I don't understand your logic.

Just to also add as something which is actually fact not a hypothetical situation.

Every Christmas my family spend Christmas day and some longer at my home. I have 5 brothers, countless nieces, nephews and great n's and n's, along with many adults, along with that most family members bring their dogs, that means I have can have upto 20 family dogs, all the dogs are kept seperate from the children, it's my responsibility with so many children in the house to make sure they are safe, not the dogs owners as I have invited them, if any child gets hurt it is my fault for inviting the dog, which is why the only family dog which is never invited to my home is one of my nephews Akita's, I know it is not dog friendly and I don't take the risk.

What happens in our homes is the home owners responsibility and where children are concerned, it's a very high priority.

I think the difficulty here is we are just not in receipt of all the facts and nor will we likely ever be.

My mother, for example, has no idea about dogs and wouldn't know an illegal dog if it sat next to her on the couch! If my dogs did something whilst under her supervision then it would be my fault as the person responsible for training my dogs and making sure anyone who was left in charge of their care was aware of how to handle them. For example, if I have to leave one of my dogs with the vet, they know never to give eye contact and not to make any fuss but to deal with him in a brusque and efficient manner. Thats MY responsibility to tell them how he reacts to strangers and fear.

I don't think we can say that the Grandmother was responsible. Was she aware of the breed? Was she aware of the dangers? How had her son trained the dog?

I would have thought head of that household is person responsible -which appears in this case to be the grandmother.  its her home , her rules.  she has permitted son to keep the dog there where supervised by herself.  ignorance of law I thought was in Uk not a valid defense.  also we aren't talking little old lady in 80s, this women is in her 60s so not That old.

I still do not see how any of those reasons should completely negate the son of any responsibility for his dog's behaviour. If it were my dog i would expect to be held to account for the behaviour of my dog as the owner.

If we are getting into hypethetical debate then how about this - You allow your friend to walk your dog, and on that walk your dog attacks and kills another dog. Do you hold your friend to account for the behaviour of your dog and refuse to accept any responsibility then just stand back in your Ivory Tower while your friend is prosecuted & sent to Prison under the DDA for your dog's behaviour? With friends like that who needs enemies?

That to me is just avoidance of responsibility. When i took on my dog's i took on full responsibility for them regardless of who's house they were in. I didn't just say 'Oh i take full responsibility for this, this, and this, but i'm not taking the blame if they kill one of the kids.' Personally i find that logic quite shocking. We can't just pick & chose when to take responsibility for our dogs then point the finger at other people when something terrible happens.

Let us not forget this is almost a carbon copy of the Ellie Laurenson case (except for the drugs). With your logic, was it wrong for the authorities to persue her Uncle? And i ask again, at what age do you consider a man to be a 'real' adult?

You allow your friend to walk your dog, and on that walk your dog attacks and kills another dog.

Firstly, myself and I doubt anyone responsible on this board would ask someone not completely dog competant to walk or look after a dog aggressive dog, and if I did trust someone to do it,  it would be muzzled and on a lead would it not?

Secondly if I had a dog aggressive dog I would make sure that I had the relevant insurance to deal with any issues like that, particularly 3rd party.

Thirdly at present we don't send people to prison for dog on dog attacks.

If someone is looking after my dog and they do not take the proper precautions then no that is not my fault, any of us looking after someones dog is responsible for it.

It is not a case of being in an ivory tower :-D we all make decisions we choose to look after a dog or not, if we do then we are responsible for it, simple as.

> I still do not see how any of those reasons should completely negate the son of any responsibility for his dog's behaviour.

I don't think the owner should be free of guilt atall and of course should be held responsible, but so should the person who was actively in charge of the dog at that time.

> You allow your friend to walk your dog, and on that walk your dog attacks and kills another dog

I don't and wouldn't allow anybody else to walk my dog, but for he sake of the discussion, no I would not sit back and expect the friend to take the all the blame.

