Dog licensing No10 petition

downfader
downfader Posts: 3,686
edited November 2008 in Commuting chat
Bear with me.. this is commuting related.. I saw a couple of recent threads here about dogs getting nippy towards cyclists and moron owners so thought I would point you all to this:

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/dog-licences/

Perhaps if we cyclists spread this link about it would be a start. I have signed it myself, both as a cyclist and an animal lover. Infact it might be good if non-cyclists sign too. :)

Comments

  • Onan
    Onan Posts: 321
    I signed it. While I was there I signed a petition to take away thatchers right to a state funeral.

    Although I should point out, I'll be very much in favour of a state funeral if they bury her alive.
    Drink poison. Wrestle snakes.
  • downfader
    downfader Posts: 3,686
    Onan wrote:
    I signed it. While I was there I signed a petition to take away thatchers right to a state funeral.

    Although I should point out, I'll be very much in favour of a state funeral if they bury her alive.

    LOL! Tbh I dont mind if she gets a state funeral - even though I remember her and her policies well.

    Theres a good one to give a state funeral for the "last tommy" too, so look that one up. :wink:
  • Cunobelin
    Cunobelin Posts: 11,792
    Onan wrote:
    I signed it. While I was there I signed a petition to take away thatchers right to a state funeral.

    Although I should point out, I'll be very much in favour of a state funeral if they bury her alive.

    Slightly OT, but it was Bliar suggesting this in order to justify his own - Thatcher has never sought the occasion.
    <b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
    He that buys flesh buys many bones.
    He that buys eggs buys many shells,
    But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
    (Unattributed Trad.)
  • Cunobelin wrote:
    Onan wrote:
    I signed it. While I was there I signed a petition to take away thatchers right to a state funeral.

    Although I should point out, I'll be very much in favour of a state funeral if they bury her alive.

    Slightly OT, but it was Bliar suggesting this in order to justify his own - Thatcher has never sought the occasion.
    ...and the second bullet came from the grassy knoll.
  • are you gonna sign this one too downfader? http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/BikeLicense/

    It's just as stupid as yours.
  • I would have signed this one, but it was rejected for some reason. Lousy Number 10.

    Pedro
    Giant TCR Advanced II - Reviewed on my homepage
    Giant TCR Alliance Zero
    BMC teammachineSLR03
    The Departed
    Giant SCR2
    Canyon Roadlite
    Specialized Allez
    Some other junk...
  • Crapaud
    Crapaud Posts: 2,483
    downfader wrote:
    Bear with me.. this is commuting related.. ...
    It's a bit of a tenuous connection, but if it's connected to cycling at all it's relevant to all cyclists. I'd have posted in Campaign or Soapbox.

    Anyway, it'd make no difference - a twonk with a dog, car, taxi, bike etc. will still be a twonk, licence or not.
    A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject - Churchill
  • I think the argument against dog licences is that it will cost people who already look after their dogs a lot of money and the chap with tatooed knuckles who keeps a pit bull in the garden MAY not get a license. Additionally, a dog licence isn't intended to enforce which side of a pavement they should walk, or how well a dog is trained, etc.

    Honestly, in the UK we are chronically over regulated already.
  • gtvlusso
    gtvlusso Posts: 5,112
    It will never happen - like making cyclists have a licence to ride a bike....won't stop bad cycling/cyclists!
  • downfader
    downfader Posts: 3,686
    I dont think it will solve everythng, but it will be one more nail in the coffin when they prosecute numpties with dangerous dogs after they've attacked. You would also know where said dog belongs, or rather the dog warden/police would.

    And avoidingmyphd, if thats your real name :wink::lol: If you have a better solution then I'm all ears. I also think oneday down the line, as much as we dislike the idea, we will be licensed cyclists with plates, but thats a different story for another day.
  • I don't mind admitting I don't have a better solution.

    But I don't think licensing is the answer. - it won't change the behaviour of the numpties, but will be additional hassle for responsible dog owners (like me., so I end up paying for other people's transgressions in effect)). Exactly the same as licensing for bikes. You may think that too is inevitable, but that's not the same as it being a good thing.

    Incidentally, it's already a legal requirement that dogs are labelled with their owner's identity.
  • gtvlusso
    gtvlusso Posts: 5,112
    It's one of those things where the few spoil it for the many.....I am a dog owner and I am very careful to make sure that my dog does not interfere in anyone else's life - she may be a loved pet, but she is still a dog and as such second class. She has been attacked by dangerous dogs before as have I, it is simply not the dog, but the owner and people like the owners that I have seen will simply flount the law and not give a sh1t anway....they will have a dog one way or the other and will treat the animal badly - probably the same way they treat their kids (the ones that very kindly keyed my car last night)....It is very sad and the RSPCA do their best to prosecute, as do the Rozzas - but it will continue to happen whether it is licenced or not. You may as well try and licence people to have kids....
  • downfader
    downfader Posts: 3,686
    I don't mind admitting I don't have a better solution.

