Campaigners lose XL bully High Court challenge
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c80vd73yz9ko
Posted by F0urLeafCl0ver
Campaigners lose XL bully High Court challenge
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c80vd73yz9ko
Posted by F0urLeafCl0ver
6 Comments
>Ms Coulthard, from south-west London, previously said she was challenging the ban on the dog breed because it would “only affect responsible bully owners”.
Responsible Bully XL owners – that’s pretty much the definition of an oxymoron, there’s no such thing.
Bully XL owner – that’s pretty much the definition of an oxygen breathing moron.
It’s sad really. The dogs are not the problem, the owners are the problem. There is always some nutter trying to run a dog fight, or prove his ego is bigger than someone else. Sadly, it the only thing the authorities can do. And sadly, we can’t get rid of that toxic persona from humanity.
They have a point.
Unless the police actually round up these animals and destroy them, only responsible owners will be impacted.
Unfortunately that doesn’t negate the violent aggressive nature of those animals and the entire breed should be eradicated.
My little cute velvet hippo has never hurt a single person but when he did it was only because he was protective and trying to nanny those 3 very ungrateful children across the road.
It isn’t mine or my dogs fault they ended up badly mauled and injured, he was just trying to prove how well he could protect them 🙁
This is dog racism!!!
Given how many attack their owners they should just accept the government is doing them a favour.
Regardless of where you stand on XL Bully legalisation, there is one very important aspect of this challenge that we ought to be worried about:
“In the absence of a centralised data collection system, Defra uses publicly available information in the press or media and these confidential police reports as the best available data to monitor dog attack fatalities and breed types involved….”
“The extracts shown to me identified a total of 11 deaths, mostly on the basis of police reports. The Claimants challenged the identification of the dog
breed/type in a number of these cases, which largely turned on the reliability of press reports. The police reports were not available.”
I think the courts accepting that the media defines fact is a very dangerous precedent given the history of Hillsborough and other media scandals in this country. Even more so, considering the known political affiliations of certain papers and the wider effect that can have on the country.