Headless chickens comes to mind
Detail:
You couldn’t get more to-ing and fro-ing at a Wimbledon final. I am, of course, referring to the Government’s proposals on dangerous dogs.
First there was the suggestion that all dog owners needed to take competency tests. So all right, that was in a leaked Defra document a week or so before the proposals were made official. And maybe, just maybe, ministers were planning on dropping the idea all along…
Needless to say, that leaked suggestion created all sorts of protest and, come official announcement time, there was absolutely not a pip, not a squeak. It had completely dropped off the radar. The Great Houdini could not have pulled off a better disappearing act.
The proposals now focused on microchipping all dogs and forcing all dog owners to insure their pets, in case of attack on another dog or human. Then a week on, the Government beat a hasty retreat, tail between its legs.
Environment Secretary Hilary Benn explained that the proposal would not be turned into policy, as the Government did not want to penalise responsible owners. Instead, only dogs causing trouble could face being targeted with an insurance requirement as part of a control order.
Needless to say, the Tories had a field day, saying the change represented a “humiliating U-turn” for Labour and that ministers had turned their announcement into a “political dog’s dinner”.
Shadow environment secretary Nick Herbert was reported in the national media as saying: “Labour have dithered for years on this issue and then rushed out a policy consultation weeks before an election that was immediately seen as totally flawed.”
Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne said: “Another headline-grabbing Labour announcement has gone to the dogs.”
But it is obvious that something needs to be done – and urgently. Just last night, a 22-year-old man was found guilty of setting his pit bull-mastiff crossbreed dog on a 16-year-old boy, and then stabbing the boy to death in a park in south London.
And yesterday’s Evening Standard related how a guide dog for a registered blind owner was mauled by another dog while walking along a road in Holloway, north London. It was only when a youth apparently kicked the attacking dog in the nose that it let go and ran off.
Guide dog owner Brett Rogers has a very small amount of sight and could only describe the dog as being golden coloured with a pink nose. His dog is thankfully recovering from bites to its left ear and eye.
Whether or not the Government has chosen to raise this issue as an election tool, the fact is dogs are now firmly in the national spotlight. What we don’t want to see is a situation where dogs are considered guilty until proven innocent.
It is a deadly serious issue and needs to be tackled in a calm, rational manner, taking on board the experience and viewpoints of people who know what they are talking about, and not to degenerate into some kind of political point-winning slingfest.
First there was the suggestion that all dog owners needed to take competency tests. So all right, that was in a leaked Defra document a week or so before the proposals were made official. And maybe, just maybe, ministers were planning on dropping the idea all along…
Needless to say, that leaked suggestion created all sorts of protest and, come official announcement time, there was absolutely not a pip, not a squeak. It had completely dropped off the radar. The Great Houdini could not have pulled off a better disappearing act.
The proposals now focused on microchipping all dogs and forcing all dog owners to insure their pets, in case of attack on another dog or human. Then a week on, the Government beat a hasty retreat, tail between its legs.
Environment Secretary Hilary Benn explained that the proposal would not be turned into policy, as the Government did not want to penalise responsible owners. Instead, only dogs causing trouble could face being targeted with an insurance requirement as part of a control order.
Needless to say, the Tories had a field day, saying the change represented a “humiliating U-turn” for Labour and that ministers had turned their announcement into a “political dog’s dinner”.
Shadow environment secretary Nick Herbert was reported in the national media as saying: “Labour have dithered for years on this issue and then rushed out a policy consultation weeks before an election that was immediately seen as totally flawed.”
Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne said: “Another headline-grabbing Labour announcement has gone to the dogs.”
But it is obvious that something needs to be done – and urgently. Just last night, a 22-year-old man was found guilty of setting his pit bull-mastiff crossbreed dog on a 16-year-old boy, and then stabbing the boy to death in a park in south London.
And yesterday’s Evening Standard related how a guide dog for a registered blind owner was mauled by another dog while walking along a road in Holloway, north London. It was only when a youth apparently kicked the attacking dog in the nose that it let go and ran off.
Guide dog owner Brett Rogers has a very small amount of sight and could only describe the dog as being golden coloured with a pink nose. His dog is thankfully recovering from bites to its left ear and eye.
Whether or not the Government has chosen to raise this issue as an election tool, the fact is dogs are now firmly in the national spotlight. What we don’t want to see is a situation where dogs are considered guilty until proven innocent.
It is a deadly serious issue and needs to be tackled in a calm, rational manner, taking on board the experience and viewpoints of people who know what they are talking about, and not to degenerate into some kind of political point-winning slingfest.
By:
Sandra
Date/time :
19/03/2010
Replies to this topic...
