Vicious Dog Attack Sydenham Road

[stuart]

It is a shame they did away with the dog licence.

These days it could be enforced with a RFID tag and compulsory third party insurance. So the market decides what dogs are dangerous and charges an appropriate premium. Dodgy dog, huge premium - quite a deterrant. Oh - no licence, dog confiscated/destroyed plus a grand fine. The DVLA is the model here. And if anything goes wrong the victim will at least get financial compensation.

Seems so obvious that there must be a flaw ...

Stuart

[davegr]

" Hence ALL DOGS SHOULD BE MUZZLED! I state my case.

Annie, you can't tar all dogs with the same brush. The vast majority are harmless, friendly chappies that just want a biscuit and a tummy rub ( and I certainly include the much maligned staffie here).

I do think that all dogs should be on leads unless in designated excercise areas. This seems to work in other countries and ensures that the dogs can be controlled without resorting to muzzling.

[Annie]

I have seen the results of a "friendly dog" my brother as a small child ran up to a dog and hugged it,this dog was well known as a good dog in the area all the children loved it,it used to sit outside the bookies whilst the owner was placing his bet,the dog responded to my 4 yr old brothers hug by biting him above the eye, he was lucky it only left a smallish scar,little did we know this dog had a growth on his neck,

I don't hate dogs, we were brought up with dogs all our lives, but I think to be able to control the few? bad ones ,that something has to be done,if that means putting a muzzle on all dogs in public places then thats what should be done,have designated areas in the park for the dogs to exercise and play, but each time i hear of some poor child losing half their face/or worse i just think something has to be done,dramatic as it may sound.

[dickp]

There is this concept called risk - you may have heard of it. Risk assessments allow us to evaluate possible harm, and decide whether the benefits of a particular activity outweigh the dangers.

There is a remote possibility that my dog will go nuts and maul a child. But he almost certainly wont. But, worst case scenario - there is a health service to treat injured children, and dog insurance to recompense them for any harm I could cause them, short of their actual death.

There is a remote possibility that I will injure someone with my car, next time I drive. But I almost certainly won't. But, worst case scenario - there is a health service to treat injured people, and car insurance to recompense them for any harm I could cause, short of their actual death.

There is a remote chance that I will get stabbed if I leave my house. But, worst case scenario - there is a health service to treat me, and critical injury insurance in case I need it.

And so on...

[davegr]

Excellent reply

[Annie]

Theres also prevention is better than cure!

[JulietP]

Theres also prevention is better than cure!

The Government can't regulate all risk out of life. You have to balance freedom, safety and cost (both financial and other costs i.e. inconvenience). The main reason people protest against intrusive "nanny state" regulation is that it impedes personal freedom. Regulation has to be proportionate to the risk it is intended to address.

You'll always have the arguments around the edges of these questions. is it proportionate to require all cyclists to wear helmets to prevent brain damage (probably yes)? Is it proportionate to ban all school trips to avoid risk of accidents or kids wandering off? Perhaps we should ban all extreme sports to stop the injuries associated with it? Would it be proportionate to muzzle all dogs in order to mitigate against the risk that a dog may bite a child? Perhaps its proportionate in your opinion because you don't own or like dogs. But that simply means that you're not objectively considering all the factors in the balance I described above.

[JoeP]

Let's try and keep some perspective here. I didn't like going to the high street when the tattooed man was without a dog because he and his cronies were up there drinking. The trophy dangerous dog is just an extension of this kind of behavior. Muzzling the family pooch is not what is required. We need zero tolerance towards all forms of anti social behaviour. Maybe I'll even be comfortable bringing my kids to the high street some day.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[dickp]

You also have to be aware of risk displacement. Some dogs really do need a great deal of exercise to ensure good behavior at home.

The advantage of ball playing is that it is very efficient. An owner can stand still, but in a few minutes, their dog might have run several kilometres. A happy, tired dog will never bite its owner. A stressed out one who cannot burn off their energy properly might just do so.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Campervantim]

Unfortunately uncrontrolled dogs can either be a danger to others or an extreme nuisance, mainly through the fault of their owners. There is the issue of so-called dangerous dogs (although in reality almost any dog can be dangerous), but also dogs left to play in public places unsupervised and those allowed / encouraged to use public places as toilets.

Personally I do not want any child or other person attacked by an out of control dog nor do I want to be prevented from playing with my son in Baxters Fields because of dogshit getting on our shoes, football, cricket ball etc. Nor do I want a large but reputedly friendly dog bounding around out of control. To the dog and it's owner, they are being friendly but to a young child from their perspective it is a huge beast towering over them with sharp teeth. It can be terrifying for them.

The fault lies with the owners and I believe that they need to be held accountable for ther dogs behaviour. Licensing of dogs and heavy fines for misdemeanours are a must. And failing to clean up your dogs faeces punsihable by being made to clean it up with your bare hands.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Annie]

JulietP-----I never said I didn't like dogs,

To stop any further attacks on children,by either dogs owned by irrisponsible idiots or homely old ladies, I think in public places dogs should be muzzled. My opinion-My choice not to own a dog.

[Eagle]

I would also add dogs should always be on the lead whilst in a public place. Amazing how many are not.

[Digger]

Is there really no Dog Licencing? I've only been here in Britain 5 years and although a doggy person all my life, I won't consider owning one while I live in a flat.

