Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

whereaminow (58.64)

What a Daft Way to Stop Your Spaniel Eating the Milkman

Recs

28

March 12, 2010 – Comments (18)

England is spiraling into a complete socialist hellhole.  Anyone who has traveled through Heathrow in the past five years is nodding solemnly at that statement. 

(Quick fun game. Pick a destination worldwide. Compare what it costs to fly there if you avoid London Heathrow vs. what it costs if you go through London Heathrow.  Calculate the average cost for Operation Heathrow Avoidance.  I consider this cost to be a Keep-My-Sanity Tax and I happily pay it.  That's how screwed up London is.)

The latest Do-Something-Now plan involves licensing all dog owners - apparently you need training to properly operate your beagle. 

Top Gear host Jeremy Clarkson has something to say about this moronic idea... and a few other things. I still don't know what 'daft' means, but it sure makes for a cool title. 

David in Qatar

What a Daft Way to Stop Your Spaniel Eating the Milkman - by Jeremy Clarkson

As we know, one man once got on one plane in a pair of exploding hiking boots and as a result everyone else in the entire world is now forced to strip naked at airports and hand over their toiletries to a man in a high-visibility jacket.

In other words, the behaviour of one man has skewed the concept of everyday life for everyone else. And we are seeing this all the time..........

We seem to have lost sight of the fact that throughout history 90% of people have behaved quite normally 90% of the time. Agatha Christie, for instance, was home-schooled and at no point was she forced to eat breadcrumbs from her neighbour’s bird table.

Of course, at the extremes, you have 5% who are goodie-goodies and who become vicars, and 5% who build exploding hiking shoes and starve their children to death.

It’s this oddball 5% that is targeted by the tidal wave of legislation. But making it more difficult to teach your children at home will not stop kids being mistreated.

It just changes the pattern of everyday life for everyone else. This is what drives me mad.

We now think it’s normal behaviour to take off our clothes at an airport. But it isn’t. Nor is it normal to stand outside in the rain to have a cigarette or to do 30mph on a dual carriageway when it’s the middle of the night and everyone else is in bed. It’s stupid..

And last week the stupidity made yet another lunge into the fabric of society with the news that government ministers were considering new laws that would force everyone to take a test before they were allowed to keep a dog.

No, really. Because one dog once ate one child, some hopeless little twerp from the department of dogs had to think of something sincere to say on the steps of the coroner’s court. Inevitably, they will have argued that the current law is “not fit for purpose”, whatever that means, and that “steps must be taken to ensure this never happens again”.

FULL ARTICLE

18 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On March 12, 2010 at 9:54 PM, ChrisGraley (31.45) wrote:

This post has been deemed to be anti-government by the department of responsible satire.

If you are reading this post, we know who you are. Immediately report to the nearest re-education facility with your $50 re-education fee and your "I Luv Big Government !!!" bumper sticker. 

Report this comment
#2) On March 13, 2010 at 3:11 AM, devoish (98.71) wrote:

I suppose yours is one perspective. Here is another from the London Evening Standard.  I'd rather have police force and a law to defend me against criminal gangs and their attack dogs than not. Daft would be charcterizing dealing with a real problem as over-reaching by Gov't.

A police unit for tackling “weapon dogs” is set to seize more than 1,000 dangerous animals in its first year, the Standard can reveal.

But London's deputy mayor admits this is only the “tip of the iceberg” and is demanding tough jail sentences for criminals who use dogs to carry out vicious attacks.

The call comes as the Government today began consulting on plans to target dangerous pets by making it compulsory for all dogs to be microchipped. Owners would be required to take out insurance to cover payments should their animal attack someone, while Asbos would be imposed on dangerous dog owners — dubbed “Dogbos”.

Figures obtained by the Standard reveal that 838 dogs were seized by the Met's status dogs unit from last March up to mid-December — putting it on course to top 1,000 once further data is gathered covering its first 12 months.

The full-year figure, up to last Tuesday, is expected to show a 40 per cent rise in seizures of dangerous dogs in London, up from 719 in 2008/9.

Last month a policeman was savaged by two pitbulls, a banned breed, as he attempted to make an arrest in Plumstead. A 19-year-old whose pitbull attacked a guide dog at Cricklewood station was given a three-month jail term, suspended for two years, and banned from keeping dogs for 10 years.

