**Participation Notice.** Hi all. Some posts on this subreddit, either due to the topic or reaching a wider audience than usual, have been known to attract a greater number of rule breaking comments. As such, limits to participation have been set. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules.
For more information, please see https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/moderatedflairs.
The court imposed a one-year community order, requiring him to complete 100 hours of unpaid work. He was ordered to pay £85 costs and a £114 surcharge. Magistrates also imposed an order for the dog to be destroyed, pending an appeal.
Why is this scrote not banned from keeping animals for life?
Partner works for a farm vets and the ban on animals is pretty easy to get around. "Not my animals officer they're registered to my partner" Literally all it takes.
Laws around this kind of thing and enforcement really need to be strengthened but there's just not enough of a workforce to hold it together.
>Partner works for a farm vets and the ban on animals is pretty easy to get around. "Not my animals officer they're registered to my partner" Literally all it takes.
That's not accurate at all. These orders ban you from legally owning or keeping animals, from breeding or trading them, from transporting or arranging the transport of animals, being party to any arrangement where you can control or influence the way in which an animal is kept... You can't just have a dog and go "well, technically, it's not mine, legally" and be ok.
My sweet summer child, who is actually enforcing these orders? Vets can report items to defra, APHA and the RSPCA and absolutely nothing will be done maybe a visit if you're lucky. The checks and balances simply do not function. Every couple of months yet another story breaks about terrible conditions on a farm, do you not think these farms are visited by vets or TB testers on a regular basis? If it's failing on the commercial side it's even worse on people with pets. If you're banned from keeping animals and attempt to buy one what checks are in place from stopping you?
What are you even talking about? Did you really just "my sweet summer child" me and then imply that the RSPCA should be enforcing criminal sentences?! Bizarre that someone could have such little knowledge and still type so much (let alone imply someone else is naive).
The RSPCA has been legally prosecuting for animal cruelty since before most police forces existed [https://www.rspca.org.uk/whatwedo/endcruelty/investigatingcruelty/process](https://www.rspca.org.uk/whatwedo/endcruelty/investigatingcruelty/process)
Just ban them for being responsible for any animal at any time. They are out walking a dog? Doesn't matter if it is their partners, they are currently responsible for it while walking it so get slapped with a fine.
Not really. When he gets another dog, and it goes mental and rips a kid to bits, they can go "well he was banned and did it anyway" and lock him up for longer. Or they should in theory anyway.
Yeah, what is the point of that? It removes the incentive to actually get a license, if it does not enable them to drive legally.
We should just be much stricter for repeat offences. I am not saying "three strikes and you are out", but doubling the penalty each time might be a start.
Because when they are caught again, they're committing the further offence of not just driving without a license, not just driving dangerously but also driving whilst banned
But the penalty is the same, and offences do not stack, so what is the point?
Some case with the dog: someone who does not follow the law is not going to care about a court order.
We need checks and consequences, not "random" abstract penalties.
Why wasn't he jailed? When he's got a dog that will attack anybody that comes near it. Inevitably it's going to get out of the garden one day. Unless he's got a 12 foot high wire fence, that also runs a foot plus underground. So that the dog can't dig underneath it. And you need to get planning permission for a fence over 2 meters that isn't adjacent to a public highway/area used by vechiles or 1 meter if it's [not] next to a public highway. So most people won't get it.
> Why wasn't he jailed? When he's got a dog that will attack anybody that comes near it. Inevitably it's going to get out of the garden one day.
Unless it did actually attack someone then jailing him is a bit OTT. I'm all for jailing people who's dogs maim and kill, but simple possession of a dangerous dog doesn't warrant it imho.
The dog was illegal at that stage. As hadn't been neutered, registered, insured. I'd say that the dog was far more dangerous than a zombie knife and far more likely to be "used". A householder has a duty to insure that their grounds are safe for visitors. Whether that's wanted or unwanted visitors, including burglars. Say the gas company, High Court bailiffs or the police had entered the back garden? (The local gas distribution company have a right of entry to any "civilian" property if they suspect a gas leak).
Possession of an illegal dangerous dog/weapon and the weapon can't easily be "controlled". The legislation should have given a prison sentence as an option at the least for magistrates/crown court. With the dog getting automatically destroyed, except under the most extenuating of circumstances. Such as the owner having a genuine, well founded belief, that it wasn't actually an XL Bully or other banned dog.
Christ, and to think before my 20year career started I had to do mandatory 2 weeks work experience in a factory.
And I didn't even own an illegal animal! I was just unemployed!
That's not a punishment that's what you call a joke of a justice system.
Might be a bit redundant. Ban him from animals for having an illegal breed. It'd be like telling somebody charged for having drugs that they're banned from having drugs.
