All dogs to be insured in proposals on dangerous breeds

[Viper_Larry]

"Every dog owner in the UK would have to take out insurance against their pet attacking someone under government proposals to tackle dangerous breeds."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8556195.stm

Yeah right, so those people who illegally own these dangerous breeds are going to go out and get pet insurance are they? Not a chance. All this does is penalise the millions of dog owners in the UK (I'm not one) and earn the government another 5% insurance tax...

[rhinochopig]

In principle I think they should. All dogs can be unpredictable and some do bight people - even the cute docile ones if provoked. Why should the tax payer have to pay up for dog related injuries?

Regulating it is whole different matter though.

[528Sport]

It's a good idea, however unless dogs have some kind of reg number stamped on their arse how can the system work? Say your dog bites someone or another animal and their is a good chance you animal would be put down are you going to give the details? Some would but some wouldn't.
What about stray dogs?
How do you force captain chav to take out a policy for his really hard dog?

If there was a small portion of the policy's allocated to employ dog wardens then maybe it could work.

[Puggit]

I can see one benefit of the mandatory micro-chipping. That way a dog has to see a vet to be chipped, and presumably the vet can check if it is a dangerous dog or not.

If the police get close enough to a dog to check the chip, and it isn't there - it's pretty easy to then justify taking the dog away (and sadly presumably have it put down).

[Jasandjules]

Puggit said:

I can see one benefit of the mandatory micro-chipping. That way a dog has to see a vet to be chipped, and presumably the vet can check if it is a dangerous dog or not.

If the police get close enough to a dog to check the chip, and it isn't there - it's pretty easy to then justify taking the dog away (and sadly presumably have it put down).

That was my first thought. Then it will move to Chavs won't get them to the vets at all........

[Hedders]

This should work. They did it with car insurance and look, every body is now insured.



More legislation, more things to police, more control and more expense, for no gain.

[davidspooner]

If the dog is so dangerous it WILL bite, people should not be permitted to own one (ie as currently). Otherwise it's down to poor ownership and the owner should be punished.

This sounds like a policy made up on The Thick of It by a department who wants to be in the headlines.

[plasticpig]

rhinochopig said:

In principle I think they should. All dogs can be unpredictable and some do bight people - even the cute docile ones if provoked. Why should the tax payer have to pay up for dog related injuries?

Regulating it is whole different matter though.

Dogs bend people into a curve or turn them into a geographic feature?

[Benny Saltstein]

Total waste of time. The people they're trying to regulate are not going to bother. Most responsible dog owners would hopefully have pet insurance anyway due to the hefty cost of vet's bills.

Edited by Benny Saltstein on Tuesday 9th March 08:47

[zac510]

I guess this just shifts responsibility away from the government and into the hands of private insurance companies?

I don't endorse dangerous dogs but just layering laws on top of more laws is ridiculous.

[tonyvid]

Gah!!!

The 99% of us good dog owners already have them chipped and 3rd party insured via our vet insurance. The fkwits in their shellsuits and stupid owners that leave massive dogs with babies will continue to do so and won't bother with such systems.

How hard can it be for the Government to understand the mentality of these people? Ahh, 5% insurance tax...

[Incredible Sulk]

Another Piss Boiler from a government bereft of real ideas. The only thing my dog (and millions of other dogs BTW) bites is his bks. Just another stealth tax. Grrrrr..

[zcacogp]

Stinks of another money-raising-by-making-non-jobs initiative from the gubbment. Aside from the fact that forcing every dog owner to have insurance would be utterly unenforcable, it is not going to solve the problem. If someone has a dangerous dog, they should be forced to control it or (better), have it put down.

Bear in mind that this idea is almost certainly a response to the rapid growth in dangerous dog ownership amongst gangs in London, who of course couldn't be forced to comply with legislation as it would be against their yooman rights innit. A cynic would say that it's the same demographic causing problems which means the law-abiding majority are forced to comply with more pointless legislation ...

http://gangsinlondon.blogspot.com/2009/08/dangerou...


Oli.

[Jovial Joe]

Viper_Larry said:

and earn the government another 5% insurance tax...

It's this and absolutely feck all else.Just another law masquerading as a middle class tax grab.
Bunch of front bottoms.

[rhinochopig]

plasticpig said:

rhinochopig said:

In principle I think they should. All dogs can be unpredictable and some do bight people - even the cute docile ones if provoked. Why should the tax payer have to pay up for dog related injuries?

Regulating it is whole different matter though.

Dogs bend people into a curve or turn them into a geographic feature?

Given I've been up most of the night with a vomiting and stting 1 year old I'm amazed there were so few mistakes TBH.

Have a though.

[Parrot of Doom]

More overlord bks from a government that has to control every aspect of life.

fk OFF AND LEAVE US ALONE

[_dobbo_]

Ah yes the old "dangerous breeds" thing rears its ugly head again.

Interesting results from a survey giving the 10 most aggressive breeds:

1. Dachshund
2. Chihuahua
3. Jack Russell
4. Australian Cattle Dog
5. Cocker Spaniel
6. Beagle
7. Border Collie
8. Pit Bull Terrier
9. Great Dane
10. English Springer Spaniel

( from here: http://www.dogbiteclaims.co.uk/compensation/danger... )


How many of those on the "dangerous breeds" list? Cue someone posting something about locking jaws and bull terriers killing lions.

[Mclovin]

why is it a few people always ruin things for everyone else......

[Fittster]

Another big government solution to a tiny problem. Politicians are far more dangerous the dogs.

[Frankeh]

Step 1) Cover self in bacon
Step 2) ????
Step 3) PROFIT!