Kit Malthouse, one of Boris Johnson's deputies, said the status dogs unit tackled priority cases — those resulting from neighbour complaints or those that came to the Met's attention via intelligence reports.

He said: “They are dealing with the sharp end but it's very much the tip of the iceberg. We are committed over the next two to three years, along with the Met, to pushing for greater and greater efforts on this.”

The unit — a police sergeant and five constables — is having its funding boosted by £1 million to £2.5 million a year. Most of this will be spent kennelling dogs while the courts decide whether they should be destroyed. Three years ago the Met only had a £130,000 budget for tackling dangerous dogs.

Minister for London, Tessa Jowell, said 80 per cent of the dogs seized by the Met over the past year were banned breeds. She added: “There is a worrying trend in the capital for dogs to be used as status symbols. I have seen the way dogs can be used to intimidate people and taking action to combat this is one part of the Government's commitment to take on anti-social behaviour. In the wrong hands, one of these dogs can be as lethal as a knife.”

Mr Malthouse is seeking the support of Labour and Lib-Dem MPs to amend the Crime and Security Bill to bring the penalties for using a “weapon dog” closer to the sentences given for gun and knife possession with intent, which are four and 10 years respectively.

He also wants the law changed to allow dogs to be seized on private land — rather than only in public areas — and for the process of taking and neutering dogs to be simplified.

The issues have been raised with Gordon Brown at Prime Minister's Questions. Labour MP Angela Smith told the Commons about a “nineteenfold increase in the number of dangerous and status dogs in London since the early 1990s”.

The Home Office told the Standard that it was introducing injunctions to ban gang members who use dogs as weapons from entering specified areas with their animal. Boroughs such as Lambeth are planning to change the rules for council tenants to require owners to have their dogs microchipped.

Mr Malthouse said the use of “weapon dogs” was a global problem, with countries such as Denmark experiencing a rise in dog seizures.

He said: “I think it's an area that has been neglected. Until we get tougher penalties, anybody who is intent on violence is much more likely to walk down the street with a pitbull than a knife or gun. Even if they get caught with a pitbull, they are not going to get the same penalty.”

Val Shawcross, a Labour assembly member for Southwark and Lambeth who brought the matter to the Mayor's attention, said: “The dangerous owners are the problem. It's not the breed of the dog, it's the way it's handled and trained by its owner that is the issue. Keeping dogs as a status symbol by gang members is still a problem but I think it's being dealt with much better.”

A Lambeth council spokesman said: “We are proposing that dog chipping is a compulsory part of tenancy agreements, and are consulting on this.”

Report this comment
#3) On March 13, 2010 at 4:33 AM, ralphmachio (24.64) wrote:

Dev, I don't know how to say this with respect, but with all due respect, you represent everything wrong with the world, and this world would be much freer of fear without those who nurture the fear, and try to redesign everybody else's life according to their fear. The opportunistic parasitic government would not be able to feed so rampantly without you quivering little fear smiths. What one little twerp perceives as a threatening dog is someone else's loyal pet, that they love more than most people love their child. 

It doesn't matter whether you are right or wrong in legoland. You must merely look pathetic and unable to defend yourself, and have a loud whine. Lego people believe preemptive actions against certain breeds are justified, and as an owner of such a breed I believe it should be known, that I love my dogs at least as much as you love your children, and would do everything you would do to protect your family when it comes to protecting my family. If you call the dog catcher on me, you will then have to deal with me. You damn lego people believe everything you're told, and don't even realize the inherent average nature of this, and how you just don't have the right to lay you fear on someone who then has to be fearful of what hairbrain move you will pull because of your preconceived, false notions. You don't even realize that you are the threat! It is your fear that sets the whole system into motion, particularly when dealing with animals. 

For 2 years, my pits and I lived in Tahoe in an area where fences were illegal. I never had a problem, and my dogs were trained to stay within the borders of the property, and if they disobeyed, it was to chase a squirrel or something of that nature. Never a complaint.

When I was stuck in a not so nice part of South Sac, my dogs were very well behaved, never trained to harm anyone, but commanded a certain kind of respect that allowed me to never have any problems, and I could freely walk around at night in a place where it was recommended I don't. 

