Dogs
Comments
-
And you know this how exactly??millymoose wrote:BelgianBeerGeek wrote:
Most of those I know who have dogs really can't be ar**d to look after them, and treat them as kids and spoil them.
I suggest you get to know some different people. ''Most' owners are actually very good and have the animals interest at heart - the people you know are clearly tw@ts
Staffie's are 'mainly' rescue dogs, rescued from mainly tw@ts. There's a pattern here, mainly tw@ts like these dogs.
Im just quoting you when I say 'tw@t'Pinno, מלך אידיוט וחרא מכונאי0 -
seanoconn wrote:
And you know this how exactly??millymoose wrote:BelgianBeerGeek wrote:
Most of those I know who have dogs really can't be ar**d to look after them, and treat them as kids and spoil them.
I suggest you get to know some different people. ''Most' owners are actually very good and have the animals interest at heart - the people you know are clearly tw@ts
Staffie's are 'mainly' rescue dogs, rescued from mainly tw@ts. There's a pattern here, mainly tw@ts like these dogs.
Im just quoting you when I say 'tw@t'
no that is not true - the one size fits all view ignores how good these dogs are - and with kids, and the fact that people writing off the bread encourages more to abandon them. However there are thankfully many many more not in rescue centres than unfortunately homed in them. Writing off the breed is like stopping selling bikes because some owners jump red lights. The dogs can be a handful if not trained (so can any dog) but they are amazing dogs and BIG funhttp://veloviewer.com/SigImage.php?a=3370a&r=3&c=5&u=M&g=p&f=abcdefghij&z=a.png
Wiliers: Cento Uno/Superleggera R and Zero 7. Bianchi Infinito CV and Oltre XR20 -
I believe Staffies have a reputation for being good family dogs but not good with other dogs. My niece has one, not my choice of dog because I like my dogs to be sociable with other dogs. My dog (as opposed to my b1tch) is a bit of a faggot who only plays with other "boy" dogs and then ruins it by trying to sh@g them.
I also won't let him on the beach if there are children playing. Not because he will hurt them directly but because he has a fondness for p1ssing on sandcastles. I think he sees himself as a moat filler.0 -
Nice post Zero.ILM Zero7 wrote:seanoconn wrote:
And you know this how exactly??millymoose wrote:BelgianBeerGeek wrote:
Most of those I know who have dogs really can't be ar**d to look after them, and treat them as kids and spoil them.
I suggest you get to know some different people. ''Most' owners are actually very good and have the animals interest at heart - the people you know are clearly tw@ts
Staffie's are 'mainly' rescue dogs, rescued from mainly tw@ts. There's a pattern here, mainly tw@ts like these dogs.
Im just quoting you when I say 'tw@t'
no that is not true - the one size fits all view ignores how good these dogs are - and with kids, and the fact that people writing off the bread encourages more to abandon them. However there are thankfully many many more not in rescue centres than unfortunately homed in them. Writing off the breed is like stopping selling bikes because some owners jump red lights. The dogs can be a handful if not trained (so can any dog) but they are amazing dogs and BIG fun
And again, I don't think anyone is suggesting STB's are anything but lovely dogs by nature.
But you have to admit there is a problem with this breed attracting irresponsible owners. Admiting there is a problem and acting on it, would benefit the breed and responsible Staffie owners.Pinno, מלך אידיוט וחרא מכונאי0 -
seanoconn wrote:
Nice post Zero.ILM Zero7 wrote:seanoconn wrote:
And you know this how exactly??millymoose wrote:BelgianBeerGeek wrote:
Most of those I know who have dogs really can't be ar**d to look after them, and treat them as kids and spoil them.
I suggest you get to know some different people. ''Most' owners are actually very good and have the animals interest at heart - the people you know are clearly tw@ts
Staffie's are 'mainly' rescue dogs, rescued from mainly tw@ts. There's a pattern here, mainly tw@ts like these dogs.
Im just quoting you when I say 'tw@t'
no that is not true - the one size fits all view ignores how good these dogs are - and with kids, and the fact that people writing off the bread encourages more to abandon them. However there are thankfully many many more not in rescue centres than unfortunately homed in them. Writing off the breed is like stopping selling bikes because some owners jump red lights. The dogs can be a handful if not trained (so can any dog) but they are amazing dogs and BIG fun
And again, I don't think anyone is suggesting STB's are anything but lovely dogs by nature.
