The post you are reporting:
There was a big thing on this on the BBC this morning: the Government is considering a series of measures designed to tackle the dangerous dogs issue, described as 'out of control' by the hack covering the story. This includes microchipping the dog, insuring the dog and reintroducing the dog licence; all of which smacks of slamming the kennel door after the dog has bolted (to borrow Sian Williams' phrase).
So, to return to our dog, whom I have referred to earlier in the thread: he's microchipped, insured and always on a lead when there are other people around (for reasons already stated). If a dog licence were reintroduced, I'd gladly buy one if it meant I couldn't keep him otherwise. None of these measures makes him any the less of a risk, I still wouldn't trust him near children, postmen or anyone wearing a high-viz jacket.
It remains the responsibility of the owners to ensure that their dogs are safe and legal; the simple fact is that dangerous dogs are pseudo status symbols among the moron fraternity where an ASBO is seen as something akin to a civil honour, and the Government need to be tackling the morons who keep dangerous dogs as trophies rather than those who keep dogs lawfully and safely. I do agree with the proposal that keeping of certain breeds should be illegal, though - you're not allowed to keep dangerous big cats, so why should you be allowed to keep dangerous big dogs? As for the reintroduction of the dog licence - that wouldn't be yet another form of taxation from our Government, would it? Not with their impeccable record of taxation, surely?