When I was a teenager I had a dog-aggresive dog, (I was living with my dad), when I left home to move in with my OH I left the dog with my dad (we didn't think it fair to up-root him), he remained MY dog, but my dad was responsible enough to ensure he didn't injure any other dog, if he wasn't, then I would not have left the dog with him. There is no way that, if my dad was stupid enough to let that dog off-lead and allow it to hurt another dog, he would have expected to step back and place all the blame on me - the absent owner, he considered himself to be the one who was responsible for the dog while it was in his care.

Here is a bit from the DDA-

Keeping dogs under proper control (1) If a dog is dangerously out of control in a public place--
(a) the owner; and
(b) if different, the person for the time being in charge of the dog,
is guilty of an offence, or, if the dog while so out of control injures any person, an aggravated offence, under this subsection.

I know this is relating to a public place, but it still indicates THE PERSON IN CHARGE OF THE DOG AT THE TIME, if not the owner, as also responsible.

If a person is in charge of a dog (wheather they own it or not) they should still be held acountable, if not, all the low-lifes that use dogs as weapons need only claim their parents own the dog and they are scot-free.

ETA to include a link to the DDA, where I got the extract from

>You allow your friend to walk your dog, and on that walk your dog attacks and kills another dog. Do you hold your friend to account for the behaviour of your dog and refuse to accept any responsibility then just stand back in your Ivory Tower while your friend is prosecuted & sent to Prison under the DDA for your dog's behaviour? With friends like that who needs enemies?

Under the law the friend is liable, because they were the person in charge of the dog at the time. Whether or not you decide to hold your friend to account is irrelevant.

> If your 21 year old son lived with you and owned a dog that killed your grandson in your home, would you be satisfied that it should be you who should face charges,

Yes. As the person responsible for my grandchild and as the person in charge of the dog

I Agree with you mastifflover , who ever the dog belong to the grandmother was in charge , was the responsable adult here,

The other responsible adult here is the mother, if as neighbours have said the dog was a accident waiting to happen, why did the mother put her sons life in danger by letting him stay there, could it be the dog had been a friendly family dog and had been ok with the boy previously, will we ever know the real true circumstances to this tragic case.

By Carrington   Date 03.12.09 17:07 GMT You allow your friend to walk your dog, and on that walk your dog attacks and kills another dog.

Firstly, myself and I doubt anyone responsible on this board would ask someone not completely dog competant to walk or look after a dog aggressive dog, and if I did trust someone to do it,  it would be muzzled and on a lead would it not?

Secondly if I had a dog aggressive dog I would make sure that I had the relevant insurance to deal with any issues like that, particularly 3rd party.

Thirdly at present we don't send people to prison for dog on dog attacks.

If someone is looking after my dog and they do not take the proper precautions then no that is not my fault, any of us looking after someones dog is responsible for it.

It is not a case of being in an ivory tower  we all make decisions we choose to look after a dog or not, if we do then we are responsible for it, simple as.

Ok, now apply that to the breed in question, a breed banned under the Dangerous Dogs Act? Would you still not be responsible for it's behaviour as the ownder of a banned breed, you'd still not expect the Police to question you about how you came to own an illegal dog in the first place? Oh and for the 3rd time i'd still like to know at what age you consider a grown man to be a 'real' adult. You seem to be avoiding that one. lol

This is an entirely different question, my answer has been in regards to the 21 year old being possibly being charged with manslaughter, (sure that won't happen logically) but what you are asking now is something else.

Yes, he should be fined heavily (I would expect not imprisoned) for owning an illegal dog that he is responsible for, unless it was purchased by his parents then they should be fined.

But as for responsibility for what happened that day, that is in the court of the mother for keeping the dog there and being the carer of it.

Something that we do not know as of yet is as there was breeding going on in this house, is this dog one of the pups that was bred there? It may be, it may be one that his parents have reared and said it can be his dog, in which case the young man is not even responsible for owning the dog really is he? If it is a gift from the parent breeding them.