But you have to admit there is a problem with this breed attracting irresponsible owners. Admiting there is a problem and acting on it, would benefit the breed and responsible Staffie owners.
This is true they have become over popularised and chavvy, they are the Pinarello of the dog world0 -
Lookyhere wrote:i d like to see cyclist licences, retrictions on max number of bikes registered at an address - i suggest ONE -
money raised from the licence @ £500 -would be used to employ many many more traffic wardens to enforce the existing laws on cyclists which around here is endemic.
fines would be draconian - ALL cyclists should stay on cycle paths at ALL times and ALL cyclists forced to pay for the treatment of any injuries, so compulsory insurance as well.
there would be no dangerous cyclists any more as these controls would ensure the safety of the general public.
oh and im not a cyclist hater (bought up with bikes and cycled as well) i just dislike the vast majority of bike "lovers" who seem to think the rest of us should love their bikes (and the lycra they wear) as much as they seem to think they do.
[Insert link to Daily Mail article here.]
If this was Lookyhere's post this thread would be 5 pages of people flaming him. Yet the people in agreement are just churning out the same subjective, opinionated and ill-conceived arguments you see in the comments section on any DM article lambasting cyclists.
It's quite saddening to see such hypocrisy and narrow mindedness on a cycling forum.
Rob0 -
^^^ Why is it prejudiced and narrow-minded to want to make sure that potentially dangerous dogs end up in the hands of responsible owners only? The measures must be proportionate to the risk involved. I accept that I need a licence to drive a car, for example, because that's a one tonne lump of metal that can legally be driven at speeds of up to 70 mph. Similarly, some breeds of dogs are natural predators with extremely powerful bites and I would say that those breeds which do pose the highest POTENTIAL threat should require a licence, although maybe not an expensive one.0
-
0
-
Ber Nard wrote:Lookyhere wrote:i d like to see cyclist licences, retrictions on max number of bikes registered at an address - i suggest ONE -
money raised from the licence @ £500 -would be used to employ many many more traffic wardens to enforce the existing laws on cyclists which around here is endemic.
fines would be draconian - ALL cyclists should stay on cycle paths at ALL times and ALL cyclists forced to pay for the treatment of any injuries, so compulsory insurance as well.
there would be no dangerous cyclists any more as these controls would ensure the safety of the general public.
oh and im not a cyclist hater (bought up with bikes and cycled as well) i just dislike the vast majority of bike "lovers" who seem to think the rest of us should love their bikes (and the lycra they wear) as much as they seem to think they do.
[Insert link to Daily Mail article here.]
If this was Lookyhere's post this thread would be 5 pages of people flaming him. Yet the people in agreement are just churning out the same subjective, opinionated and ill-conceived arguments you see in the comments section on any DM article lambasting cyclists.
It's quite saddening to see such hypocrisy and narrow mindedness on a cycling forum.
Rob
You are completely wrong....unattended bicycles dont kill people nor do they blind children or randomly hospitalise 1000s of people a year, a bicycle left in a park isnt going to suddenly get up and scare the cxxp out of a child when it decides to bark at a toddler...."oh hes never done that before"
Different brands of bike are not more dangerous than others and cross breeding such as mixing Shimano with Campag is frowned upon.....
what you all and the so called dog lovers have pretty much failed to do (and this is because they dont see any propblems with their behavior) is address the concerns of many many people about the growing number of dog attacks and the amount of dog mess left lying around.
Not too mention the "dog lover" up the road from me who leaves her dog chained up all day barking
Instead of flaming me, come up with your own suggestions or state the case there is no issue and i ve got it completely wrong? because all i see is the pro dog lobby slaggin me off and nothing more.0 -
I imagine Lockyhere's intention is to polarize views. It's an easy viewpoint to take as it avoids empirical questioning and doesn't aid a solution.Ber Nard wrote:Lookyhere wrote:i d like to see cyclist licences, retrictions on max number of bikes registered at an address - i suggest ONE -
money raised from the licence @ £500 -would be used to employ many many more traffic wardens to enforce the existing laws on cyclists which around here is endemic.
fines would be draconian - ALL cyclists should stay on cycle paths at ALL times and ALL cyclists forced to pay for the treatment of any injuries, so compulsory insurance as well.
there would be no dangerous cyclists any more as these controls would ensure the safety of the general public.
oh and im not a cyclist hater (bought up with bikes and cycled as well) i just dislike the vast majority of bike "lovers" who seem to think the rest of us should love their bikes (and the lycra they wear) as much as they seem to think they do.
