or Borough Council; both are empowered to take action against the dog and its owner. Even if no attack has taken place a dog can still be considered a threat, particularly if it has been left in a situation where it could attack the public. This would also include dogs located on private land or in proximity to areas of public use.
Section one, which prohibits certain breeds and types of dog, predicts a dogs behaviour based on its physical conformation when this is not possible. This is why section one dogs placed on the Index of Exempted Dogs have never been proved dangerous, and why dogs of breed or types other than those prohibited have been involved in dog attacks.
Section three, however concerns dogs being dangerously out of control in public, and applies only after an incident rather than operating on a preventive basis.
There is some confusion within the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, regarding the interpretation under the Act of "Public Place". Under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, a criminal offence can be brought against the owner of a dog (and if different the person in charge of a dog) if a dog is: (a) dangerously out of control and (b) in a public place. Section three applies only in public or a private place where the dog should not be. If an incident occurs in a private area where the dog is allowed there is no protection.
'Dangerously out of control' is defined as being 'on any occasion on which there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will injure any person'. Generally, if a dog bites someone then it will be presumed to have been dangerously out of control.
'Public place' is defined as including any place 'to which the public have or are permitted to have access'. As Postal Workers have access to private property in order to deliver the Mail then they should be covered by the Act for attacks on private property e.g. Gardens etc.
Owners of dangerous dogs of any breed can be prosecuted under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. Additionally, it is an offence for any dog to put a person in fear of their safety. However apparently some Local Authorities have indicated that Postal Workers on private property are not protected under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 because the act relates to the 'public places' only. This needs to be cleared up by the Government.
The key areas of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 that require change are:
1) Legislation should be based on the legal duty of care of the person in charge of the dog, and the owner of the dog who put that person in charge of it, to ensure the dog is not dangerously out of control.
2) Apply the legislation to incidents which take place in private as well as public by extending the Section 3 Law of "dangerously out of control" to include attacks on private premises. However, there should be an in-built exemption for a dog that bit someone who was on the premises unlawfully, such as a burglar or it was provoked.
3) Remove the Breed specific aspects of the Act. The Index of Exempted Breeds should be "opened" so that any dog could automatically be registered as such and duly neutered, tattooed and micro-chipped etc thus avoiding custody and lengthy court proceedings. (Punish the Deed - Not The Breed).
4) Incorporate the 1871 Dogs Act into the DDA which is currently a Civil Action, not a Criminal action and includes private premises plus close the loophole in the 1871 Dogs Act which has no power of seizure and prevent an owner transferring the dog to another person before a court hearing so they could avoid proceedings and so leaving the court with no power to demand compensation.
5) Introduce a new range of orders Dog "ASBOs" against owners of genuinely dangerous dogs, including 'preventative measures' if a dog comes to the attention of the authorities for bad behaviour. This could include obtaining a court order to compel the owner to train and control the dog with the court able to issue a control order with a lower burden of proof in Lower-level incidents with by a staged graduated system approach. A Control Order (ASBO), should be used when a dog has, for instance, shown aggression, caused injury to another animal, caused harm to a person or caused them to believe they may be harmed. The Control Orders could requiring one or more of the following; the dog to be destroyed, it be kept under proper control, kept subject to conditions such as being on a lead or muzzled, be re-homed, its owner disqualified from being in charge or having possession of a dog for as long as a court deems appropriate.
6) Increase penalties and compensation orders, including unlimited fines and imprisonment. The owner required to pay compensation for injury, loss or damage, underpinned by the Insurance Industry or Government.
Yours Sincerely
Dave Joyce
National Health, Safety & Environment Officer
Following the recent horrendous attack on Sheffield Postman Paul Coleman who was attacked by two savagely out-of-control dogs, the CWU Health, Safety and Environment Department has launched a campaign to change what I can only describe as the hopelessly deficient 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act (DDA). It is almost universally acknowledged that the Dangerous Dogs Act (DDA) doesn't work. It has neither prevented nor reduced the large number of dog attacks in the UK.
Paul Coleman has only recently left hospital and was initially in intensive care and nearly lost his right arm. In a sustained attack, the two dogs had to be beaten off Paul by rescuers using metal bars and one dog was shot dead at the scene by armed response police officers. It took the Officers a while to get there so you can just imagine how long this attack went on. Paul underwent no less than eight operations, including skin grafts and repairs to bite wounds which penetrated down to the bone tearing off huge lumps of flesh. I would like to pay tribute to the excellent work and support given by South Yorkshire Branch Area Safety Representative Darrell Bennett.