All will be revealed, but it does not matter how old our children are we don't stop guiding them and we always have a say and control of what happens in our homes.

Oh and for the 3rd time i'd still like to know at what age you consider a grown man to be a 'real' adult.

No avoidance at all???????? You can clearly see from my second post that I have stated he is an adult,

and yes, at 21 he is classed as an adult, but is the owness not on his mother/the grandmother?


The age of the young man is irrelevant, the carer of the dog at the time and the home the dog is living in is the parents, what you seem to be forgetting here is this is not a young man who has just brought home an illegal dog and left it with his innocent mother, the boys parents are heavily involved here and in it right up to their eyeballs in breeding and keeping these dogs, (already reported)

The parents are responsible for what is going on there whether the son is 16,21,35 or in his 40's if the son's name is not on the mortgage or rent book, he is a guest or a lodger, they are up to their neck in this and maybe even the instigators to the dog and breeding of pups being there in the first place.

> The age of the young man is irrelevant, the carer of the dog at the time and the home the dog is living in is the parents, what you seem to be forgetting here is this is not a young man who has just brought home an illegal dog and left it with his innocent mother, the boys parents are heavily involved here and in it right up to their eyeballs in breeding and keeping these dogs,

Also, it's not as if the man had just gone out for the day leaving the dog at home (in which case the mother could say she had not agreed to look after the dog, it was nothing to do with her, it had simply been left there for a few hours) he had gone away with the army so the mother had to know she would be caring for the dog long-term and therefore be responsible for it.

If she did not consider herself responsible for the dog while the owner was away with the army, then surely she would be held acountable for neglect of an animnal under the animal welfare act (surely non-ownership does not rid you of neglect of an animal living in your home). I really can't see any way in which the mother (of the owner) could NOT be held accountable.

Carrington and Mastifflover talking sense as always.  The mother had a duty of care towards the dog and the child, she should be charged with manslaughter and the son charged for owning a banned breed IMO.

By Carrington   Date 03.12.09 17:07 GMT .

Thirdly at present we don't send people to prison for dog on dog attacks.



Really? Last week a local man in our area was found guilty in his absence under section 3 of the DDA of owning a Dangerous Dog after his Neopitan Mastiff attacked and killed a Westie in the park. A warrant has been issued for his arrest & he is due to be sentanced later this month. This was a Dog on Dog attack & no person was injured.

If the circumstances are such that they have a serious enough consequence then yes, we do send people to prison for dog on dog attacks.

> If the circumstances are such that they have a serious enough consequence then yes, we do send people to prison for dog on dog attacks.

I doubt it's beacuse a dog was killed, I imagine it was becasue a Neo is a very large dog and people felt threatened.

from the DDA -
"For the purposes of this Act a dog shall be regarded as dangerously out of control on any occasion on which there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will injure any person".

It's never going to go away is it?  As long as there is a kudos surrounding these macho breeds amongst idiots who get hold of them, this sort of thing is going to keep happening.  It's the same with the whole gun situation, the ban on handguns hasn't stopped the criminals who've always had them, it's only affected law-abiding folk which is exactly what anymore legislation on dogs will do - affect the already law-abiding, sensible folk.

We had 10 dogs and 2 young children and my heart bleeds for these poor babies (I can't even begin to imagine the pain they suffered) that keep getting hurt or killed and I would kill a dog myself if I witnessed an attack but I would never put my children in that situation regardless of the fact we don't own any of these breeds.

I'm sorry but I'm actually getting tired of the 'blame the owner not the dog' argument... of course the owner is to blame, but these dogs are designed purely to destroy, if anyone has seen a bull type fight another dog (I had once that did), nothing stands a chance against the jaw power of these dogs.  My views have changed over the years, from 'it's all just the owner, why ban the breeds' to 'it's still the owners, but I wish these breeds could be got rid of permanently somehow but impossible'.