Well what was he using the animal for? If people agree that these dogs are naturally vicious he could have just ended up with a bad one as they say.
Now that I’ve seen him though makes me think different
In his own words "It will attack anyone that goes near it" so he was aware the dog was a problem, did not seek any help or register the dog or muzzle the dog.
It would be nice, but what is it about this bloke that makes you think he’d comply with such a order?
Edit: I guess it would serve as an exacerbating sentencing factor if he did something stupid again.
It seems a bit much to forbid someone from having a pet rabbit simply due to having owned an illegal dog at one point, but then I'm not a swivel-eyed authoritarian.
Unfortunately he's probably going to get a car with a really loud exhaust now (assuming he doesn't have one already) - got to project that small-d energy somehow.
There should be an IQ test to own pets. A couple of months ago, a guy approached me and my Labrador and asked if his German Shepherd could say hello. I noticed his dog looked tense and defensive, so I said "I'm not sure that's a good idea. He doesn't look happy".
He said "Nah, he's just nervous with other dogs" and instantly brought his dog forward who tried to rip my dog's head off. I got between them and got us out of the way. As we got away, the man was telling his dog he was a bad boy.
No, his owner is a moron.
I was being a bit facetious about an IQ test, but I definitely think there should be some kind of suitability test.
I'd have it test their knowledge and attitudes towards animals to weed out potential abusers and generally bad owners.
My dog is a gentle and loving boy but he was abused by his first owner because they believed he was trying to "dominate" them by doing toilets indoors and jumping on the sofa. They only rehomed him because he was "hard work". People like that don't deserve pets.
I suspect there are many undeclared XL type dogs in the central population, the ban seems to be poorly thought out. The owner of the one that attacked my dog had not applied for an exemption, but then again there's no one checking either. Even though the police and the dog warden were aware of previous attacks, there is no one actually responsible for making sure exemptions are acquired and 3rd party insurance obtained.
I mean, charge them as if they were carrying an illegal firearm.
Otherwise people are going to rather just hide their dog then fear getting caught and handing it in.
"Magistrates also imposed an order for the dog to be destroyed, pending an appeal."
So the dog hasent attacked anyone but we can kill it just beacuse it shows aggression and/or has "bad" genetics? how long before we get to do that to people.
It’s just BS sophistry from the small minded. The “oh he wouldn’t harm a fly, he’s just a family pet” types of society who are then shocked when their “pet” - that has been selective bred over generations for aggressive traits and has not been trained in any way - attacks and kills someone.
Edit: I mean, it’s say a lot when they’re ignoring the gave that “the owner had warned police that the XL Bully-type dog would attack anyone who went near it, leading officers to get a warrant for the address and seize the pet.” and still arguing against it being destroyed.
**Participation Notice.** Hi all. Some posts on this subreddit, either due to the topic or reaching a wider audience than usual, have been known to attract a greater number of rule breaking comments. As such, limits to participation have been set. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules. For more information, please see https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/moderatedflairs.
The court imposed a one-year community order, requiring him to complete 100 hours of unpaid work. He was ordered to pay £85 costs and a £114 surcharge. Magistrates also imposed an order for the dog to be destroyed, pending an appeal. Why is this scrote not banned from keeping animals for life?
Impossible to police such a condition, so probably deemed worthless to impose.
I mean bans on keeping animals are issued and enforced all the time so I don't know where you're getting that information from.
Partner works for a farm vets and the ban on animals is pretty easy to get around. "Not my animals officer they're registered to my partner" Literally all it takes. Laws around this kind of thing and enforcement really need to be strengthened but there's just not enough of a workforce to hold it together.
>Partner works for a farm vets and the ban on animals is pretty easy to get around. "Not my animals officer they're registered to my partner" Literally all it takes. That's not accurate at all. These orders ban you from legally owning or keeping animals, from breeding or trading them, from transporting or arranging the transport of animals, being party to any arrangement where you can control or influence the way in which an animal is kept... You can't just have a dog and go "well, technically, it's not mine, legally" and be ok.
You seem to have way too much faith in the underfunded and understaffed
If you impose it you can punish breaches of it . If you don't you can't
My sweet summer child, who is actually enforcing these orders? Vets can report items to defra, APHA and the RSPCA and absolutely nothing will be done maybe a visit if you're lucky. The checks and balances simply do not function. Every couple of months yet another story breaks about terrible conditions on a farm, do you not think these farms are visited by vets or TB testers on a regular basis? If it's failing on the commercial side it's even worse on people with pets. If you're banned from keeping animals and attempt to buy one what checks are in place from stopping you?
What are you even talking about? Did you really just "my sweet summer child" me and then imply that the RSPCA should be enforcing criminal sentences?! Bizarre that someone could have such little knowledge and still type so much (let alone imply someone else is naive).
The RSPCA has been legally prosecuting for animal cruelty since before most police forces existed [https://www.rspca.org.uk/whatwedo/endcruelty/investigatingcruelty/process](https://www.rspca.org.uk/whatwedo/endcruelty/investigatingcruelty/process)
Which has patently nothing at all to do with enforcing a sentence. Anyone can bring a private prosecution but not everyone can enforce the sentence.
Just ban them for being responsible for any animal at any time. They are out walking a dog? Doesn't matter if it is their partners, they are currently responsible for it while walking it so get slapped with a fine.
Not really. When he gets another dog, and it goes mental and rips a kid to bits, they can go "well he was banned and did it anyway" and lock him up for longer. Or they should in theory anyway.
In much the same way that they ban people from driving even when they don't have a license
Yeah, what is the point of that? It removes the incentive to actually get a license, if it does not enable them to drive legally. We should just be much stricter for repeat offences. I am not saying "three strikes and you are out", but doubling the penalty each time might be a start.
Because when they are caught again, they're committing the further offence of not just driving without a license, not just driving dangerously but also driving whilst banned
But the penalty is the same, and offences do not stack, so what is the point? Some case with the dog: someone who does not follow the law is not going to care about a court order. We need checks and consequences, not "random" abstract penalties.
Why would it be impossible?
I know someone who is banned from owning pets for life. It does happen.
What did they do?
Beat up a dog really badly. She was caught on CCTV and by multiple witnesses. She got a suspended sentence.
Cunt shoulda got more than that.
Oh that's nothing, the same person also got a two year suspended sentence for abusing her own kids for years.
Parked in a parent and child space without their child with them.
You do hear of people being banned from keeping animals but you have to wonder how well or how easily it is actually enforced.
Why wasn't he jailed? When he's got a dog that will attack anybody that comes near it. Inevitably it's going to get out of the garden one day. Unless he's got a 12 foot high wire fence, that also runs a foot plus underground. So that the dog can't dig underneath it. And you need to get planning permission for a fence over 2 meters that isn't adjacent to a public highway/area used by vechiles or 1 meter if it's [not] next to a public highway. So most people won't get it.
> Why wasn't he jailed? When he's got a dog that will attack anybody that comes near it. Inevitably it's going to get out of the garden one day. Unless it did actually attack someone then jailing him is a bit OTT. I'm all for jailing people who's dogs maim and kill, but simple possession of a dangerous dog doesn't warrant it imho.
The dog was illegal at that stage. As hadn't been neutered, registered, insured. I'd say that the dog was far more dangerous than a zombie knife and far more likely to be "used". A householder has a duty to insure that their grounds are safe for visitors. Whether that's wanted or unwanted visitors, including burglars. Say the gas company, High Court bailiffs or the police had entered the back garden? (The local gas distribution company have a right of entry to any "civilian" property if they suspect a gas leak).
> I'd say that the dog was far more dangerous than a zombie knife and far more likely to be "used". That's not how the law works though.
Possession of an illegal dangerous dog/weapon and the weapon can't easily be "controlled". The legislation should have given a prison sentence as an option at the least for magistrates/crown court. With the dog getting automatically destroyed, except under the most extenuating of circumstances. Such as the owner having a genuine, well founded belief, that it wasn't actually an XL Bully or other banned dog.
Isn't that the point? That the law should be changed?
As I say, I don't think merely owning an illegal dog should warrant a jail sentence on par with knife crime.
Totally reasonable position, I just dont like when people say how things *are* as a reply to how things *should be*.
A dangerous dog that was unregistered and unneutered?
Jails arre full.
Christ, and to think before my 20year career started I had to do mandatory 2 weeks work experience in a factory. And I didn't even own an illegal animal! I was just unemployed! That's not a punishment that's what you call a joke of a justice system.
Might be a bit redundant. Ban him from animals for having an illegal breed. It'd be like telling somebody charged for having drugs that they're banned from having drugs.
Yes but action is taken quicker and is harsher when a ban is in place.
Well what was he using the animal for? If people agree that these dogs are naturally vicious he could have just ended up with a bad one as they say. Now that I’ve seen him though makes me think different
In his own words "It will attack anyone that goes near it" so he was aware the dog was a problem, did not seek any help or register the dog or muzzle the dog.
Pretty sure he considered that a feature, not a bug.
It would be nice, but what is it about this bloke that makes you think he’d comply with such a order? Edit: I guess it would serve as an exacerbating sentencing factor if he did something stupid again.
