Girl savaged to death by dogs in Manchester

[St Helens Blue (Exiled)]

Unfortunately as the incident was in the confines of the owners private home and it appears the dogs were not one of the 4 specific "banned" dogs,the dog owner is immune from prosecution.

Serious question and I'm talking in theory and nothing whatsoever to do with this or any other incident that has actually happened.

Are you saying if someone was on your property and you encouraged your dog to attack or even kill them, then as long as the dog wasn't one of the four banned breeds, you will have commited no crime?

If you encourage a dog to attack someone whether it is in public or private then this is a totally different scenario mate. A dog can be classed as a weapon and if you use it as that then of course you can be prosecuted.
However in this scenario,Jade was in the home alone and the dogs attacked her pal. It appears there was no other persons in the address at the time. The dogs involved are not on the dangerous dogs list if what is being reported is true.

 

[wayne71]

I just cannot see the point in owning any kind of dog that can cause the kind of damage things like bull mastiffs and staffies can unless you're in to hunting or something. Almost always seems to be the same type of people that own these dogs as well.

If you want a pet then get a cocker spaniel or a hamster.

Re-read my post above Wayne...

Staffies are such loving animals, it's the human that infiltrates this breed and makes them disgusting.

I went to an house before I bought Otis (my staffie) in Rochdale.
This Pakistani guy hated dogs, he even said it, yet he owned a 2bed council house where nobody lived in it except rows of cages all full of staffies and other breeds.

His sole intention was to make profit.

Before I left I asked him: would you cross breed that Staffie woman you have with an American Pit for me? you'd sell those pups easy...

His reply? Yes no problem my friend,we can do business.

I'm not doubting you or your dog but I cannot see why anyone would want such an animal. If you want a dog there are far less dangerous breeds to own.

Do you realise that a lot of people with 'normal' breeds of dogs shit themselves when some staffie or mastiff comes bounding up to their dog or their kids? Its usually followed by the old 'its harmless mate' or 'its only playing'. I dont care just keep the fucking thing away.<br /><br />-- Wed Mar 27, 2013 2:42 pm --<br /><br />

To me it will always be how the dog's are brought up and not what type of dog they are.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xsWyRyuZJI&list=UUsG8ibSlBfqo6eReDlgqeMw&index=3[/youtube]

Thats great pal, I can show you a youtube vid of a a fully grown lion licking a blokes face but I wouldn't want one in my garden.

 

[mindmyp's_n_q's]

I just cannot see the point in owning any kind of dog that can cause the kind of damage things like bull mastiffs and staffies can unless you're in to hunting or something. Almost always seems to be the same type of people that own these dogs as well.

If you want a pet then get a cocker spaniel or a hamster.

Re-read my post above Wayne...

Staffies are such loving animals, it's the human that infiltrates this breed and makes them disgusting.

I went to an house before I bought Otis (my staffie) in Rochdale.
This Pakistani guy hated dogs, he even said it, yet he owned a 2bed council house where nobody lived in it except rows of cages all full of staffies and other breeds.

His sole intention was to make profit.

Before I left I asked him: would you cross breed that Staffie woman you have with an American Pit for me? you'd sell those pups easy...

His reply? Yes no problem my friend,we can do business.

I'm not doubting you or your dog but I cannot see why anyone would want such an animal. If you want a dog there are far less dangerous breeds to own.

Do you realise that a lot of people with 'normal' breeds of dogs shit themselves when some staffie or mastiff comes bounding up to their dog or their kids? Its usually followed by the old 'its harmless mate' or 'its only playing'. I dont care just keep the fucking thing away.

-- Wed Mar 27, 2013 2:42 pm --

They must be uneducated dog owners then. As the staffie is one of only two dogs out of 194 breeds that are recommended as suitable with children by the kennel club the other being a Chesapeake Bay retriever.

 

[Ducado]

I would not have an other dog than a Staffie wonderful dogs, such great natures and personality

 

[jma]

"My dog is as soft as anything and would never hurt a fly"

That is typical of the sort of quote on this thread.

Change the word 'is' to 'was' and the word 'would' to 'had' and you also have the standard quote from owners after many incidents where a dog has savaged someone.

The fact is, some dog breeds are far more dangerous than others. If only because they are capable of being much more aggressive and powerful if they do snap.

Of the type of breeds involved - those that people loosely stereotype as being owner by nobheads as a status symbol - I struggle to see why anyone favours them over less dangerous breeds. It is an ego trip, imo.