I'm personally not sure about Rotties having never had much to do with them but if they're anything like Shepherds, of which we're on our fourth, it's the odd 'bad egg' situation.  But, I'm sorry, more needs to be done to properly & professionally assess any pit-bull type and PTS if necessary.  Too many children are dying now and at this rate, quite understandably desperate measures are going to be brought in that are only going to harm sensible dog folk.   It's a really sad desperate situation.

ETA - I'm not sure what will teach these idiots not to mess around with these dogs, prison or otherwise

from the DDA -
"For the purposes of this Act a dog shall be regarded as dangerously out of control on any occasion on which there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will injure any person".

Ditto, I think we are all pretty much au fait with doglaw and the DDA, there is obviously much more to that particular case and possibly a long history, full facts should be stated before declaring a dogs owner is to be sentenced for just a dog on dog attack, you need to know what he is actually being sentenced for, I doubt very much it is for that reason. A warrant has been issued for his arrest & he is due to be sentanced later this month A sentence can mean anything from a fine upwards it does not mean prison by the way, it may even mean community service, not until the sentence is past does anyone know so again wrong to say the man is going to prison.

As with any tragic event there is rarely one person or action that is 'to blame' there is always an error chain. My thoughts are more work is needed on making all those 'links' in the chain culpable to varying appropriate degrees of course.(be it a person or an event/action)
  There were a great many people and links in this chain that could have and should have acted to break this chain and thus ensured this tagic event would have never come to pass :-(
  For me personally I would feel that 'if' I was one of those links no matter how great or small a part I played, I would judge myself wholly culpable and ultimately responsible.

There were a great many people and links in this chain that could have and should have acted to break this chain

Never a truer word, you are right the chain goes down even to the little boys parents, they too knew the dog was there, probably knew it growled and scared the neighbours too and that breeding had been going on in the house with a police complaint. All will suffer forever at what has happend, I dare say they will all blame one another and be filled with what if's, a much loved child is now gone.

You can only hold the Grandmother responsible IF she was aware of the facts.

IF the owner asked her to mind the dog and said "oh, by the way, this is an illegal breed and don't allow any situation to arise where he is alone with a child" then their might be a case to argue that she is jointly responsible.

If I asked my Mum to mind my child unfriendly dog (not that I ever would) and dropped him off giving her NO information at all (and my Mum wouldn't know what questions are relevant to ask given she has no idea about dogs) and my dog bit a child visiting then its MY fault.

If I dropped him off and said he would bite a child and to keep him in another room and my Mum didn't heed that advice then my Mum would be jointly responsible.

We don't have the facts and it's foolhardy to form conclusions with what little we do know.

If what the press reports say is true then I'm in no doubt that the whole family knew the dog was illegal. Reports of dog breeding in the house were apparently reported to the police in February. Wouldn't you find it odd that the sale of any pups was done so secretly.......with I'm sure, some rather undesirable people buying them. It was all driven by greed and even if the son was the owner, they all knew what he was doing.

TBH, I never read press reports as, from personal experience, the rubbish they spout is unbelievable.

>If I asked my Mum to mind my child unfriendly dog (not that I ever would) and dropped him off giving her NO information at all (and my Mum wouldn't know what questions are relevant to ask given she has no idea about dogs) and my dog bit a child visiting then its MY fault.

Morally you'd be at fault, but legally your mother would be responsible, because she was the on in charge of the dog at the time; just as a kennel owner would be responsible if your dog bit someone whilst it was being boarded there. This is one of the reasons why they have insurance - as do sensible dog-walkers too.

>> I'm personally not sure about Rotties having never had much to do with them but if they're anything like Shepherds, of which we're on our fourth, it's the odd 'bad egg' situation

I don't think demonising particular breeds is helpful as I believe people become complacent and a 'it's only staffs/pitts/rotts etc' mentality emerges where in reality I feel a huge culture change is required relating to the responsibilities that go with owning a dog and that a postive time investment is required to train a dog appropriately.  TBH shepherds and collies are the dogs I have had most issues with but wouldn't dream of suggesting there should be a ban - unless the ban is for people who buy a working collie and expect it to be happy stuck in the house alone with no exercise or stimulation!