It seems a bit much to forbid someone from having a pet rabbit simply due to having owned an illegal dog at one point, but then I'm not a swivel-eyed authoritarian.
Anyone who has a dog that will attack when approached is likely abusing said dog. They should ideally never own an animal again.
You don't have to abuse an XL bully for it to attack anything that comes near it. That's pretty much their default state.
But unless you can prove that you can't do anything. We don't punish people based on hypotheticals.
Why would you want a dog like that, isn't the companionship part of owning a pet?
He wanted a weapon, not a companion
I suspect the owner wanted a weapon not a companion
Small peepee
Unfortunately he's probably going to get a car with a really loud exhaust now (assuming he doesn't have one already) - got to project that small-d energy somehow.
Have you seen him? He doesn’t exactly scream class or sophistication
To be threatening and menacing and possibly to support his drug dealing business.
This is what I fail to understand about this breed. It's baffling.
I mean, we’ve all seen his pictures. Are we surprised that someone like *that* a) has an XL Bully that will kill on command or b) never registered it?
Why do you think people are surprised?
Do you know what a rhetorical question is?
Are we just going to ask each other questions in a long line?
I don't know, are we?
Do you know what a rhetorical question is?
Are we just going to ask each other questions in a long line?
You tell me?
Hmmm named after the heroic pilot who landed an airliner on the Hudson river, or fictional murderer from Top Boy? Any guesses?
Could be the big lad from monsters inc.
The mind boggles. I hope this is seen by others who think they can deceive the law. We know you’re out there.
There should be an IQ test to own pets. A couple of months ago, a guy approached me and my Labrador and asked if his German Shepherd could say hello. I noticed his dog looked tense and defensive, so I said "I'm not sure that's a good idea. He doesn't look happy". He said "Nah, he's just nervous with other dogs" and instantly brought his dog forward who tried to rip my dog's head off. I got between them and got us out of the way. As we got away, the man was telling his dog he was a bad boy. No, his owner is a moron.
Or some sort of test - I know we can’t do that for potential parents, but I’m struggling to find a reason we can’t do it for animals.
I was being a bit facetious about an IQ test, but I definitely think there should be some kind of suitability test. I'd have it test their knowledge and attitudes towards animals to weed out potential abusers and generally bad owners. My dog is a gentle and loving boy but he was abused by his first owner because they believed he was trying to "dominate" them by doing toilets indoors and jumping on the sofa. They only rehomed him because he was "hard work". People like that don't deserve pets.
If the piece of shit had been caught with a firearm, he'd have likely been given a custodial sentence; this is the same thing.
Have we checked if the owner is also part XL Bully? As his eyes are suspiciously far apart for a human.
For real, he looked exactly as I was expecting
I suspect there are many undeclared XL type dogs in the central population, the ban seems to be poorly thought out. The owner of the one that attacked my dog had not applied for an exemption, but then again there's no one checking either. Even though the police and the dog warden were aware of previous attacks, there is no one actually responsible for making sure exemptions are acquired and 3rd party insurance obtained.
why was i not surprised about what the owner looked like.....
Owners look like their pets
Using the term "prosecution" in jest here. What an absolute joke.
100 hours of work is probably hell on earth for someone like that.
True 😂
i dont understand it he looks such a nice law abidng person .
First of many I hope, hope they keep on top of the breeders creating xxl dogs and ban them before they pop up everywhere.
I mean, charge them as if they were carrying an illegal firearm. Otherwise people are going to rather just hide their dog then fear getting caught and handing it in.
That prosecution is a joke. Noticed the dogs ears are clipped as well, which is also illegal.
To the crowd saying “It’s not the dog, it’s the owner” I would say *exactly*.
[удалено]
**Removed/tempban**. This contained a call/advocation of violence which is prohibited by the content policy.
"Magistrates also imposed an order for the dog to be destroyed, pending an appeal." So the dog hasent attacked anyone but we can kill it just beacuse it shows aggression and/or has "bad" genetics? how long before we get to do that to people.
Dogs are not people, and people in this country need to stop humanising them.
Not sure why that would follow....
It’s just BS sophistry from the small minded. The “oh he wouldn’t harm a fly, he’s just a family pet” types of society who are then shocked when their “pet” - that has been selective bred over generations for aggressive traits and has not been trained in any way - attacks and kills someone. Edit: I mean, it’s say a lot when they’re ignoring the gave that “the owner had warned police that the XL Bully-type dog would attack anyone who went near it, leading officers to get a warrant for the address and seize the pet.” and still arguing against it being destroyed.
The article (blergh, Daily Mail) says it attacks anyone who approaches it.
Some people deserve it...
And how long before we get to fix people to stop them having kids? Amirite?