Solving the World's problems with common sense and a flamethrower.

Tuesday, March 09, 2010

Dangerous Dogs Act to be Extended

Feral chavs: neutering would reduce the proliferation of this dangerous animal.

Owners and breeders of dangerous teenagers would have to take out insurance against someone else being attacked, under Government proposals to tackle dangerous breeding.

Police and local councils could also get new powers to force the owners of the worst breeds to muzzle them or even get them neutered.

Ministers say that they are responding to public concern about vicious chavs being used in packs to intimidate or threaten people. There has also been a reported rise in levels of fighting and illegal breeding, particularly by gangs who are using their most dangerous sprogs as status symbols.

Home secretary Alan Johnson said, "the rise in the prevalance of aggressive, poorly-restrained and semi-feral chavs, especially in deprived urban areas, is a matter for concern. While police do their best to control the problem, the budget simply cannot run to sufficient Burberry clothing and Elizabeth Duke jewellery to placate the animals.

"Despite the fact that our legislation has largely removed the concept of 'responsible ownership', we feel that more legislation is necessary to force owners and breeders of chavs to take more care, and get these dangerous beasts off our streets."

Under the proposed rules, parents would be required to take out third-party insurance to cover and compensate for attacks on people or property carried out by the chav in their ownership. The Government is also to consult on mandatory spaying of all female chavs after their third litter, normally by the age of seventeen, as an extension to the Dangerous Dogs Act.

Male chavs would be subject to additional rules including neutering at the onset of puberty for the most dangerous breeds, and muzzling or gagging for all others when in public. Mr Johnson added that these measures would 'reduce the proliferation of these dangerous animals'.

Stumble Upon Toolbar


Old Holborn said...

It isn't the chavs

Furor Teutonicus said...

If they extended it to Catherine Ashton and whatshername HarMAN, then it may be some use.

Both are dangerous and both are MOS deffinately DOGS.

daniel said...

I have always been curious about functionality in websites and, well, the world in general. I read this article with great interest. It does seem to me that the reason we comment is to speak our minds so why not have the comment field first? However, as others have pointed out, one gets used to the conventions regardless of reason.
love to see this discussion! It’s great to see you all working through the issues and also, it’s great to see recommendations for testing. In the end, it’s what your actual users do and prefer that should be your biggest driver in making these decisions.

study abroad

Furor Teutonicus said...

daniel said...
It does seem to me that the reason we comment is to speak our minds so why not have the comment field first?

Because it is "normal" if not even POLITE to comment on what has been written by the bloody site OWNER. Or had you forgotten that bit?

If you want to go off commenting on the colour of the sky on a blogg about dog bites, then start your own blogg.

banned said...

Super idea with Alan Johnson speaking sense at last though I fear he may have been misquoted; surely he meant "depraved urban areas"?