In a world where your fear is my problem, nobody is free. I've been in the richest places, and the poorest places, but by far the most threatening entity is the fearful suburban middle class parent who believes the whole world should bend to his/her fear. Your child will not only leave a larger carbon footprint (like I care), but be MUCH more likely to harm or kill a human being by mistake in a vehicle, or on purpose through violence! 

Report this comment
#4) On March 13, 2010 at 11:14 AM, kdakota630 (31.51) wrote:

England has been license-crazy for years:

Report this comment
#5) On March 13, 2010 at 1:51 PM, ajm101 (33.71) wrote:

ralphmachio - Your 'well behaved' dogs 'commanded a certain kind of respect'?

Common mistake: fear is not respect.  This is a common mistake of gun owners, too.  I do a lot of volunteering with animal welfare groups and I love AmStafs - they are sweet, loyal, sociable with responsible owners.  But people are _afraid_ of your dogs because pits are an extremely dangerous breed with bad owners, and a random person on the street doesn't know what kind of owner you are.  Same with conceal carrying laws.  Someone may know they are a responsible gun owner, but nobody else knows them from Sirhan Sirhan.

The UK is probably being moronic here.  Life is too short for me to get to know the issue enough to have an informed opinion.  But to the author's point, 5% of people are violent sociopaths and it's a society's problem to manage the convenience of the 90% vs that 5%.  The UK is a democracy so I'm sure they will find the correct balance for themselves over time.   Personally, I don't live there so I don't care.

Report this comment
#6) On March 13, 2010 at 10:41 PM, ralphmachio (24.64) wrote:

ajm101, 5% of people are violent sociopaths? Is that so? According to whose standards? Pits are a bad breed? With bad owners? Sounds like you have some generalities rattling around up there that might be misconstrued as prejudice, if you were to ask me. I do sympathize, because you have been misinformed, as everyone else like you, by the TV.  The first blues tune I ever completed is titled, "People, I'm not impressed by what you think you learned on TV", and it is about fearful people who believe everything they hear on TV, or legopeople. Because I pose no threat to anyone UNTIL they start to threaten my situation, These fearful individuals are actually the problem. My dogs sense fear. They growl. I sense fear, I get aggressive. It's a natural response to someone who is wondering how they can disrupt your well being, simply so they can feel safer. I don't care what these people, whether they in fact comprise the majority, as some slanted publications would have you believe, think. It's a live and let live world out there, but the reciprocal to that equation can have an exponential factor if you mess with the wrong person. And seriously, how much should I change to accommodate your fears? 

It is not just in England that fear is pumped into the chicken hearted, I see a sickening amount of false fear stuffed down the throats of Americans as well. They lap it up, for the most part. The function of this false fear is to falsely make you think you need to be protected from it. Hence, the oversized financial burden that you all are connected to like an anchor in a cold dark abyss. See, it's not the mosquito's fault for being a mosquito. It's the legopeople's fault for nurturing the mosquito, and giving it shelter, and being subservient to it, LONG after it has made it's intentions apparent, and it's methods of obfuscation (the pathetic, thin veneer of democracy) became transparent. If you people nurture these fears, it's nobody's fault but your own. One day your mosquito will not be of a size that even you will like. And you created it because it told you to fear our NEIGHBORS! How do you think Nazi's got their citizens to rat on each other? What type of American citizen corresponds to the type that would have been a rat in Nazi Germany? The fearful, self righteous simpleton who has convinced himself that the majority is just like him- a fearful, a bunch of self righteous simpletons.  

But it was the German people's willingness to embrace evil that allowed the Fascist regime to take over. Careful who you believe.

Have you ever been to a bad part of south sac? Granted, it's not like being on 125th street after midnight, but if you were me living in my neighborhood, you really wouldn't care whether it was fear or respect that prevented you from getting your head kicked in by gangsters.

I also practice martial arts. Does my ability to control a situation make me a threat to the people I encounter on the streets? Absolutely not, provided they do not intend to harm me. Have Martial arts practitioners been rounded up in china by the government like jews in the holocaust or heretics in the Crusades? The answer is yes, and it was because the government perceived them as a threat to their power. The powers that be don't like strong willed independent types, and people who own strong breeds fit that profile. We are certainly not, however, sociopaths, although some sociopaths in office would have you think so.