[Eagle]

I do agree 100% that dogs should not be owned by flat owners unless on the ground floor. Cannot understand why anyone would not agree with me ( which in itself a bit unusual )


Usedto be a dog license . I think it was 7/6d so all I can tell you it was withdrawn prior to D Day.
Trouble is the good citizens would get one , the others could not give a d.......

[Annie]

BBC

BBC News Health


Health
Education
Sci/Environment
Technology
Entertainment & Arts

11 August 2011 Last updated at 11:01
Share this page


More people admitted to hospital after dog injuries
Aggressive dogs The highest number of dog attacks was seen in the north west
Continue reading the main story
Related Stories

Police dog bites cost thousands
Dog that bit boy still at large
MRSA risk from dog and cat bites

Hospital admissions for serious dog-related injuries rose by 5% in England last year, according to NHS data.

There were 6,120 hospital admissions from May 2010 to April 2011, up from 5,810 the previous year, figures from The NHS Information Centre show.

One in six dog injury admissions in the year up to April involved a child aged under 10.

A spokesman for the NHS Information Centre said summer was a "seasonal hotspot" for dog injuries.

Incidents of people being bitten or struck by dogs peaked in April this year with 640 admissions - the highest monthly figure for two years.

The north west had the highest number of admissions for dog bites or other injuries, with 1,090.

The report also shows that dog-related injuries accounted for about half of all the 12,410 admissions caused by being bitten or struck by various creatures in the 12 months to April 2011.
Other creatures


Overall hospital admissions rose by 1.8% in the period studied.

Tim Straughan, NHS Information Centre chief executive, said: "Our statistics show that the summer is a seasonal hotspot for admissions to hospital for injuries caused by dogs.

"However, the same timeframe also saw an increase in admissions for injuries inflicted by other creatures - from bugs and horses to cows and pigs.

"It is also perhaps surprising to some that a bite or sting from a non venomous insect can be so severe it can result in admission to hospital - but clearly this was the case for some 3,620 admissions in the 12 months to April 2011."

Sheila Merrill, public health adviser for the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA), said: "Owners are ultimately responsible for making sure that their pet does not pose a risk to other people.

"That means making sure that the animal is properly trained and restrained - where appropriate - and understanding what causes the animal to feel stressed, and therefore more likely to injure by biting or scratching.

"However placid you think your pet is you should never leave it alone with a small child."
More on This Story
Related Stories

Sorry,I don't know how to add the link other than cut and paste,but i'm sure you get my point.

[Eagle]

Trouble is Enforcement.
Surely we all agree their is a significant number of dodgy dogs usually with dodgy owners.

The only way possibly is that every dog on public land without a muzzle would be put down.Have the Police the person power?

[The Clown]

It is a shame they did away with the dog licence.

These days it could be enforced with a RFID tag and compulsory third party insurance. So the market decides what dogs are dangerous and charges an appropriate premium. Dodgy dog, huge premium - quite a deterrant. Oh - no licence, dog confiscated/destroyed plus a grand fine. The DVLA is the model here. And if anything goes wrong the victim will at least get financial compensation.

Seems so obvious that there must be a flaw ...

Stuart

It's not difficult is it? I'm not a huge fan of dogs but I don't believe all dogs should be muzzled either. As it would seem with so many things, there are a small number of idiots who make life difficult for everyone else. Why are we so afraid of just dealing with them? Simple laws and rules based on common sense. Price them out of the market/ make them have to jump through hoops / correct home environment for the breed? etc etc. all fine by me.....attacking cats / killing dogs / the mess we are forced to live in, now that's what is not on....

[coll]

I was bitten by a Pit-bull on Sydenham Road last year. It broke my skin and bled quite badly. The owners were a young couple with two Pit-bulls. As I walked past the dog lunged and bit me. The woman couldn’t be bothered with what happened but the guy was somewhat apologetic. They simply began to walk away. I saw a community support officer and told him what happened. He stopped them and got their information. The police also showed up to have a look at the bite. I was told that they couldn’t press charges because the dog was on a lead. The only action I could take was to file a complaint. They told me if I did the police would go around and check the dog. A test would be taken to determine if it was a Pit-bull. If so, it would have been taken away and destroyed. As a dog owner, I couldn’t face that so I dropped it. If dog licenses were mandatory I feel that rubbish like this wouldn’t happen. This couple were clearly breeding these dogs and I’m sure the pups would make there way into the wrong hands.
I’ve seen a bumper sticker in the States regarding dangerous dogs – Punish the deed not the breed. The thought of muzzling all dogs is a bit much. If owners of these dogs suffered the consequences of their dogs actions, I think this would go a long way to dealing with it . Not all dogs need muzzles.

[Eagle]

I go back again and again to Enforcement. The minority of dodgy dog owners could not care less about the law.

How would you enforce Licenses ?

You say the Police could not prosecute because on a lead. Surely this is rubbish and must be changed

[japesy]

A friend's cat was recently mauled and killed by a staff in Beechfield Rd Catford. The dog was off the lead and was with a young man on a bmx who didn't call the dog off during the attack. This was reported to the rspca and the police who would like to take it further but cannot because they do not know where the dog lives. I have also heard of another more recent attack on a cat in/near Vancouver Rd Forest Hill. I would be interested to know the description of the dog and its owner in the Sydenham incident in case they were involved in the other attacks.