In Japan, before one can buy a car, one has to prove that one has an allocated parking space, suitable for the car that one wishes to buy - and that permit is quite expensive - and has to be shown to the seller of any vehicle - and that permit has to be displayed in the car and another copy of it on the alloted parking space.

In my opinion, in the "ideal" world anybody purchasing a dog would have to buy a permit - or licence if one prefers - and in order to obtain said licence/permit - would have to go through an examination of sorts - about keeping a dog, its needs, the legalities surrounding the dog, and how to keep the dog and other people and animals safe.   Unless this permit was shown by prospective owners to the breeder/seller/rescue organisation, then no dog could change hands - and the permit should then have to be carried by the dog (rather like american dogs have to wear their annual licence) at all times.

But this would be in an ideal world, where all people would care about their dogs and the safety of children - and sadly we do not live in this ideal world :(

Once again, poor innocent child, poor badly-bred dog, greedy arrogant posturing owner - and poor guilty grandmother who will never forgive herself for having allowed a son to take such risks with his family :(

I shuddered when I see the headline and I instantly knew what the outcome would be, pit bull 'type' :-(

Staffords/pit bulls etc, all these types are not born evil and wanting to rip everything apart, they have to of had some real trauma and not a nice life at all, they are made evil by evil people.

Im not excusing what happened for a second, but when you see pics of the owner sticking his finger up and another with him holding a mock gun (pics in the paper) you wonder what he must have done to that poor dog to make it so wild :-( :-(
Also the probs started when the man left his dog to go and serve, so maybe it was only under control when he was there and when he left it it was free to do what he trained it to do anything it wanted.

But then again dogs dont attack for no reason, its always children left alone who end up being attacked, who would leave any child alone with any dog from a mastiff to a daushaund? friend or foe? I would never leave any child alone with a dog, never.

There was another story very recently where a man tried to break up HIS own 2 Alsations when they had a random fight, but they then turned on HIM and killed him through blood loss after mauling him rather then fighting each other, and they were his own dogs and not even pit bull 'types'... goes to show it aint just these bullbreeds which are dangerous, any dog is. not that we should fear all dogs but certainly have a air of awareness about us.

I am a firm believer we need dog licensing 100%, all honest good dog owners wouldnt have a prob with it at all, I know if I was stopped and asked for ID when walking my 2 I would PRAISE the copper who asked me!!
Dog licensing is the only way forward or more children will suffer and plenty more innocent puppies will meet a life of aggression and be destroyed in a violent way through no fault of their own :-(

> Dog licensing is the only way forward or more children will suffer and plenty more innocent puppies will meet a life of aggression and be destroyed in a violent way through no fault of their own :-(

How would dog licensing have helped her or in any other situation.  this dog would not have been Licensed, it is actually illegal, yet freely taken out, so if this law was not enforced what makes it likely that licenses would e checked.

Licensing would prove ownership or identify a dog, but none of the cases of deaths has there been an issue of identifying these.

Why should I pay an administrative fee to own my dogs, I pay VAT on their Vet treatment, help the economy by buying for their needs, and see no reason to have to pay a dog tax, which is of no benefit to law abiding caring owners, who are the only ones that would pay it.

My dogs are already registered with the Kennel club, their details logged with Petlog due to them being microchipped and also with the NDTR as they are tattooed,a nd as required by law they wear collar tags with my name and address on them.  These are all of some kind benefit to me and my dogs, not to some bureaucracy.

> 'it's still the owners, but I wish these breeds could be got rid of permanently somehow but impossible'.
>

So you think that my two Staffords, one aged almost 8 the other 3, should be 'got rid of permanently', simply because of their breed?
Doesn't that just do as you've already said that doesn't work, i.e. affect law-abiding sensible folk?

General reply: I for one hate the moniker 'deed not breed', because to me it seems to indicate that an incident must happen first before any action is taken, but I do agree with the 'not breed' part of it.