Dog owners could be forced to take out insurance
8:52am Tuesday 9th March 2010 in
DOG owners could be required to insure themselves against the risk of their pet attacking someone, it has been announced.
Government proposals suggest forcing every dog owner to take out third party insurance and to have their dog microchipped.
Ministers are also considering introducing New Dog Control Notices for misbehaving animals.
The "Dogbo" orders would allow police officers and council officials to force miscreant owners to muzzle, leash or even neuter their pets.
Do you think the proposals are a good idea?
Have your say below...
In extreme cases the dogs could even be confiscated and given to new owners.
The measures, part of proposed changes to the Dangerous Dogs Act, are aimed at tackling the growing problem of vicious animals being bred for use as weapons.
Ministers are also considering making it a criminal offence for a dog owner to allow their animal to be "dangerously out of control". Currently they are only breaking the law if the dog is out of control in a public place.
The change would extend the law to private residences, and could provide extra protection for postmen. There is also concern about the widespread use of dogs as weapons on inner city estates.
Home Secretary Alan Johnson said: "Britain is a nation of animal lovers, but people have a fundamental right to feel safe on the streets and in their homes.
"The vast majority of dog owners are responsible, but there is no doubt that some people breed and keep dogs for the sole purpose of intimidating others, in a sense using dogs as a weapon. It is this sort of behaviour that we will not tolerate; it is this sort of behaviour that we are determined to stop."
Comments(24)
tarot
says...
9:26am Tue 9 Mar 10
saymybit
says...
9:41am Tue 9 Mar 10
if we are thinking of injury to others then I think this should be extended to mobility scooters and pushbikes too - but who will enforce it ?
politicrat
says...
10:00am Tue 9 Mar 10
tarot wrote:that is the world we live in!
Do you think the proposals are a good idea?Just like motor insurance then. The responsible will pay the irresponsible will not and the problem will continue.
you work and save and pay for the unemployed, unwilling and unfits.
then come old age and you have to sell your lifesaving assets to be cared for whilst those who have been careless get free healthcare.
It is a bit too late to complain about it now.
tarot
says...
10:05am Tue 9 Mar 10
There would be no point in complaining it would get us nowhere.
silvergran
says...
10:09am Tue 9 Mar 10
Chowmai
says...
10:25am Tue 9 Mar 10
Those licensing a dog must supply various details including medical, neutering and insurance certificates.
The licensing works two ways. One if a dog is lost its owner is easily identified and two if the dog, ergo the owner, is subject to legal violation (off leash, fouling, neglect of animal, attacking livestock or people) then again they are easily traceable.
We used to have dog licensing in this country and for whatever reason the powers of the day decided to cancel the need for it.
The re-establishing of an adequate licensing and insurance system may just help prevent some of the much publicised injuries and deaths caused by dog attacks AND make it easier to prosecute those who ill-treat their own animals.
And for those of us who are a tad fed up with the perpetual problem of pooh on pavements, it may just see some of the offending owners who refuse to clear up after their pets in court.
Maybe 6 months community service picking up pet pooh off the street and grassed areas they were so happy to let their own dog foul may just bring home how unpleasant the problem really is!
politicrat
says...
10:29am Tue 9 Mar 10
Chowmai wrote:I agree with you, unfortunately Brits and their lunatic politicians aren't very well known to have common sense.
Most if not all of the states in the US have dog licensing with tags issued that must be kept on the dogs’ collar. Those licensing a dog must supply various details including medical, neutering and insurance certificates. The licensing works two ways. One if a dog is lost its owner is easily identified and two if the dog, ergo the owner, is subject to legal violation (off leash, fouling, neglect of animal, attacking livestock or people) then again they are easily traceable. We used to have dog licensing in this country and for whatever reason the powers of the day decided to cancel the need for it. The re-establishing of an adequate licensing and insurance system may just help prevent some of the much publicised injuries and deaths caused by dog attacks AND make it easier to prosecute those who ill-treat their own animals. And for those of us who are a tad fed up with the perpetual problem of pooh on pavements, it may just see some of the offending owners who refuse to clear up after their pets in court. Maybe 6 months community service picking up pet pooh off the street and grassed areas they were so happy to let their own dog foul may just bring home how unpleasant the problem really is!
I mean look.... Labour won 3 times in a row and just about to close in on Tories in 2010.
Britain = Idiocracy
Robh
says...
10:38am Tue 9 Mar 10
Retired at last
says...
11:56am Tue 9 Mar 10
What about the same for cat's?
Robh
says...
12:03pm Tue 9 Mar 10
Retired at last
says...
12:41pm Tue 9 Mar 10
Robh wrote:I could go along with that, but not for cats.
Even better. Rehome the dogs and put the owners down.
reality_check
says...
1:00pm Tue 9 Mar 10
Chowmai wrote:However, in the US the police are actually interested in law-enforcement. Indeed they are constitutionally bound to 'serve and protect'.
Most if not all of the states in the US have dog licensing with tags issued that must be kept on the dogs’ collar. Those licensing a dog must supply various details including medical, neutering and insurance certificates. The licensing works two ways. One if a dog is lost its owner is easily identified and two if the dog, ergo the owner, is subject to legal violation (off leash, fouling, neglect of animal, attacking livestock or people) then again they are easily traceable. We used to have dog licensing in this country and for whatever reason the powers of the day decided to cancel the need for it. The re-establishing of an adequate licensing and insurance system may just help prevent some of the much publicised injuries and deaths caused by dog attacks AND make it easier to prosecute those who ill-treat their own animals. And for those of us who are a tad fed up with the perpetual problem of pooh on pavements, it may just see some of the offending owners who refuse to clear up after their pets in court. Maybe 6 months community service picking up pet pooh off the street and grassed areas they were so happy to let their own dog foul may just bring home how unpleasant the problem really is!
.
In the UK the police cannot be bothered. Or at best, are selective in the laws they choose to enforce.
.
We already have the Dangerous Dogs Act which makes it a criminal offence not to have any dog under control (ie. on a lead) in a public place. However if you are threatened or assaulted by a dog off a lead try getting the lazy and incompetant police to show an interest. No chance.
.
Introducing this additional legislation will make nice headlines for the politicians, but will the police spring into action to enforce it? Unless there's revenue in it or career-enhancing points to be won, I somehow doubt it.
Kineasy
says...
1:47pm Tue 9 Mar 10
Pseudo
says...
2:36pm Tue 9 Mar 10
.
Why don't Labour just pack up their bags and clear off.
.
They know there are not enough Police to enforce the existing laws without creating any new ones.
reality_check
says...
5:32pm Tue 9 Mar 10
Pseudo wrote:There are enough police. But they're busy doing other things. Somewhere along the line they decided it was their job to decide which laws to enforce and which ones they would not bother with anymore, in order to free up time for less arduous activities, such as public consultation exercises, statistical crime reduction programmes and award ceremonies.
This is another stupid idea from a Government that's run out of steam. . Why don't Labour just pack up their bags and clear off. . They know there are not enough Police to enforce the existing laws without creating any new ones.
swinDON Quixote
says...
5:46pm Tue 9 Mar 10
There's ANPR for a start ( Automatic Nawty Pooch Rehabilitation )
And if any canine is found to be uninsured, the offending doggy could be served with an ASBOne! .....whatever next ?
reality_check
says...
9:40pm Tue 9 Mar 10
swinDON Quixote wrote:Oh stop, you're killing me..
Wait though....Think of the new technology that will be required to enforce this new law ! There's ANPR for a start ( Automatic Nawty Pooch Rehabilitation ) And if any canine is found to be uninsured, the offending doggy could be served with an ASBOne! .....whatever next ?
her_in_doors2
says...
10:19pm Tue 9 Mar 10
Unfortunately if you don’t already control your animals and clear up after them then you are unlikely to do so because Gordon Brown asks you to.
Even if the police were to bring a case the magistrates are just as likely to throw it out because the dog had big woeful eyes or the owner is on benefits and had to choose between his daily fag/drug/beer allowance and insuring his dog.
Yet another un-enforceable law that just wastes everyone time.
PK
says...
1:10am Wed 10 Mar 10
tarot wrote:The proposals are unworkable and stupid. As Tarot says, only the responsible dog owners will be penalised.
Do you think the proposals are a good idea?Just like motor insurance then. The responsible will pay the irresponsible will not and the problem will continue.
What about the elderly who perhaps only have a small dog as their only companion and can't afford the proposed £600 for 3rd Party Liability Insurance? (which is a nonsensical amount in the first place given that top of the range dog insurance costs around £400 per annum).
While I agree with microchipping (mine are both microchipped), microchipping only works if the owners remember to inform the microchipping company if they move house, change their telephone numbers etc.
Microchips can and do stop working. Sometimes they migrate to another part of the animal's body. A chip implanted in the scruff of the neck can sometimes end up, say on the hip or even on the belly. That's happened more than once.
Microchip scanners can also be faulty and, as there is more than one microchipping company, not all scanners can read another company's chip.
I think a far better, and more cost effective method of dealing with the problem of irresponsible owners is to increase the current penalties which, at the moment are woefully inadequate. Same goes for the penalties for cruelty to animals. They are no deterrent whatsoever.
This "consultation" to me is just another money-making scheme for the government.
Anyone doubting that should have a look at one of today's newspapers - DM. The government are doing another "consultation". This time the target of their "affections" is young mothers with prams or buggies using buses!
Election due or what???
PK
says...
1:11am Wed 10 Mar 10
Many of them cover dogs for 3rd Party Liability.
swinDON Quixote
says...
5:50pm Wed 10 Mar 10
Maybe it's time we PAWSED for thought on this one. Just who is going to feel the COLLAR of an uninsured doggy, and what type of punishment can the hapless pooch expect ? The police seize uninsured motor vehicles, impound them and then make the owners pay for their release...same thing here ?... Think not !
And I heard today that the latest target for a govt. "crackdown" are mothers using public transport whilst in possession of a pushchair !
Something tells me that there might be an election fairly soon ?
Jiver
says...
7:19pm Wed 10 Mar 10
swinDON Quixote wrote:Surely ANPR is Automatic Naughty Pooch Recognition
Wait though....Think of the new technology that will be required to enforce this new law ! There's ANPR for a start ( Automatic Nawty Pooch Rehabilitation ) And if any canine is found to be uninsured, the offending doggy could be served with an ASBOne! .....whatever next ?
swinDON Quixote
says...
9:14pm Wed 10 Mar 10
Jiver wrote:Could be "Anonymous Non-insured Pup Reporting"
swinDON Quixote wrote:Surely ANPR is Automatic Naughty Pooch Recognition
Wait though....Think of the new technology that will be required to enforce this new law ! There's ANPR for a start ( Automatic Nawty Pooch Rehabilitation ) And if any canine is found to be uninsured, the offending doggy could be served with an ASBOne! .....whatever next ?
More Latest News stories
- Hunt begins for 100 apprenticeships in Wiltshire
- Police launch new initiative for investigating burglaries
- Police hunt man following bank card theft
- Three horses killed in late-night collision
- TROWBRIDGE & DISTRICT LEAGUE: Frozen pitches leave teams out in the cold
- Wiltshire Police reach milestone in domestic violence protection project
- Malmesbury surgery in consultation
Most popular
IVA help and Advice
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
politicrat says...
9:11am Tue 9 Mar 10