In the same area last year Rotherham Postman Terry Johnson, was attacked by an Alsatian and suffered 41 bite marks and was so severely injured he could only walk with the aid of crutches after the attack.
Prior to that, Barnsley Postman Noel Harrison, needed 56 stitches in face wounds and was disfigured for life after being savaged by a Bull Mastiff.
Over the last year some terrible tragic dog attack cases have appeared in the news such as that of five years' old Ellie Lawrenson, who was mauled to death by an uncle's Pit Bull Terrier in St Helens, Merseyside and 22-month-old Kira Neal who had her face torn off and nearly lost an eye whilst playing close to her mum in Bournemouth pub garden when the a dog which was on a lead at the next table, suddenly pounced without warning.
Behind all this comes the 5000 to 6000 Dog attack incidents on Postal Delivery Staff every year that seems to go unnoticed by the many, including the government. To date, the response every time we've raised it with ministers has been strong resistance to amend the DDA which ministers say is robust enough to deal with dangerously out of control dogs, despite criticism of the law by many including the CWU.
The statistics don't support what the government are saying and that's why we feel it's time for changes to the Dangerous Dogs Act and we've launched our "Bite-Back" campaign and hope that enough support can be brought to bear on Ministers and the government to review the Law.
The Government's latest figures show that more than one person a day in Yorkshire is treated in hospital after being attacked by dogs and after the Paul Colman attack, there have been meetings and discussions with Sheffield MP Anne Smith as well as with South Yorkshire Police to ensure the culpable owner is prosecuted and with Sheffield City Council, to impress upon them the need for more efforts to minimise the risk of attacks on postmen and women, calling for more liaison with their Local Authority Dog Wardens.
I am currently seeking a meeting with Prime Minister Gordon Brown with the intention of taking along victim, Postman Paul Coleman and his Area Safety Rep Darrell Bennett. If the Prime Minister agrees to meet us it might help if Paul shows Gordon his injuries and tells him first hand just what it's like to go through this hell when all our members want to do is to deliver letters safely.
The support of the CWU team of 12 supported MPs has been enlisted as well as Lord Tony Clarke and Lord Tony Young the two former CWU Senior Officers.
The subject has been discussed with Lord Bill McKenzie the Health and Safety Minister. Following that David Hanson MP the Justice Minister and Hilary Benn MP the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have also been lobbied on the issue with calls for action.
Defra Minister Jeff Rooker has recently set up a working group to look at the DDA legislation around dangerous dogs but the group's remit is too narrow and they are charged primarily with producing "guidance" to dog owners and enforcers but we don't want it to stop there. What we want are firm recommendations on changing the law and secondly the working group is made up of representatives from the Police, dog interest groups and animal welfare organisations drawn from the Associate Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare (APGAW) - an all-party parliamentary group made up of MPs, Peers and associate animal welfare organisations. This working group doesn't include representatives of victims or trade unions and the point has been made that once again our members' problems are being overlooked. However, a CWU written submission has been sent to the working group to put the CWU's views on dog attacks and the need for action.
We have also been pressing Royal Mail since CWU conference last June to completely overhaul and revise the current Royal Mail Dog Attack Policy and procedures and meetings are scheduled to take place with the new Royal Mail Letter Operations Director and Head of Corporate Social Responsibility to take this forward. The good news here is that we have an agreement "in-principle" to introduce a revised, toughened up process which better protects our delivery members and clamps down on offenders by modelling a revised Dog Attack Policy on the nationally agreed "Walk-Safe" Assaults Policy. We want Royal Mail to take a harder line in future with owners of nuisance dogs. Other things we want from Royal Mail is for the introduction of a new dog attack training initiative as there hasn't been one for years; A review of the provision, use and effectiveness of Personal Protective Equipment (Dog deterrents) and an urgent Audit of all Royal Mail Delivery Offices Dog Attack Policy application and Risk Assessments. We also want to look at developing and producing a Dog Attack Pocket Card Guide.