And I don't just mean with the type of stereotypical scrote that walks around showing off with the intention of intimidation and scaring people. I know owners of these types of dogs who would be genuinely appalled if their dog ever hurt anyone and are far, far removed from that type of scrote. However, most, if not all of them, imo, still invest a fair bit of ego in owning that type of dog. Even when train it to be totally docile, they still (not so) secretly enjoy being an owner of that type of powerful dog and enjoy being seen as the sort of person who 'knows how to handle' that type of powerful dog. A person who "has no problems" with that sort of dog. That is often an ego trip in itself. The same people are hardly likely to feel the same way about being seen as the sort of person who "has no problems" with, "can handle" and has fully domesticated a Poodle.

No matter how docile they train the dog to be, they choose that type of dog because it is that type of dog. They might not be doing so for exactly the same reason as a scrote - intimidation and fear - but the fact that the dog is a powerful dog and that type of breed is usually utmost in their thoughts.

To have that sort of dog anywhere near children is taking an awful risk, regardless of its history. It takes one incident, even if the statistics are well in your favour.

 

[mindmyp's_n_q's]

"My dog is as soft as anything and would never hurt a fly"

That is typical of the sort of quote on this thread.

Change the word 'is' to 'was' and the word 'would' to 'had' and you also have the standard quote from owners after many incidents where a dog has savaged someone.

The fact is, some dog breeds are far more dangerous than others. If only because they are capable of being much more aggressive and powerful if they do snap.

Of the type of breeds involved - those that people loosely stereotype as being owner by nobheads as a status symbol - I struggle to see why anyone favours them over less dangerous breeds. It is an ego trip, imo.

And I don't just mean with the type of stereotypical scrote that walks around showing off with the intention of intimidation and scaring people. I know owners of these types of dogs who would be genuinely appalled if their dog ever hurt anyone and are far, far removed from that type of scrote. However, most, if not all of them, imo, still invest a fair bit of ego in owning that type of dog. Even when train it to be totally docile, they still (not so) secretly enjoy being an owner of that type of powerful dog and enjoy being seen as the sort of person who 'knows how to handle' that type of powerful dog. A person who "has no problems" with that sort of dog. That is often an ego trip in itself. The same people are hardly likely to feel the same way about being seen as the sort of person who "has no problems" with, "can handle" and has fully domesticated a Poodle.

No matter how docile they train the dog to be, they choose that type of dog because it is that type of dog. They might not be doing so for exactly the same reason as a scrote - intimidation and fear - but the fact that the dog is a powerful dog and that type of breed is usually utmost in their thoughts.

To have that sort of dog anywhere near children is taking an awful risk, regardless of its history. It takes one incident, even if the statistics are well in your favour.

Well I have been bitten by dogs a few times. Not bad but you do get some owners who think that the breed of dog does not need as much training because they look cute.

I have had small bites off a Lab, yorkshire terrier, jack russel, springer spaniel, west highland white and a border terrier.

But that must have been because they were near a bad staffie and nothing to do with the fact that the owners don't know how to look after them.

I agree that idiots do flock to this type of dog but a huge amount of Staffie owners (like Ducado) would only ever choose this breed as they know what amazing family pets they make ( in fact they make the top 1% of family pets ;) )

 

[scotty123]

"My dog is as soft as anything and would never hurt a fly"

That is typical of the sort of quote on this thread.

Change the word 'is' to 'was' and the word 'would' to 'had' and you also have the standard quote from owners after many incidents where a dog has savaged someone.

The fact is, some dog breeds are far more dangerous than others. If only because they are capable of being much more aggressive and powerful if they do snap.

Of the type of breeds involved - those that people loosely stereotype as being owner by nobheads as a status symbol - I struggle to see why anyone favours them over less dangerous breeds. It is an ego trip, imo.

And I don't just mean with the type of stereotypical scrote that walks around showing off with the intention of intimidation and scaring people. I know owners of these types of dogs who would be genuinely appalled if their dog ever hurt anyone and are far, far removed from that type of scrote. However, most, if not all of them, imo, still invest a fair bit of ego in owning that type of dog. Even when train it to be totally docile, they still (not so) secretly enjoy being an owner of that type of powerful dog and enjoy being seen as the sort of person who 'knows how to handle' that type of powerful dog. A person who "has no problems" with that sort of dog. That is often an ego trip in itself. The same people are hardly likely to feel the same way about being seen as the sort of person who "has no problems" with, "can handle" and has fully domesticated a Poodle.

No matter how docile they train the dog to be, they choose that type of dog because it is that type of dog. They might not be doing so for exactly the same reason as a scrote - intimidation and fear - but the fact that the dog is a powerful dog and that type of breed is usually utmost in their thoughts.