    But I don't think licensing is the answer. - it won't change the behaviour of the numpties, but will be additional hassle for responsible dog owners (like me., so I end up paying for other people's transgressions in effect)). Exactly the same as licensing for bikes. You may think that too is inevitable, but that's not the same as it being a good thing.

    Incidentally, it's already a legal requirement that dogs are labelled with their owner's identity.

    Ah well, I respect your opnion even if I dont agree with it. :)
  • I'm with avoidingmyphd on this one, a licensing system won't stop the numpties or those with evil intent from having nasty dogs or dog-fighting or similar, rather it will cause additional cost and hassle to those of us who do have dogs, discipline them appropriately and look after them.
  • gtvlusso wrote:
    You may as well try and licence people to have kids....

    Now that I do support... many people's kids are far more dangerous than my dogs.
  • gtvlusso wrote:
    You may as well try and licence people to have kids....

    Similarly, voting could be made more diffiuclt. You know, maybe a simple sudoku on the ballot paper.

    Obviously, this might cut off voting rights to vast swathes of the population, so to make up for it, we could allow other mammals to have a go.
  • gtvlusso wrote:
    You may as well try and licence people to have kids....

    Similarly, voting could be made more diffiuclt. You know, maybe a simple sudoku on the ballot paper.

    Obviously, this might cut off voting rights to vast swathes of the population, so to make up for it, we could allow other mammals to have a go.

    :lol::lol:
  • I'd shoot on sight any dog in public without a nappy, or rub the owners noses in their offal. I HATE people who seem to think it's alright to allow a dog to go for a sh1te in a public place. I really hate them. Reall Really Really.
    Dan
  • daniel_b
    daniel_b Posts: 11,753
    edited November 2008
    We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Provide every person of 70 years of age with a Grey Squirrel.

    Thankyou pedro, that one nearly made me cry :lol:
    Maybe I am easily amused....

    Hows about fitting dogs with tax discs?
    And they could have an annual MOT to test there emissions.

    Dan
    Felt F70 05 (Turbo)
    Marin Palisades Trail 91 and 06
    Scott CR1 SL 12
    Cannondale Synapse Adventure 15 & 16 Di2
    Scott Foil 18
  • gtvlusso wrote:
    You may as well try and licence people to have kids....

    Similarly, voting could be made more diffiuclt. You know, maybe a simple sudoku on the ballot paper.

    Obviously, this might cut off voting rights to vast swathes of the population, so to make up for it, we could allow other mammals to have a go.

    Swift (satirically) said that calculus should be used as the measure of sentience and then went on to justify eating the children of the poor and making their skin into gloves for ladies...

    Personally I'm all for intelligence based vote weighting.
  • I wonder how that would effect the result....

    I developed a theory some time ago that the younger/better-looking person has won the election for some years, let me expand.

    2005 Tony Blair beats Michael Howard
    2001 Tony Blair beats William Hague
    1997 Tony Blair beats John Major
    1992 Major beats Kinnock
    1987 Thatcher beats Kinnock
    1983 Thatcher beats Michael foot (who looks liek a supervillain)
    1979 Thatcher beats Callaghan...

    I know there were other aspects, but if you take it at face value (god I'm funny) I think it's quite interesting...maybe the public think that the PM is the face of their country...
  • gtvlusso wrote:
    You may as well try and licence people to have kids....

    Similarly, voting could be made more diffiuclt. You know, maybe a simple sudoku on the ballot paper.

    Obviously, this might cut off voting rights to vast swathes of the population, so to make up for it, we could allow other mammals to have a go.

    Swift (satirically) said that calculus should be used as the measure of sentience and then went on to justify eating the children of the poor and making their skin into gloves for ladies...

    Personally I'm all for intelligence based vote weighting.
    I think certain other workers have extended an aparrently perfectly reasonable chains of logic to justify certain other....extreme....positions.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Eysenck
  • gtvlusso wrote:
    You may as well try and licence people to have kids....

    Similarly, voting could be made more diffiuclt. You know, maybe a simple sudoku on the ballot paper.

    Obviously, this might cut off voting rights to vast swathes of the population, so to make up for it, we could allow other mammals to have a go.

    Swift (satirically) said that calculus should be used as the measure of sentience and then went on to justify eating the children of the poor and making their skin into gloves for ladies...

    Personally I'm all for intelligence based vote weighting.

    Well that would put paid to sarah palin which can only be a good thing.
    Dan
  • pintoo
    pintoo Posts: 145
    Agree with the general thrust of most responses. I'm not a dog owner, but I think that regulation never addresses the core issue of personal responsibility. I'm not for more red tape, especially as the people who need to monitored are the ones who don't follow the rules anyway. The most dangerous drivers are seldom the ones with MOTs, insurance etc. but those flouting the rules. As lost_in_thought says, it only has an overall negative effect on those who do the right thing and no effect on those who don't.