Sure, there are a few bad apples, but America is hyper sensitive, and paranoid at a time where solidarity is much more important. People are so quick to give others a hard time in this country, and it always involves fines, and or some other form monetary loss. 

I understand you work with dogs, and have had problems with pitbull owners, but it just may be your location is home to a large percentage of not so nice people. The dog catcher near me got mad at my neighbor for assuming my dogs were mean because they were pits, and went a step further and said he trusts the breed more than most, and especially more than smaller breeds, which bite more readily. So I don't know where you live but I'm not going to guess so as not to appear prejudicial myself, but some areas harbor many of the types who fight, and or train pits to defend land, and some don't.

Report this comment
#7) On March 13, 2010 at 10:55 PM, ralphmachio (24.64) wrote:

AJM, my appologies, after rereading your comment, I realized I may have over reacted and not read it carefully enough. I have recently been dealing with some issues involving my dogs and my fearful neighbors who feel like some justice must be done, even though nothing has happened. At all. It's distressing when you move to a new spot, and you end up surrounded by annoying neighbors. I think I was able to get them to see I was not worth messing with. Sorry for being too quick to bite your head off, and call you a lego person:)

Report this comment
#8) On March 14, 2010 at 1:42 AM, devoish (98.71) wrote:

Ralphmachio,

You sound like someone walking down a street, parading your toughness and your artillery, looking for a fight. Maybe that's not you, maybe it is.

In my lifetime Dobermans, then Shepherds, then Rottweilers, and now Pitbulls have all been "feared". What is going on with Pitbulls right now, people training them to be vicious, training them to fight, is well beyond anything that ever happened to the other three breeds.

Now, you might think it is ok to punish someone for their dogs behaviour after a child is mauled, but sometimes the fact can be seen well before it happens and might as well be dealt with in advance. If most of your neighbors are afraid of your dogs, you are the problem and you might as well hear it from me. If it is only one or two among dozens that are afraid, then maybe the problem is theirs.

I have also kept dogs. Big dogs. My dogs did not bark and snarl and growl at passerbys when I walked them. They come when I call, stay when I sit them. Yet I didn't let them off leash when there are kids that don't know them around. I think of it as courtesy, sociability. I don't insist protective parents accept my opinion of the threat of my dogs, and assume my dogs are well trained. I accept their responsibility to be protective because of some dogs who and owners who are not responsible with the safety of their children at stake. They do not know my dogs and especially with Pitbulls, and the behaviour of some few of their owners they are correct to protect their children.

As a child some of my fondest memories are of a neighbor who let me in their yard to play with their German Shepherds both of whom outweighed me.  And my saddest memories is when they stopped letting me because the kids on the bus stop by their house were poking the dogs with sticks and harrassing them through the fence. They knew I wasn't those kids, but their dogs had learned to behave threateningly towards kids.

Please take a moment and explain to me the situation that the police in the London are facing. Just so I know you can understand that we are talking about criminal gangs using dogs to intimidate decent people. Not Davids mocking insinuation of attack chihauhau puppies.

I enjoy calling out David on his propaganda pieces and I feel free to indulge myself.

Believe me when I tell you that I am not afraid. I am angry. I am angry that common criminals are using words like "freedom" and "personal rights" to defend their taking away the rights of others. I am angry that good dogs are being trained to be dangerous. I am saddened that there are people whose anti-government ideology prevents them from seeing it for what it is and stand in the way of preventing the criminals from using the dogs as weapons.

Because that is what is you are doing.

If you want to go walking with your dogs go right ahead. But no convicted terrorist should get another detonator. And no criminal using dogs as weapons should be allowed to continue doing so. And if you do not want to pay for a tracking device in your dogs ear then argue for us all to pay taxes for the cops to break the gang.

Most of the money being spent is to take care of the dogs removed from the gangs in the hope they can find safe environments for them. Is tracking devices in all dogs going to far? Of course. Is tracking devices in the dogs of convicted violent felons going to far? Or just the conviceted felons dogs over 40 lbs? It's closer to the target.