[Insert link to Daily Mail article here.]
If this was Lookyhere's post this thread would be 5 pages of people flaming him. Yet the people in agreement are just churning out the same subjective, opinionated and ill-conceived arguments you see in the comments section on any DM article lambasting cyclists.
It's quite saddening to see such hypocrisy and narrow mindedness on a cycling forum.
Rob
Thankfully, policy generally isn't based upon such simple views but it concerns me when it does and the cost, encompassing financial and the lives of humans and pets, in unravelling such stupidity.0 -
@johnfinch
Any dog can be a danger. To think you need only fear Staffys, Alsations etc. is naive. All dogs have an inherent instinct to kill. Now they have become domesticated they are much more a product of their environment and that comes down to the owner, not the dog. Any dog if provoked will snap and even a dog the size of Jack Russell could give a child a nasty bite.
If you propose licenses for certain breeds, what will you do about mongrels? As with cycling, there are too many grey areas. The old dog licence was scrapped and I haven't known of a government that thinks it'd make sense to reintroduce it
@Lookyhere
You're missing my point. I agree that there are people out there wholly unsuited to dog ownership. But just because you've seen a dog sh!t on a pavement or read a horror story in a newspaper doesn't mean every dog owner should be punished. There are fines for dog fouling and most dogs that attack people are destroyed. There are people wholly unsuited to riding a bike. But just because you see someone jump a red light or hear about a cyclist hitting/killing a pedestrian doesn't mean that every cyclist should be licensed. Please note the distinction between cyclist and bike just as there is a distinction between owner and dog.0 -
Ber Nard wrote:@johnfinchAny dog can be a danger. To think you need only fear Staffys, Alsations etc. is naive. All dogs have an inherent instinct to kill. Now they have become domesticated they are much more a product of their environment and that comes down to the owner, not the dog. Any dog if provoked will snap and even a dog the size of Jack Russell could give a child a nasty bite.
I know that all dogs still have that instinct, but you then have to do a bit of statistical analysis - how many dogs of each breed are there in the country and how many serious injuries and deaths are caused by the different breeds over, say, a decade? That's why I said that those with the highest potential threat should need a licence to own, not just any that pose a potential threat.Ber Nard wrote:If you propose licenses for certain breeds, what will you do about mongrels? As with cycling, there are too many grey areas. The old dog licence was scrapped and I haven't known of a government that thinks it'd make sense to reintroduce it
You would have to ask dog breeding experts about that one.0 -
Double post.0
-
@ Rob - just because an opinion differs from yours doesn't make it narrow minded or hypocritical! Why is your opinion any more important than Lookyhere's or mine?
@ Billy Mansell -Thankfully, policy generally isn't based upon such simple views but it concerns me when it does and the cost, encompassing financial and the lives of humans and pets, in unravelling such stupidity.
You can bet your ar$e if that was a child of someone in the Govt (or back hands the Govt) who was killed in a dog attack, there'd be a policy written to control the ownership of dogs asap!
As for likening a cyclist to a dog - how ridiculous... how many times have you heard on the news about a cyclist attacking and killing someone? How many cyclists are breed for illegal cyclist fighting? How many times have you stood in cyclist sh!t on the pavement? Postmen don't refuse to deliver parcels to houses where cyclists live!
I like dogs and I have owned one. I picked up her mess, I kept her on a lead, I took her for regular walks, stopped her from barking / howling when at home and muzzled her in public. She was a border collie and very gentle, but there was no way I would ever leave her alone with my children because she was a dog who is genetically programmed as a pack animal which hunts and kills.
I know several people who own dogs and are responsible. I also know people who are the exact opposite. Introducing a licence and tagging for all dogs might help with this problem - if owners know they could face fines etc for allowing their dogs to misbehave or act dangerously, they may take a bit more care and responsibility. Its all very well destroying a dangerous animal after an attack, but that's not going to bring back the persons its killed.