To have that sort of dog anywhere near children is taking an awful risk, regardless of its history. It takes one incident, even if the statistics are well in your favour.

You have got some shit coming your way now !!!

 

[wayne71]

"My dog is as soft as anything and would never hurt a fly"

That is typical of the sort of quote on this thread.

Change the word 'is' to 'was' and the word 'would' to 'had' and you also have the standard quote from owners after many incidents where a dog has savaged someone.

The fact is, some dog breeds are far more dangerous than others. If only because they are capable of being much more aggressive and powerful if they do snap.

Of the type of breeds involved - those that people loosely stereotype as being owner by nobheads as a status symbol - I struggle to see why anyone favours them over less dangerous breeds. It is an ego trip, imo.

And I don't just mean with the type of stereotypical scrote that walks around showing off with the intention of intimidation and scaring people. I know owners of these types of dogs who would be genuinely appalled if their dog ever hurt anyone and are far, far removed from that type of scrote. However, most, if not all of them, imo, still invest a fair bit of ego in owning that type of dog. Even when train it to be totally docile, they still (not so) secretly enjoy being an owner of that type of powerful dog and enjoy being seen as the sort of person who 'knows how to handle' that type of powerful dog. A person who "has no problems" with that sort of dog. That is often an ego trip in itself. The same people are hardly likely to feel the same way about being seen as the sort of person who "has no problems" with, "can handle" and has fully domesticated a Poodle.

No matter how docile they train the dog to be, they choose that type of dog because it is that type of dog. They might not be doing so for exactly the same reason as a scrote - intimidation and fear - but the fact that the dog is a powerful dog and that type of breed is usually utmost in their thoughts.

To have that sort of dog anywhere near children is taking an awful risk, regardless of its history. It takes one incident, even if the statistics are well in your favour.

Yes but they have such lovely natures and love kids....

Personally I wouldn't let mine anywhere near one or in anyone's house that owned one.

 

[york away to this!]

"My dog is as soft as anything and would never hurt a fly"

That is typical of the sort of quote on this thread.

Change the word 'is' to 'was' and the word 'would' to 'had' and you also have the standard quote from owners after many incidents where a dog has savaged someone.

The fact is, some dog breeds are far more dangerous than others. If only because they are capable of being much more aggressive and powerful if they do snap.

Of the type of breeds involved - those that people loosely stereotype as being owner by nobheads as a status symbol - I struggle to see why anyone favours them over less dangerous breeds. It is an ego trip, imo.

And I don't just mean with the type of stereotypical scrote that walks around showing off with the intention of intimidation and scaring people. I know owners of these types of dogs who would be genuinely appalled if their dog ever hurt anyone and are far, far removed from that type of scrote. However, most, if not all of them, imo, still invest a fair bit of ego in owning that type of dog. Even when train it to be totally docile, they still (not so) secretly enjoy being an owner of that type of powerful dog and enjoy being seen as the sort of person who 'knows how to handle' that type of powerful dog. A person who "has no problems" with that sort of dog. That is often an ego trip in itself. The same people are hardly likely to feel the same way about being seen as the sort of person who "has no problems" with, "can handle" and has fully domesticated a Poodle.

No matter how docile they train the dog to be, they choose that type of dog because it is that type of dog. They might not be doing so for exactly the same reason as a scrote - intimidation and fear - but the fact that the dog is a powerful dog and that type of breed is usually utmost in their thoughts.

To have that sort of dog anywhere near children is taking an awful risk, regardless of its history. It takes one incident, even if the statistics are well in your favour.

Well I have been bitten by dogs a few times. Not bad but you do get some owners who think that the breed of dog does not need as much training because they look cute.

I have had small bites off a Lab, yorkshire terrier, jack russel, springer spaniel, west highland white and a border terrier.

But that must have been because they were near a bad staffie and nothing to do with the fact that the owners don't know how to look after them.

I agree that idiots do flock to this type of dog but a huge amount of Staffie owners (like Ducado) would only ever choose this breed as they know what amazing family pets they make ( in fact they make the top 1% of family pets ;) )

...said the survey in March's edition of "my vicious hell hound that makes me feel really hard gazette"...

 

[mindmyp's_n_q's]

...said the survey in March's edition of "my vicious hell hound that makes me feel really hard gazette"...

<a class="postlink" href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7239464.stm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7239464.stm</a>

KENNEL CLUB DEFINITION OF THE STAFFY TEMPERAMENT
Indomitably courageous
Tenacious
Highly intelligent
Affectionate, especially with children
Bold
Fearless
Totally reliable