Its ok for wacko gov't haters like yourself and david to express an extremist point of view. And it is ok for wacko dog fearers to express their exteme point of view and tracking device manufacturers to put in their two cents. Then moderate people will look at the budget, do a little more or less than they should, choose a second best but affordable answer, (like possibly passing the cost of tracking devices off Gov't and onto dog owners, which by the way, isn't happening) and hopefully at least bust the criminal gangs.

Perhaps you have a solution that is not pretending you can be cop, judge, jury and executioner, or require the rest of us to get three dogs in order to protect ourselves from their two, and would like to offer it here, including an estimated cost to the tapayer and a solution if you convict the wrong man of a crime and take away his dog rights.

Reread the article I posted. It just puts the truth to Davids propaganda. The people in London have the right to elect officials who ban Pitbulls. So do Americans and it could happen. I hope not. I hope instead we choose to arrest people who use Pitbulls to commit crimes or harrass and attack neighbors. And known criminal gangs should get special attention. And if that includes you, so be it.

You or I can go onto youtube and watch somepretty viscous videos of dog attacks, and some that are dogs licking and slobbering their owners to death. I understand both types of Pitbulls and both types of owners exist. Do you understand the criminal ones do?

 

Report this comment
#9) On March 14, 2010 at 10:03 AM, whereaminow (58.64) wrote:

The people in London have the right to elect officials who ban Pitbulls.

Nobody has that 'right.'  Where is that 'right?'  On a piece of paper?  Then it's a privilege, not a right.  Privileges are the opposite of rights.

This is basic stuff.  I can't really make it any simpler. But I guess simple truth = propaganda for you.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#10) On March 14, 2010 at 3:03 PM, ajm101 (33.71) wrote:

ralphmachio - no harm done, no worries.

fwiw, I think that balancing individual rights with societal good is one of the fundamental problems of modern life.  In general society, i'd fall pretty far to the individual rights side (but in CAPS that's another story).

I hope your dogs win your neighbors over - hopefully they'll see you're a responsible AmStaf owner.  It's a damn shame that dog fighters/bad owners have ruined the reputation of a really good breed.  That said, I still think it's smart to be on guard around new AmStafs and I don't blame municipalities that place some regulations on them - just because of how dangerous they can potentially be (smaller dogs might be bitey, but won't kill you).

Report this comment
#11) On March 15, 2010 at 12:33 PM, nzsvz9 (< 20) wrote:

Doggone Inc. and advanced and progressive well-feeling and goody-two-shoes oriented society management and engagement team has endorsed Tony Blair Borwn Ippy-Ippy wa-TING! as their leader, grand pooh-bah and all around purveyor of good laws.

About Doggone Inc.

Doggone Inc. is a former Emprire with delusions of grandeur, relevance and mirage-like visions of real power. Their only reason for existence is to subject their own people to more innane laws to test the theory that boiling frogs slowly leads to better soup. We hope your dogs taste better when we confiscate them and turn them into soylent brown.

This farcical commercial for a forgotten out-of-control bureaucracy contain idiotic and silly statements completely out of context and is driving me out of my mind. If you contactc our country, company, minstry of silly doggy walks, please to be using form 110-G, in triplicate (with red ink), whereupon you will be placed in line to receive your voucher for a visitation with the Queen of England herself to which you can redress your grievance - or be beheaded. There are of couse uncertainties with which these forward looking statements of backward thinking people may not even realize.

SOURCE: nzsvz9

Report this comment
#12) On March 15, 2010 at 1:44 PM, devoish (98.71) wrote:

The people in London have the right to elect officials who ban Pitbulls.

Nobody has that 'right.'  Where is that 'right?'  On a piece of paper?  Then it's a privilege, not a right.  Privileges are the opposite of rights.

This is basic stuff.  I can't really make it any simpler. But I guess simple truth = propaganda for you.

David in Qatar

Well David, I guess we've got a fundamental disagreement on our hands. Unless of course you are just arguing semantics or something.

Personally, I think banning all Pits is going to far. I would like to see the London Police force equipped with enough budget to sift the responsible dog owners from the criminals. But sometimes good people try to hard to save ruined dogs, and mistakes will happen. I would also like to see a public that understands the world is not cut and dry and sometimes mistakes happen. But if they don't have the personell, or a rational public, then they have to do something less expensive and more thorough, like just ban all Pits. Or worse, pass on the cost to all dog owners by mandating tracking devices. But it is not acceptable to let anyone use their animals as weapons in the commission of a crime. Which, I might add, is what London is dealing with as best as they can.