Put yourselves in the shoes of that poor girl, she must have been petrified and there was nothing she could do to defend herself. Or put yourself in the shoes of the parents... then I'd bet anyone would want something done to prevent this type of incident from happening again.0 -
I look back at the Thatcher years and her experience of an aid being late leading to the creation of bad policy and the CSA, but then you say,Jinx9 wrote:@ Billy Mansell -Thankfully, policy generally isn't based upon such simple views but it concerns me when it does and the cost, encompassing financial and the lives of humans and pets, in unravelling such stupidity.
You can bet your ar$e if that was a child of someone in the Govt (or back hands the Govt) who was killed in a dog attack, there'd be a policy written to control the ownership of dogs asap!
resulting to a emotional defence for the creation of policy. You are appaled by a system of policy by favoritsm and yet you're for it. You can't be both.Put yourselves in the shoes of that poor girl, she must have been petrified and there was nothing she could do to defend herself. Or put yourself in the shoes of the parents... then I'd bet anyone would want something done to prevent this type of incident from happening again.0 -
Hold on! so what are you proposing Billy ? do nothing or something? even dog charities are calling for new legislation....how can a child be mauled to death on private land and yet there is no offence committed?
What would be your view if it were your child that went blind because of dog mess, at least cats bury the stuff, who here has stepped in cats shxt on the pavement?
The csa has nothing to do with it, control of dogs is easy peasy - licences, tagging and if you ve neither, the dog pound, destroy them.
Its political will thats missing, there are now sooooo many dog owners, there is nt votes in it.0 -
No, I would suggest removing emotion from policy decision making. Reference to the CSA has everything to do with it as it highlights what can happen when emotion leads policymamba80 wrote:Hold on! so what are you proposing Billy ? do nothing or something? even dog charities are calling for new legislation....how can a child be mauled to death on private land and yet there is no offence committed?
What would be your view if it were your child that went blind because of dog mess, at least cats bury the stuff, who here has stepped in cats shxt on the pavement?
The csa has nothing to do with it, control of dogs is easy peasy - licences, tagging and if you ve neither, the dog pound, destroy them.
Its political will thats missing, there are now sooooo many dog owners, there is nt votes in it.
decision.0 -
Staffie owner - love him to bits
so lets blow a few misconceptions:
1 his as soft as sh!T
2 he is not the only dog in the household, nor is he "topdog"
3 many visitors think he is scary - and he would be protective IF there was trouble, so I dont do anything to change that perception as part of his job is to protect my wife
4 i dont have any problem with a licence returning, I regret its scrapping, and don't see it as a threat - however those who have a 'chav' attitude to such dogs probably dont insure or tax their car so why would they licence their dog?
5 i dont want to muzzle my dog, my last one was attacked by another bread when he was old and a muzzled dog cant defend itself
6 he goes on a lead if there are strangers around
7 a staffie is not a pitbull - dont write them off as if they were
8 they are no worse, in fact less aggressive than a Rottweiler or Doberman (or any dog which is unchecked)
9 dogs are NOT killing machines - any more than we are still apes in trees - its called evolution
10 the dogs are chipped, and tagged - they would be licenced too if that was the law - but like so many laws these are things the responsible ones comply with and the reckless ignore
but I agree:
the bread attracts irresponsible owners, but that is no reason to penalize the dog or responsible owners from having them.
some dogs have a stigma, much of it whipped by the media - this does not help, and over-protective parents teach a fear of dogs into kids, which makes their behaviour alarming to dogs - and causes aggressiveness
owners and parents are to blame in some cases - why did the parents leave this girl with these dogs? just like the recent incident when a girl was bitten by a fox - why was she alone at home the the door open ?http://veloviewer.com/SigImage.php?a=3370a&r=3&c=5&u=M&g=p&f=abcdefghij&z=a.png
Wiliers: Cento Uno/Superleggera R and Zero 7. Bianchi Infinito CV and Oltre XR20 -
Jinx9 wrote:@ Rob - just because an opinion differs from yours doesn't make it narrow minded or hypocritical! Why is your opinion any more important than Lookyhere's or mine?
@ Billy Mansell -
Introducing a licence and tagging for all dogs might help with this problem - if owners know they could face fines etc for allowing their dogs to misbehave or act dangerously, they may take a bit more care and responsibility. Its all very well destroying a dangerous animal after an attack, but that's not going to bring back the persons its killed.Thankfully, policy generally isn't based upon such simple views but it concerns me when it does and the cost, encompassing financial and the lives of humans and pets, in unravelling such stupidity.
.
well lets ban cars then, they are killing machines, they kill more people each week than dogs do in a year, and we should take them all away because "chrushing the car after it has run down the pedestrian isn't going to bring back the person killed"http://veloviewer.com/SigImage.php?a=3370a&r=3&c=5&u=M&g=p&f=abcdefghij&z=a.png
Wiliers: Cento Uno/Superleggera R and Zero 7. Bianchi Infinito CV and Oltre XR20 -
In this thread we have had dogs likened to men, to bikes and to cars. Now the CSA is getting involved FFS :!:
Are you sure we haven't crossed over to this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y0 -
Ballysmate wrote:In this thread we have had dogs likened to men, to bikes and to cars. Now the CSA is getting involved FFS :!:
Are you sure we haven't crossed over to this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y
yes. Pinno, מלך אידיוט וחרא מכונאי0 -
As fas as dog shit being dangerous goes - cats are the most common cause of people getting toxoplasmosis so if the argument is about that then all cats will have to be kept caged or on a lead.
If the argument is about dog bites - then show me a policy that would actually lead to a reduction that is based on reliable statistics and not tabloid headlines. Just buying a dog licence just means you get bitten by a dog with a licence. As the owner of two dogs - both microchipped - I wouldn't fork out for an annual licence if it was just a tax on dog owners with no other purpose - you can guarantee the majority of other people wouldn't either - which is why the original one was scrapped.
On a different point, breed specific legislation is difficult to implement because, as has been pointed out, how do you identify what is or isn't a breed ? I saw a bloke with two pitbulls walking them past my house the other week - and I know the difference between a pitbull and a staffy I've been to shows of both breeds years back. Now if they can't even enforce the laws that exist how are they going to cope introducing new ones ? I still say staffies are one of the most reliable dogs - I've seriously never met one I was nervous of - can't say the same for some other breeds - father in law has an american bulldog and I wouldn't trust my kids in the house with it.
it's a hard life if you don't weaken.0 -
Jinx9 wrote:@ Rob - just because an opinion differs from yours doesn't make it narrow minded or hypocritical! Why is your opinion any more important than Lookyhere's or mine?
I pointed out that insisting that ALL dogs should muzzled and licensed because of a relatively small number of incidents/thoughtless owners is applying the same logic as insisting ALL cyclists should have licences and insurance because of a relatively small number of lawbreaking cyclists. Agreeing with one statement but not the other is hypocritical.
Paying for a bit of paper entitling you to own a dog won't stop it from sh!tting on the pavement or attacking someone. And it won't change the mentality of someone who can't/won't look after a dog properly.
Rob0 -
seanoconn wrote:Ballysmate wrote:In this thread we have had dogs likened to men, to bikes and to cars. Now the CSA is getting involved FFS :!:
Are you sure we haven't crossed over to this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y yes.
No it isn't."The Prince of Wales is now the King of France" - Calton Kirby0 -
ben@31 wrote:seanoconn wrote:Ballysmate wrote:In this thread we have had dogs likened to men, to bikes and to cars. Now the CSA is getting involved FFS :!:
Are you sure we haven't crossed over to this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y yes.
No it isn't. 0 -
Tom Butcher wrote:If the argument is about dog bites - then show me a policy that would actually lead to a reduction that is based on reliable statistics and not tabloid headlines. Just buying a dog licence just means you get bitten by a dog with a licence.
Same as a driving licence - learn how to handle a dog responsibly, take test, get licence. If your dog then attacks somebody because you've trained it badly/deliberately to be aggressive, you get your licence taken off you and there should be a massive fine to deter people from owning a dog once the licence has been removed. Presumption of innocence should be respected, of course.0 -
Lookyhere wrote:i d like to see a return to cycle licences, retrictions on max number of bikes registered at an address - i suggest ONE -
money raised from the licence @ £500 -would be used to employ many many more policemen to enforce the existing road traffic laws breach of which around here is endemic.
fines would be draconian - ALL would cyclists fitted with GPS at ALL times to ensure they obey rules and ALL cyclists forced to pay for the treatment of their collisions, so compulsory insurance as well.
there would be no dangerous cyclists any more as these controls would ensure the safety of the general public.
oh and im not a cyclist hater (bought up with cyclists in the family and went to school with a lot with them as well) i just dislike the vast majority of "cyclists" who seem to think the rest of us should love their bikes (and the lycra they produce) as much as they seem to think they do.
Fixed that for you. :roll: Ah - I've seen someone else has already done it :oops:
Some dicks are, well dicks. Whether they ride a bike, drive a car, own a dog or just are....
I don't disagree, some people shouldn't be allowed to look after dogs. But a licence isn't going to stop bad dog owners - look at car drivers. Increased regulation - why are you putting a financial threshold on people owning dogs - it isn't just kids that don't pick up after dogs, in the same way as you get assos man in London jumping red lights on his Venge.http://www.georgesfoundation.org
http://100hillsforgeorge.blogspot.com/
http://www.12on12in12.blogspot.co.uk/0 -
I'm not a dog lover. Been scared of them all my life, even the soppy ones. Yeah, it's pathetic, but I'm not likely to get over it at my age
As you can imagine, I can see all the points for tighter legislation on certain breeds, and dogsh*t is one of my all time hates (especially as one is regularly sh***ing outside my front door - see other thread :evil:)
But...... I just don't see anything changing from how it is now.
Pitbulls are supposed to be illegal and yet walk around any estate in Manchester and you will see one or more before very long. It is very difficult to prove the breed is not a mongrel, and the police either do not have the resorces or the inclination to do anything about them (Yes some ARE removed if there are a few complaints but it is extremely rare!) Some Staffies are tall and some are short legged. Won't their owners claim they are mongrels too?
Some dog owners (on a similar discussion) told me that it actually against the law to have a dog off the lead in a public place NOW! Can't see it ever being enforced. Same goes for the s**t too unfortunately,
Is the "chav" owner (as opposed to the responsible one) ever going to bother to get his dog chipped and registered? Anyone owning a bull breed as a status symbol would surely see it as a bit of a plus to flout the registration too :roll:
The thing that is common with a large majority dog owners though, is that they genuinely believe that their animal will never be any kind of threat to anyone else. "It's ok, he doesn't bite" they shout cheerily as fido runs around snapping and barking in a wild frenzy! No pal, he doesn't bite YOU
(The majority of dog owners reading this will simply reject that as a "dog hater" myth! Chaps, your best mate is far more likely to bite someone else than you, honestly!)
Accidents do happen, and I don't actually believe that these breeds bite any more people than other dogs, but the difference is that when they do, they have the power and tenacity to do a lot more damage and then it is national headlines.
Despite not being a dog lover myself, I wouldn't like to deny others that pleasure, especially the decent majority.
But personally I do think there needs to be tighter controls on who owns these types of dog (who actually needs a pitbull/mastiff, and why?) and it would be better if more dog owners were to admit there might be a growing problem, and get involved and help find a solution.
For what it's worth, I think there should be tighter legislation to stop people just buying any kind of animal without showing some kind of knowledge on how to care for it correctly, as there are a lot of idiots out there. And I would like to see problem people destroyed, but I think that may be another topic :? 0 -
A trip to your local magistrate's court wil show you just HOW massive a problem unlicenced and uninsured drivers are....johnfinch wrote:Same as a driving licence - learn how to handle a dog responsibly, take test, get licence. If your dog then attacks somebody because you've trained it badly/deliberately to be aggressive, you get your licence taken off you and there should be a massive fine to deter people from owning a dog once the licence has been removed.
(from a DM article):With 34million vehicles and 43 million drivers using UK roads, the report showed that:
1.2 per cent of drivers stopped , or more than half a million (516,000) were uninsured.
2.2 per cent of vehicles stopped - or nearly three quarters of a million ( 748,000) - had illegal registration plates using unlawful fonts or incorrect spacing.
1.5 per cent of cars stopped cars, equivalent to more than half a million (510,000) vehicles, did not have a MOT certificate of roadworthiness.
1 per cent of vehicles - 340,000 - were evading road tax (Vehicle Excise Duty).
And 0.8 per cent of drivers - 344,000 - did not have a valid licencehttp://www.georgesfoundation.org
http://100hillsforgeorge.blogspot.com/
http://www.12on12in12.blogspot.co.uk/0 -
wow, u guys must have too much time on your hands, this is a thread for posting on when u are bored at work, not at the weekend!
i bet quite a few dog bite hospital visits are simply the result of the namby pamby country we now live in, with people wasting hospital/doctor time with a little sniffle.
some dogs are more dangerous and likely/capable of causing more harm than others. just like some humans are more equal than others.0