I have also approached the HSE's Chief Executive Geoffrey Podger and Head of Utilities Group Mark Dawson regarding the issue and meetings are pending to discuss the HSE's "Enforcement Policy" on Dog Attacks. The Health and Safety Executive have expressed concerns about the management of Royal Mail's Dangerous Dog Policy procedures in the past and the need for more efforts to minimise the risk of attacks on postmen and women. In both 2005 and 2006 HSE Inspectors noted a failure to implement the Dog Attack Policy which had fallen into decline and compliance was poor. Therefore the issue for the HSE now is to get them to agree to investigate dog attacks and to take enforcement action where appropriate against Royal Mail if health and safety laws have been breached by Royal Mail, for example failure to undertake suitable and sufficient risk assessments and where managers should be taking action to protect our members from known high risk addresses and areas. Clearly the warnings and Improvement Notices previously issued haven't been enough. This is important because the Police only act 'after the event' so to speak in that they will investigate a crime by the dog owner and may prosecute the owner under the Dangerous Dogs Act. However, if Royal Mail managers have failed to take any action to avoid attacks, it will not even feature in the Police investigation. The HSE on the other hand are responsible for ensuring the employer minimises the risk 'before the event' and therefore have a responsibility to our 70,000 members on delivery out on the streets to examine if managers are discharged from their health & safety responsibilities and trying to prevent attacks from occurring in the first instance by assessing the high risk areas and addresses etc.
This is not just a case of amending the law as some seem to think - enforcement is the key because 'a Law not enforced is not a Law at all' and currently we have a very inconsistent approach to enforcing the DDA. We want Police to deal with DDA offences consistently across the UK and prosecute all offending owners. So another line of enquiry being pursued in the campaign is that of "enforcement" of the Dangerous Dogs Act by the Police. A meeting is being lined up with the Association of Chief Police Officers at their Victoria, London HQ to seek the issue of new guidance to the 43 UK Police Forces, in order to get Consistent enforcement of the DDA. The DD Act has cost the police vital resources, in manpower and millions of pounds in kennelling and associated costs when dogs are seized and held. Therefore some police forces are reluctant to pursue and prosecute DDA offences and we've got to change that.
I also want local authority Dog Wardens to be more pro-active and take action against owners of vicious dogs before they attack our members and we're seeking closer co-operation with Royal Mail. In this respect I intend to approach "LACORS" (the Local Authorities Coordinators of Regulatory Services) which is the local government central body responsible for overseeing local authority regulatory and related services in the UK.
Representations are going to be made to the Justice Minister and the Government's Sentencing Advisory Council about the level of punishment handed down by the courts in DDA cases. We want to see the Courts being empowered with a new range of penalties, providing a graduated system, through the courts if appropriate, to introduce Control Orders requiring one or more of the following; the dog to be destroyed, kept under proper control, kept subject to conditions such as being on a lead or muzzled, to be re-homed, the owner to be disqualified from being in charge or having possession of a dog for as long as a court deems appropriate and the owner to be required to pay up to £10,000 compensation for injury, loss or damage, £10,000 fine and/or six months imprisonment, or an unlimited fine and up to two years imprisonment in the Crown Court. And in cases where the owner can't pay - as lawyers call them "Men of Straw" (persons not worth suing, as lacking in any financial substance) we want a scheme set up by government like the Motor Insurers Bureau which deals with uninsured drivers in road crashes.
The Scottish Parliament is going to deal with the issue in the current session and I'm pleased that Central Scotland SMP Alex Neil is bringing a bill before the Scottish Parliament on Dangerous Dogs. Alex's proposed the "Control of Dogs (Scotland) Bill" proposes to modernise the law on dangerous dogs the way we would want to see it changed and he's issued a consultation document inviting responses from interested parties to be in by 14 April so we will be submitting our views and making a cross party approach as part of our campaign, approaching Alex Neil, the first minister and all party leaders. A briefing has been prepared for SMP's plus I've been in contact with Scottish Labour Group Leader Wendy Alexander in order to secure her support. This will hopefully bring added pressure to bear on the Westminster Government to introduce UK Law changes.
I'm also talking to other Trade Unions and the TUC because there's a similar risk of Dog attacks on Dustmen, Gas & Electricity meter readers etc and I want to get the other Unions supporting the campaign.
We've never stopped campaigning on this issue because the issue never subsides. I'm seeking the support of Branches and members with the campaign to raise the matter with their local MP and Local Authorities and Police Community Liaison Groups etc. In fact any organisation with a view and influence in order to raise the profile and put pressure on the government to change the law and for better enforcement from the Police and HSE. Something has got to be done to curb the number of severe dog attacks on our Royal Mail delivery members otherwise it will just continue and we'll see more members mutilated by dogs or delivery workers, suffering physical injury and having their mental health destroyed by traumatic incidents. The most important thing is that postal workers are able to go home at the end of their day as fit and healthy as when they arrived for work in the morning.
The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 contains powers enabling both local authorities and the police to deal with dangerous dogs as does the Dogs Act 1871. Under the law, LA's/ Borough Councils have the power to intervene in most cases where it is believed that the public have been placed at risk by a dog and in all cases where an actual attack has occurred. Dangerous dogs can either be reported directly to the Police or to the Local Authority or Borough Council; both are empowered to take action against the dog and its owner. Even if no attack has taken place a dog can still be considered a threat, particularly if it has been left in a situation where it could attack the public. This would also include dogs located on private land or in proximity to areas of public use.
Section one, which prohibits certain breeds and types of dog, predicts a dogs behaviour based on its physical conformation when this is not possible. This is why section one dogs placed on the Index of Exempted Dogs have never been proved dangerous, and why dogs of breed or types other than those prohibited have been involved in dog attacks.
Section three, however concerns dogs being dangerously out of control in public, and applies only after an incident rather than operating on a preventive basis.
There is some confusion within the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, regarding the interpretation under the Act of "Public Place". Under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, a criminal offence can be brought against the owner of a dog (and if different the person in charge of a dog) if a dog is: (a) dangerously out of control and (b) in a public place. Section three applies only in public or a private place where the dog should not be. If an incident occurs in a private area where the dog is allowed there is no protection.
'Dangerously out of control' is defined as being 'on any occasion on which there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will injure any person'. Generally, if a dog bites someone then it will be presumed to have been dangerously out of control.
'Public place' is defined as including any place 'to which the public have or are permitted to have access'. As Postal Workers have access to private property in order to deliver the Mail then they should be covered by the Act for attacks on private property e.g. Gardens etc.
Owners of dangerous dogs of any breed can be prosecuted under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. Additionally, it is an offence for any dog to put a person in fear of their safety. However apparently some Local Authorities have indicated that Postal Workers on private property are not protected under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 because the act relates to the 'public places' only. This needs to be cleared up by the Government.
The key areas of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 that require change are:
1) Legislation should be based on the legal duty of care of the person in charge of the dog, and the owner of the dog who put that person in charge of it, to ensure the dog is not dangerously out of control.
2) Apply the legislation to incidents which take place in private as well as public by extending the Section 3 Law of "dangerously out of control" to include attacks on private premises. However, there should be an in-built exemption for a dog that bit someone who was on the premises unlawfully, such as a burglar or it was provoked.
3) Remove the Breed specific aspects of the Act. The Index of Exempted Breeds should be "opened" so that any dog could automatically be registered as such and duly neutered, tattooed and micro-chipped etc thus avoiding custody and lengthy court proceedings. (Punish the Deed - Not The Breed).
4) Incorporate the 1871 Dogs Act into the DDA which is currently a Civil Action, not a Criminal action and includes private premises plus close the loophole in the 1871 Dogs Act which has no power of seizure and prevent an owner transferring the dog to another person before a court hearing so they could avoid proceedings and so leaving the court with no power to demand compensation.
5) Introduce a new range of orders Dog "ASBOs" against owners of genuinely dangerous dogs, including 'preventative measures' if a dog comes to the attention of the authorities for bad behaviour. This could include obtaining a court order to compel the owner to train and control the dog with the court able to issue a control order with a lower burden of proof in Lower-level incidents with by a staged graduated system approach. A Control Order (ASBO), should be used when a dog has, for instance, shown aggression, caused injury to another animal, caused harm to a person or caused them to believe they may be harmed. The Control Orders could requiring one or more of the following; the dog to be destroyed, it be kept under proper control, kept subject to conditions such as being on a lead or muzzled, be re-homed, its owner disqualified from being in charge or having possession of a dog for as long as a court deems appropriate.
6) Increase penalties and compensation orders, including unlimited fines and imprisonment. The owner required to pay compensation for injury, loss or damage, underpinned by the Insurance Industry or Government.
Yours Sincerely
Dave Joyce
National Health, Safety & Environment Officer
I Wrote-During Covid-Which is still relevant now
It's good to get these types of threads, the ridiculous my manager said bollox, so we can reassure ourselves that while the world is falling apart, Royal Mail managers are still being the low-life C***S they have always been.
My BFF Clash
The daily grind of having to argue your case with an intellectual pigmy of a line manager is physically and emotionally draining.
It's good to get these types of threads, the ridiculous my manager said bollox, so we can reassure ourselves that while the world is falling apart, Royal Mail managers are still being the low-life C***S they have always been.
My BFF Clash
The daily grind of having to argue your case with an intellectual pigmy of a line manager is physically and emotionally draining.
-
k979aaa
- Posts: 12578
- Joined: 03 Sep 2007, 19:14
- Gender: Male
- Location: THE NORTH
-
pinstripe
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: 25 May 2007, 16:42
- Gender: Male
- Location: 2 left turns from reality
How many dog owners do not class their own gardens as a 'public place'? Most dog attacks for postmen/women happen in gardens and if you don't know that there is a dog there, it's on you in a second, thereby rendering any repellents you have useless as you don't have time to use them. With summer approaching people are going to start leaving their doors open, combined with the later deliveries and the public not knowing what time their delivery is going to be, dog attacks are going to increase. In the past people used to be able to tell if the post had been, if they had mail or not, just by looking at their clock. I think the point I'm making is that inconsistent delivery times will continue to be a cause of dog attacks. I'm not defending irresponsible dog owners, but RM must take some responsibility. Whether you own a dog or not, would you keep your back door closed all day during the summer?
I've been bitten by a doberman, not a pleasant experience as you can imagine and even though I knew the dog was there and had a can of repellent in my hand, it had burst through a flimsy gate and luckily for me, got more coat sleeve than arm. The first question my DOM asked me? Are you ok? Did you complete the delivery? Do you need to go to hospital? No, none of these, he asked "Were you wearing your hi-vis vest and RM footwear?"
I've been bitten by a doberman, not a pleasant experience as you can imagine and even though I knew the dog was there and had a can of repellent in my hand, it had burst through a flimsy gate and luckily for me, got more coat sleeve than arm. The first question my DOM asked me? Are you ok? Did you complete the delivery? Do you need to go to hospital? No, none of these, he asked "Were you wearing your hi-vis vest and RM footwear?"
-
norbert
- Posts: 3027
- Joined: 15 Jan 2008, 01:46
He's having a laugh
that was nice of the DUM ! , I'm sure the dog was bothered about hi-viz's and RM footwear , clown from Planet Zog , he'll be wondering why people don't help him out next with his people skills .pinstripe wrote:How many dog owners do not class their own gardens as a 'public place'? Most dog attacks for postmen/women happen in gardens and if you don't know that there is a dog there, it's on you in a second, thereby rendering any repellents you have useless as you don't have time to use them. With summer approaching people are going to start leaving their doors open, combined with the later deliveries and the public not knowing what time their delivery is going to be, dog attacks are going to increase. In the past people used to be able to tell if the post had been, if they had mail or not, just by looking at their clock. I think the point I'm making is that inconsistent delivery times will continue to be a cause of dog attacks. I'm not defending irresponsible dog owners, but RM must take some responsibility. Whether you own a dog or not, would you keep your back door closed all day during the summer?
I've been bitten by a doberman, not a pleasant experience as you can imagine and even though I knew the dog was there and had a can of repellent in my hand, it had burst through a flimsy gate and luckily for me, got more coat sleeve than arm. The first question my DOM asked me? Are you ok? Did you complete the delivery? Do you need to go to hospital? No, none of these, he asked "Were you wearing your hi-vis vest and RM footwear?"
RM call it a robust style of management .
Last edited by norbert on 05 Mar 2008, 16:26, edited 1 time in total.
MURDERERS. Need to dispose of a body? Simply parcel it up and post it to yourself via DHL. You will never see it again.
-
k979aaa
- Posts: 12578
- Joined: 03 Sep 2007, 19:14
- Gender: Male
- Location: THE NORTH
IF THE DOM ASKED ME THAT I'D HAVE BITTEN THEM ON THE ASS!.norbert wrote:nice of the DUM ! , I'm sure the dog was bothered about hi-viz's and RM footwear , clown from Planet Zog .pinstripe wrote:How many dog owners do not class their own gardens as a 'public place'? Most dog attacks for postmen/women happen in gardens and if you don't know that there is a dog there, it's on you in a second, thereby rendering any repellents you have useless as you don't have time to use them. With summer approaching people are going to start leaving their doors open, combined with the later deliveries and the public not knowing what time their delivery is going to be, dog attacks are going to increase. In the past people used to be able to tell if the post had been, if they had mail or not, just by looking at their clock. I think the point I'm making is that inconsistent delivery times will continue to be a cause of dog attacks. I'm not defending irresponsible dog owners, but RM must take some responsibility. Whether you own a dog or not, would you keep your back door closed all day during the summer?
I've been bitten by a doberman, not a pleasant experience as you can imagine and even though I knew the dog was there and had a can of repellent in my hand, it had burst through a flimsy gate and luckily for me, got more coat sleeve than arm. The first question my DOM asked me? Are you ok? Did you complete the delivery? Do you need to go to hospital? No, none of these, he asked "Were you wearing your hi-vis vest and RM footwear?"
-
norbert
- Posts: 3027
- Joined: 15 Jan 2008, 01:46
DUM's too busy licking Big Al's fat ginger ass like a dog to worry about people skillsk979aaa wrote:IF THE DOM ASKED ME THAT I'D HAVE BITTEN THEM ON THE ASS!.norbert wrote:nice of the DUM ! , I'm sure the dog was bothered about hi-viz's and RM footwear , clown from Planet Zog .pinstripe wrote:How many dog owners do not class their own gardens as a 'public place'? Most dog attacks for postmen/women happen in gardens and if you don't know that there is a dog there, it's on you in a second, thereby rendering any repellents you have useless as you don't have time to use them. With summer approaching people are going to start leaving their doors open, combined with the later deliveries and the public not knowing what time their delivery is going to be, dog attacks are going to increase. In the past people used to be able to tell if the post had been, if they had mail or not, just by looking at their clock. I think the point I'm making is that inconsistent delivery times will continue to be a cause of dog attacks. I'm not defending irresponsible dog owners, but RM must take some responsibility. Whether you own a dog or not, would you keep your back door closed all day during the summer?
I've been bitten by a doberman, not a pleasant experience as you can imagine and even though I knew the dog was there and had a can of repellent in my hand, it had burst through a flimsy gate and luckily for me, got more coat sleeve than arm. The first question my DOM asked me? Are you ok? Did you complete the delivery? Do you need to go to hospital? No, none of these, he asked "Were you wearing your hi-vis vest and RM footwear?"
MURDERERS. Need to dispose of a body? Simply parcel it up and post it to yourself via DHL. You will never see it again.
-
JEZZA
- Posts: 18
- Joined: 31 Aug 2007, 21:21
Royal mail, dont give a s..t about our HEALTH OR SAFETY.The dogs issue needs sorting ASAP.
A letter should be issued to every household by rm. Informing,the dog owner of there duty of care towards there pets.And legal action WILL be taken if any rm employee are attacked by there dog.This letter,should then be sent out once again at various intervals.For once may be rm will BITE BACK.
A letter should be issued to every household by rm. Informing,the dog owner of there duty of care towards there pets.And legal action WILL be taken if any rm employee are attacked by there dog.This letter,should then be sent out once again at various intervals.For once may be rm will BITE BACK.
-
k979aaa
- Posts: 12578
- Joined: 03 Sep 2007, 19:14
- Gender: Male
- Location: THE NORTH
For royalmail do not and will not care for thier own staff i have been their it is not nice to hobble to the hospital and back!. FOR THEY THE MANAGEMENT DON'T GIVE A TOSS! FOR AS SOON AS YOU GET BITTEN DON'T CARRY ON BRING IT BACK AND FU*KEM!.JEZZA wrote:Royal mail, dont give a s..t about our HEALTH OR SAFETY.The dogs issue needs sorting ASAP.
A letter should be issued to every household by rm. Informing,the dog owner of there duty of care towards there pets.And legal action WILL be taken if any rm employee are attacked by there dog.This letter,should then be sent out once again at various intervals.For once may be rm will BITE BACK.
-
DGP1
- Posts: 15551
- Joined: 07 Jun 2007, 20:39
- Gender: Male
- Location: Terminus
-
k979aaa
- Posts: 12578
- Joined: 03 Sep 2007, 19:14
- Gender: Male
- Location: THE NORTH
For even i cannot blame the dog but the mutt's that own them in fact are differnt story for maybe we should crush them!. FOR THEY ARE THE FOOL'S NOT US WE SHOULD ALL NOW FOR THE BENEFIT OF OURSELF'S AND OTHER'S REFUSE TO DELIVER TO PROPERTY'S WITH DANGEROUS ANIMALS!.disgruntledpostie1 wrote:Maybe it's about time ALL dogs had to have a licence and insurance otherwise the police could seize them (just like they can do with cars but I'm not to sure about crushing them if they are not collected after 7 days)