Cambridge postman badly hurt in dog attack

[TrueBlueTerrier]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 054143.ece

Another sustained Rottweiler attack to the arms, this time against someone who was actually feeding and looking after the dog. Rottweillers are NOT unique in being sometimes very aggressive or unpredictable but when they do attack they are so powerful the the damage they do can be life changing. They are far too powerful to be allowed in the domestic environment full stop.

This link http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/news/article10559.ece is a follow up to the same story - be warned do not read if squeamish it is very graphic.

[theargyspy]

Update on keith, His DOM went to visit him yesterday ( contary to rumour, not to put him on Stage One!)
said he was in good spirits,Surgeons are happy with his progress after last Op on xmas eve....he has some
movement in his arm, also getting ready to give him skin grafts...Keith would like to pass on his thanks to
all colleagues,Friends and Family who have visited him or passed on best wishes to him....will update if/when
I hear any more!

[brothermagrew]

Rotweilers, Dobermans, Pitbulls, Alsations, Japanese Akita are some of the breeds I wouldn't mind seeing extinct and consigned into the history books.

An interesting study done by Merritt Clifton - Dog Attack Deaths and Maimings U.S. & Canada Sep 1982 - Nov 13, 2006

http://www.dogbitelaw.com/Dog%20Attacks ... lifton.pdf

[Pat Ostman]

Bang up the owners for 12 years for attempted murder. Dogs do what dogs do, some of it is nature some of it is training. Drive a car at 70 then decide to have 10mins shut eye and subsequently plough into a crowd at the school gates, youll get banged up. Out of control 70mph cars do what cars do,it ain't the cars fault

My thoughts exactly. Obviously when the dog attacks it gets put down but I do agree, aint the dogs fault to be honest. That dog would have been trained to do what it did. :(

Really not sure why anyone wants a particular breed like this anyway. They are a ruthless breed when/if they turn.

[Wessex]

If an aggressive dog that has injured someone is destroyed prior to any police investigation does the status of the owner change in law ?

[TrueBlueTerrier]

If an aggressive dog that has injured someone is destroyed prior to any police investigation does the status of the owner change in law ?

No AFAIUI the only deciding factor is whether or not the attack happened on Public or private property. If it happened on Public land then there is a criminal case to answer as it is illegal to have dogs not under control on public land, which is why drivers have to report collisions with dogs but not cats. If the case does go to court his lawyer will probably use the fact that the dogs were destroyed immediately as a mitigating factor when it comes to sentencing, but it has no relevance on the investigation as that is merely to determine if a crime occurred and if so who was the responsible person.

Also there is a specific law, cant remember the actual details, where it is an offence to have your dog, even if under control, make someone feel threatened or to suggest or use the dog in a threatening manner. For instance it is against the law for someone to say "Go on Rover, bite the postie" even if meant as a joke.

[axeman]

and if they are 'guard dogs' then i belive they have to be licenced and the owners and the perimeter fence has to be secure and of a specified height

[brothermagrew]

and if they are 'guard dogs' then i belive they have to be licenced and the owners and the perimeter fence has to be secure and of a specified height

Guard Dogs
Only section 1 of the Guard Dogs Act 1975 has ever entered into force. This means that all the other sections relating to a licensing scheme are not in force and neither are there any plans to do so. Section 1, which is in force, relates to the control of guard dogs.

Section 1 states:

(1) A person shall not use or permit the use of a guard dog at any premises unless a person ('the handler') who is capable of controlling the dog is present on the premises and the dog is under the control of the handler at all times while it is secured so that it is not at liberty to go freely about the premises.

(2) The handler of a guard dog shall keep the dog under his control at all times while it is being used as a guard dog at any premises except:
(a) while another handler has control over the dog; or
(b) while the dog is secured so that it is not at liberty to go freely about the premises.

(3) A person shall not use or permit the use of a guard dog at any premises unless a notice containing a warning that a guard dog is present is clearly exhibited at each entrance to the premises.


The owner of a guard dog may be liable for any injury to a person under s 2(2) of the Animals Act 1971, unless they come within one of the exceptions in s 5.

[brothermagrew]

A well constructed letter from the CWU National Health, Safety & Environment Officer can be found in the Union Room to the Cambridgeshire Police asking for charges to be brought.

[norbert]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 054143.ece

Another sustained Rottweiler attack to the arms, this time against someone who was actually feeding and looking after the dog. Rottweillers are NOT unique in being sometimes very aggressive or unpredictable but when they do attack they are so powerful the the damage they do can be life changing. They are far too powerful to be allowed in the domestic environment full stop.

This link http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/news/article10559.ece is a follow up to the same story - be warned do not read if squeamish it is very graphic.

Jesus Wept - it reverted to wild - it's like Martin Clunes said on the trailer to that series on the telly - " You are effectively sharing your house with a wolf "

Instead of patronizing propaganda , spin , fiddled figures etc - why don't RM arrange for someone to come down and do a drill / talk on dogs - i.e . - someone who has been a dog handler for the Police / works in Security - sorry stupid idea - it costs RM money which could be better spent on manager's bonuses !

I believe a lot of problems are caused by greedy breeding or even inbreeding - mind you that's a problem with the owners and these people who parade hard dogs round these estates
Poor b**gger !

[NWpostie]

Heres is another Dog attack, maybe we should kill the uncaring owners as well as the Dogs

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/mers ... 812038.stm Hope they catch the Bitch and shove an electric cattle prod up her T*** !!

This is dangerous dog stories from the past that will happen time and time again

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6989209.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsi ... 662133.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/mers ... 983549.stm This is about the Grandmother of Ellie Lawrenson who was killed by the family dog, I also heard she walked the dog around the estate where she lived and allowed the dog to attack people and other dogs and showed no remorse for it, the dog got a taste for attacking people and the girl died because of it, if the Police had been more robust and proactive, we could have reduced dog attacks and also one bite should mean that dog must be put down end of, no appeals.

[donein]

Update on keith, His DOM went to visit him yesterday ( contary to rumour, not to put him on Stage One!)
said he was in good spirits,Surgeons are happy with his progress after last Op on xmas eve....he has some
movement in his arm, also getting ready to give him skin grafts...Keith would like to pass on his thanks to
all colleagues,Friends and Family who have visited him or passed on best wishes to him....will update if/when
I hear any more!

Any updates for Keith davies

[Himaggen]

Heres is another Dog attack, maybe we should kill the uncaring owners as well as the Dogs

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/mers ... 812038.stm Hope they catch the Bitch and shove an electric cattle prod up her T*** !!

Did you notice that the article suggested Staffordshire Bull Terrier type dog. Did you also know that it takes an expert to identify whether or not an animal is either a Pit Bull or Staffordshire. One of these breeds has been heavily restricted by the law but these restrictions are not upheld because there are few capable of making the identification. It's likely even if someone receives a bad injury at the hands of one of these dogs that the authorities will be incapable of identifying its breed and therefore the laws governing its ownership.

[NWpostie]

Staffordshire and American pitbulls are very similar, Staffordshires generally have a calm placid nature, they tend to have speckled patches on their backs and is usually brown but can be grey, add to the mix is part breeds, as is in teh case of Ellie lawrenson the dog is a part American Pitbull and very viscous by all accounts.

The Law needs to be updated with regards to rougue dogs not just a particular breed which should also be covered anyway, ANY breeds of dog that attacks and is deemed a risk must be put down to eliminate distemper genes from the stock, the Council and Law authorities must be Compelled to act on Dog attacks and not need to go through bearaucratic hoops to do so.

[brothermagrew]

Bang up the owners for 12 years for attempted murder. Dogs do what dogs do, some of it is nature some of it is training. Drive a car at 70 then decide to have 10mins shut eye and subsequently plough into a crowd at the school gates, youll get banged up. Out of control 70mph cars do what cars do,it ain't the cars fault

My thoughts exactly. Obviously when the dog attacks it gets put down but I do agree, aint the dogs fault to be honest. That dog would have been trained to do what it did. :(

Really not sure why anyone wants a particular breed like this anyway. They are a ruthless breed when/if they turn.

"My thoughts exactly. Obviously when the dog attacks it gets put down".

Wishful thinking but not strictly true although the owner of the 2 rottweilers in the Cambridgeshire posties case did have them put down and my apologies if you where making reference to said 2 rottweilers. All cases of dangerous dogs are judged by either Magistrates, Sheriffs, Judges etc solely on each individual case merits. The purpose of Section 2 of the Dogs Act 1871 is not, as it is in Section 1(3) or should that be 3(1) of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, to make it an offence to have a dangerous dog.

Section 2 is not a penal section. It bites where a dog is shown to have been both dangerous and not under proper control. The Justices' powers are correspondingly limited to directing the owner to keep the dog under proper control, or where they conclude that it cannot be realistically controlled by the owner, to having it destroyed. Many dogs which are ordinarily docile may be dangerous in the relevant sense that unless kept under proper control they may cause real harm. The statutory purpose is thus simply to require dog owners, by exercising suitable control, to prevent such harm from occurring, and if they cannot, to have the dog put down.