I'm glad we have had this time to participate in the Democratic process,

Steven

Report this comment
#13) On March 15, 2010 at 1:57 PM, kdakota630 (31.51) wrote:

I always thought David was anti-semantic.

LOL!

OK, I admit it.  That was terrible, but I couldn't resist.

Report this comment
#14) On March 15, 2010 at 2:08 PM, whereaminow (58.64) wrote:

devoish,

First off, we have no rights. Not you or I or anyone.  Theoretically speaking the government can, and will, do whatever the heck it wants to do, vote or no vote, king or president.

Do you know where the Right To Life comes from?  A long time ago a bunch of robbers figured out: "hey, if instead of killing these people in the hapless village, we keep them alive and rule over them, then we can keep robbing them without having to work as hard."

As time went on, those robbers got what you might call a conscience.  They realized that there was no need to kill people to get them to hand over their money.  So, they decided that killing people must be bad.  They have a right to live.

That's early government.  Today it's a much more complicated and refined beast, but it's the same beast.

The point is, the voters have no rights either.  They're just voting for special privileges.  Now, pardon Jeremy Clarkson for complaining, but complaining is about all he can do.

I think the worst thing about the rise of the Democratic Party is that it completely wiped away the one thing that made me enjoy the companionship of liberals.  They used to question authority.  Now, they only question it when their party loses.  I spent the last several years sharing a common bond with them in opposition to the warmongering nature of the neo conservative.  Now, they're almost all gone.  Sad.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#15) On March 15, 2010 at 2:08 PM, whereaminow (58.64) wrote:

kdakota630,

ROFL

David in Qatar 

Report this comment
#16) On March 15, 2010 at 5:27 PM, alexxlea (34.24) wrote:

Ralph, you live in the US, which is a gun-crazy land of hyper-paranoid peoples who like to shoot each other with great frequency. Stats and facts can back me up on that.

The subject at hand is the UK. They DON'T have the same rates of gun ownership as we do. Their officers wear knife-proof vests for good reason. Dogs ARE weapons. Look at K-9 units, and how effective they are. But look at how readily those dogs can turn on their handlers. Needless to say legislation is going to be passed to do things that make the lawmakers look like they back the efforts of the police, and if a dog happens to kill a policeman, then hell yes there are going to be laws made to try and prevent such incidents.

Ever wonder why you can't just run around wearing body armor around these parts? Are you getting the picture? And I found your ability to jump to conclusions laughable, along with your non-reading of the original material being discussed, which basically culminated with you attacking another member for no reasons of note.

Oh, and I bet you're going to go off on some great tangent about how government is so freaking terrible and how welfare queens are destroying society. You know what, safety nets ARE terrible, let's just immediately cut all unemployment benefits, remove the minimum wage, remove all safety guidelines and regulations for the workplace and roads, let's stop giving people money to buy food, let's stop paying taxes on our income, houses, and things we consume and instead start policing ourselves, constructing our own roads, doing everything for ourselves. But oh wait. You live in a civilized society that has realized that such a thing is utter fantasy, and maybe you should move to somewhere more free and capitalist. There are plenty of African nations I could recommend. You can even homeschool your kids there.

 It's just hilarious. You people are hilarious. But go ahead, I just wonder what the hell you'll all do when it comes time to actually do something useful for the first time in your lives.

Report this comment
#17) On March 15, 2010 at 8:46 PM, whereaminow (58.64) wrote:

alexxlea,

maybe you should move to somewhere more free and capitalist. There are plenty of African nations I could recommend.

Did you just say that Africa's problem is not enough government?  That Africa is full of free market capitalism?

You know, there's a reason they are called Failed States and not Failed Markets. 

This is Earth.  Have we met?

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#18) On March 15, 2010 at 8:49 PM, whereaminow (58.64) wrote:

alexxlea,

It would seem that you know as little about England as you do about Africa (and America for that matter, or how wealth is created, or the purpose and origins of government)

See here.

It is hilarious, isn't it?

David in Qatar 

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement