New law backs posties in their daily dog fight

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Scots postal workers welcomed new controls on dangerous dogs that come into effect tomorrow.

Last April, Holyrood passed The Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010, which updates Westminster's original 1991 dangerous dogs act.

Posties' union CWU had been campaigning for a change in the law to protect members who regularly face harmful hounds at letterboxes.

Reported dog attacks increased by 160 per cent between 1999 and 2007 in Scotland, prompting MSPs to take action.

Under the new law, local authorities in Scotland will be able to impose measures on the owner or person in charge of a dog where that person has failed to control it.

Personal liability will also be extended to a dog becoming out of control in "any place," including in a person's home.

CWU national health, safety and environment officer Dave Joyce, at the forefront of the union's campaign, praised the new law and urged Westminster MPs to pass something similar.

"This is great news for Scottish postal workers, telecom engineers and so many other workers," he said.

"Now we need Mr Cameron to follow Scotland's lead."

CWU general secretary Billy Hayes said: "Postal delivery workers across Scotland will warmly welcome the new protections that the new law provides, as will all public-service workers who have to enter private premises as part of their daily duties.

"Now we need these laws extended throughout the UK."
http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/inde ... ull/101558" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[hans solo]

can the cwu and rm now put out a d2d instructing all scottish householders of the consequences of uncontrolable dogs or will it be left to ourselves again

[Post Off]

Why is it always Scotland that gets the first bite? It's nay fair, mon!

Still, I am glad that something is being done, as it should go some way (eventually) in educating an uneducated bunch o' t*ss*rs in all manner of responsibilities. I'm sure some peeps think that owning a dog is like owning a tv. Well, I know where they can stick their aerial -- fooking coontz!

..."Now we need Mr Cameron to follow Scotland's lead." I'm very much doubtful that anything will be unleashed, anytime soon.


I've got this idea how we can protect our fingers, maybe, from being ripped apart, but it's not something I can constructively manufacture myself...

You know how you absolutely need to be able to finger the letters in-order to then deliver them through a letterbox... Well, I'm thinking that since I always use my middle finger (on my other hand) to leverage a letter flap open so that the letter carrying hand can slip a letter through, why can't I have something attached to that middle finger that can automatically extend some kind of telescopic prod in-order to not only leverage said flap open, but also used as a guard against the prospect of having my fingers ripped to pieces. Maybe I could even get a silencer attachment on a pistol, adapted 'proddr', and shoot the ugly little fugger in the mouth.

[brothermagrew]

Whilst all Scottish posties should warmly welcome the provisions contained in the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010 especially the amendment to Section 3(1) of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 namely:

In Section 3(1) of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (c.65) (keeping dogs under proper control), for the words "a public place" there is substituted "any place (whether or not a public place)". This amendment can be found in Section 10 of the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010.

And of course the serving of dog control notices by an authorised officer appointed for the purposes of the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010 by a local authority. It has been estimated that some 1,144 dog control notices will be issued in a year. This equates to 36 notices per annum for local authority. This equates to approximately 3 per month if spread equally across 32 local authorities.

Under the Act, whether considering whether a dog is out of control, authorised officers will have to act objectively and ask themselves whether a fair-minded and impartial observer would conclude that the dog was causing alarm or apprehensiveness. The Act provides a two part test to assist authorised officers in assessing whether a dog is out of control. The first part is that the dog "is being kept under control effectively and consistenly* and the second part is that the dog is causing "reasonable...alarm, or... apprehensiveness". The two parts must be taken together and provide the basis on which an authorised officer can determine whether a dog is out of control. The word "and" is crucial.

Formulating an appropriate test is not easy. Providing a definitive list of behaviours or actions to cover out-of-control behaviour is neither practical nor beneficial. Each case must be assessed on individual circumstances. The Act requires authorised officers to explain the reasons that led them to issue a notice. If someone does not like the reasons and objects to the serving of the notice, they can appeal.

[Post Off]

You know, I suppose a law has to start somewhere, even in Scotland. But, there is already some display of consternation by those who do not see this as a useful law, mostly because in their thinking they will have to adjust their attitudes in line with other people's good sense. Though, having said that, I do reckon it's going to cause most dog-loving owners some kind of consternation or other.

The only thing that bugs me about all this wondering about corroborating something or other is, where does it leave us posties? I mean, I was once told that because I foolishly slipped my fingers through a letterbox, that it was practically my fault that my fingers got almost ripped apart.

Maybe I'm hoping for too much with the interpretation of this new law. I mean, if I was a responsible dog-owner (not that I'm not responsible), I wouldn't let my whatever dog be even able to get anywhere near a letter-flap. Perhaps with this law it won't be all that unreasonable to assume that if your dog is able to wrap its jaws around said letter-flap, then that dog should be classed as 'out of control'.

[BT2010]

the title says it all really

New law backs posties in their daily dog fight

i would honestly prefer a rabid rottwieler pacing round the DO rather than our DOM most days.

[brothermagrew]

Every dog owner, regardless of their personal circumstances, has a duty to ensure the welfare of their animal and to ensure that their dog is kept under control at all times, in the interests of public safety. If they cannot do that, their behaviour should be challenged. The Act is not intended to penalise responsible dog owners. It should improve their experience by addressing irresponsible dog ownership and reducing the threat that out-of-control dogs pose. Sadly, while most dog owners are responsible, there is a growing problem with dog owners who do not look after their dogs properly, whether through a lack of knowledge that means that they do not provide appropriate training or socialisation, for example, or by deliberate action, such as the use of status dogs that are taught to act aggressively.

In Scotland, about 600 attacks are reported each year, which is more than double the figure 10 years ago. By focusing on deed, not breed, the Act will reduce the number of attacks in two ways. The dog control notice regime will give authorities the power to require dog owners to keep their dogs under control or face a criminal conviction. If used properly, that power will reduce the number of lower-level incidents in which dog owners perhaps need guidance on how to keep their dog under control. It will also prevent many dogs from developing more dangerous behaviour that might lead to dog attacks.

The Act requires owners to ensure that their dogs are kept under control at all times and in all places. Currently, if a child is attacked in a dog's home, where it is permitted to be, the owner cannot be held legally responsible unless the dog is of a banned breed. That is clearly wrong. The Act extends to all places existing offences that relate to dogs that are dangerously out of control.

On corroboration the Act does not require authorised officers to work in pairs to serve dog control notices. The offence of failure to comply with a notice, as provided for at section 5, is a separate matter that relates to a separate and subsequent incident. Corroboration is therefore required only for the incident that is the breach. That is because we will move from a civil matter to a criminal matter—a breach—that requires corroboration. There is no mandatory requirement for corroboration in a civil matter.

The provision is framed in such a way that it focuses on deed. A dog that is large and powerful and which might otherwise cause alarm or apprehensiveness, such as a Rottweiler, but which is kept under control cannot be the subject of a notice. The same Rottweiler, if it were walked by an eight-year-old child who was incapable of controlling it because of its sheer size and power, could be considered to be out of control, but only if, for example, it snapped at people or other dogs. The deed is the actions of the dog allied to allowing a child to take charge of a dog that is simply too big for them to control. Taking the argument one step further, a dog that is not large or powerful, such as a Yorkshire terrier, but which behaved in a manner that caused alarm or apprehensiveness and which was not controlled effectively and consistently would be considered to be out of control. That goes to the heart of the approach in the Act. The breed or size of dog that is misbehaving is irrelevant.

[brothermagrew]

Scottish delivery posties with reference to the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010 and in particular to the serving of a DCN (Dog Control Notice) by an Authorised Officer should recognise this scenario which was included in the Guidance issued by the Scottish Government to all 32 Scottish Local Authorities.

A number of public and private sector workers may require access to private property in the course of their duties. Access could be required to deliver mail, seek access to the home to read gas meters, carry out health visitor appointments, or to provide a home help service. If a worker accesses a property to deliver mail and is met by a dog who is not under the watchful eye of its owner and to all intents and purposes has been left to its own devices, demonstrates overly protective and territorial aggressive behaviour towards the worker by constantly growling and snarling without provocation, the authorised officer may after careful deliberation decide that the two-part test under section 1 of the Act had been met and that it would be appropriate to serve a DCN.

While it could be argued that it is common for a dog’s instinct to take over, and to demonstrate defensive behaviour when faced with someone unfamiliar entering the property, dog owners must take responsibility to ensure those workers who deliver a vital service for their communities are not subjected to having to deal with threatening or aggressive dogs when undertaking their duties on private property.

Dependant on the severity of the incident, it may be appropriate to consider the provisions of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 if the dog is dangerously out of control.

[Post Off]

On 2nd thoughts, I can't now see how this law is going to help protect us posties, as we may be deemed as neither in or out of someone's property in the course of our public (or business) duty.

How would this law have affected say, the injuries that that poor postwoman had a little while back to the tops of her fingers, I wonder? Sadly nothing, methinks? Personally, no fugging dog should be allowed anywhere near a letter-box. If that's not possible then, could that in itself mean that a dog owner hasn't got full control of their dog, and even if it doesn't would this new law even cover this grey area?

[brothermagrew]

The terminology as I understand it and as it is in th new Act covers all places, this does not only cover public land and private land but it also covers the dogs behaviour in the house as an example:

Nowadays, dogs are very popular as family pets and may live in busy households where there are young children. Inevitably, the children’s friends will visit and it is normal for a stream of people/children to be coming and going on a regular basis. Children playing can become a source of great excitement for dogs, particularly puppies, and this can often lead to chasing or nipping behaviour as they try to join in with the games.

Owners need to be extra vigilant in these circumstances as situations can quickly become out of control. If a report of a child being severely nipped or bitten in such a situation is made to an authorised officer, as well as considering the seriousness of the incident there are many factors to take into account. Sometimes young dogs are unable to handle the excitement of children playing and officers may want to consider if the dog’s immaturity led to inappropriate behaviour rather than being deemed ‘aggressive’ by nature. For example, if the dog was a very young puppy, was the dog trying to play without having learned ‘bite inhibition’.

Authorised officers may wish to consider any measures put in place to keep the dog under control. Authorised officers may also wish to consider whether any mitigating factors should be considered before reaching a decision on whether to serve a DCN. For example, did the child’s interaction with the dog contribute or trigger the dog’s behaviour that led to the incident. For example, the dog was crated/behind a baby gate but the child kept pestering it through the bars which resulted in a nip, either through excitement or apprehension.