All thats been said on news so far is that it was a baby in Blackburn....
.

And a 'gingery' coloured dog, I heard on the radio. One report said it might have been a bullmastiff, another said 'not one of the breeds normally thought of as possible being dangerous'.

Baby One: Baby in Blackburn, Lancashire, killed by pet dog

Baby Two: Baby killed by pet dog in Holque, near Dunkirk

Owner error as always. 

First case strange baby in the dogs home, obviously lack of supervision, in both cases.

The latter case is likely to have occurred as the baby cried but was not heard by the insensible woman, with the dog becoming upset/confused/overstimulated into predatory behaviour.

Deary me, it never stops does it. :-(

Lunchtime news is talking about 'an American Pit Bull type'.   What irritated me in the initial report earlier this morning was the fact the reporter was immediately going to 'what breed'.   WHEN oh when is it going to hit home that ANY dog, in the right (wrong) circumstances has the potential to attack, and with a baby (this child was under a year old and not in her own home, I gather) kill.   No child should ever be left alone (I don't know about this in this case) with any dog, regardless of breed.

Ages ago people were warned not to leave their babies outside in their prams without a net across the infant, to avoid the risk of cats causing injury.   I'm old enough to remember that.   And most people would make sure they did this.

So far I've read pit bull type, brown and white crossbreed, and 'not a type that would be on the dangerous list' (words to that effect).

Ultimately it doesn't matter - yet again a young child was left unsupervised with a dog and tragedy has struck.  And yet again, I'm sure the public will start crying out for breeds to be banned, clearly oblivious of the fact that it does not work.

I am somewhat glad in this case that the parents have been arrested on a charge of manslaughter though.

Appalling - apparently the boyfriend was breeding these for sale? pit bull type (I don't think it was for show/to improve the breed/ or for work)  and the dog had been reported previously for killing a neighbours cat - how many pups has he sold to those who could only want this type of dog for the status they bring and how many of those buying them are responsible owners who care about responsible pet ownership? Its the responsible pet owners who are the ones who will pay when we are forced to insure our dogs/have them muzzled in public/ are prosecuted when some scroat trespassing on/burgling our properties is bitten - because that's where this is going - some breeds are not suitable for todays living environment/ irresponsible pet owners and the only way to stop people is to ban the breed/type and give recourse to prosecution when people break those bans. I wouldn't dream of having a breed that was not designed for living in a family environment - we advise people on here all the time to research a breed before deciding to purchase - why on earth in this day and age would anyone want a breed that was designed to inflict the maximum amount of damage on other animals (people and 11 month old babies included) in an urban environment when there are other breeds to suit everyone (status!)

Why woukd a dog attack a baby upstairs asleep in bed? that sounds slightly fishy to me. Time to ban more dangerous dogs they say. Well they have just anounced that the dog was already a banned breed. That ban worked well didnt it!

Well they have just anounced that the dog was already a banned breed

Oh! have they - so whats your source a formal police statement or a headline seeking/making journalist?
.

according to the local news this was announced by the police investigating. Is that official enough?

Is that official enough?

Yes certainly! it means now that info can be quoted with confidence beyond the more 'common/normal' speculative stuff!
.

That ban worked well didnt it!

Hethspaw -  I commented earlier when a police spokesman had confirmed that 'it was pit bull terrier-type dog prohibited under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991' on the BBC North West news not as you had surmised from a sensationalist news story.

It needs consistent enforcement - living in Manchester I could report at least 3 or 4 yobs with pit bull types on the walk to my local park everyday - all with dogs out of control that are threatening - I have reported twice a dog running loose in the street of pit bull type but no one was interested - we have dog control orders in the local park whilst the only ones ignoring the control orders are the irresponsible ones that the orders were brought in to control :( meanwhile I can't walk my 3 together (limit of 2 on leads) one local anti dog councillor will now be pushing for more controls after this latest incident of irresponsible dog ownership

> It needs consistent enforcement

And that is  the problem. there is neither the will nor the money for the government to enforce current laws. Therefore they make new stricter ones so that they arre seen to be doing something but dont enforce the new ones either. I dont beleive anything will ever change. :(

And to be quite honest I am not sure I understand all the hysteria around dog attacks. After all hundreds of people are killed by cars, many more kids are killed by their parents than by dogs. I did hear a statistic not so long ago that you are more likeley to be hit by lightening than killed by a dog. Or something like that. so why the mass hysteria  for such a rare event?

But that does not mean the law should be repealed - we could say that for lots of things are you suggesting that we repeal those laws too? There needs to be some sort of recourse to prosecute in cases such as these - else are we saying this was an accidental death that couldn't have been prevented? I'm sorry I cannot agree!

> But that does not mean the law should be repealed - we could say that for lots of things are you suggesting that we repeal those laws too?

no, just that the government ought to allocate resouces to enforce the existing laws before they bring in laws banning more dogs. Laws are no good without enforcement.

Well, I know I will be slated for this.  When this sort of thing happens to babies/children, it comes down to child neglect.  If you can't protect your child by supervising it, then you shouldn't be allowed to have more children.

> When this sort of thing happens to babies/children, it comes down to child neglect.

I think it does, too. That part of it will be a big feature with this case comes to trial.
Interesting article here :http://www.dog-secrets.co.uk/fatal-dog-attacks-prevention-is-the-answer/

Well said Jean. And in this particular circumstance it would appear that the mother put her own needs/desires above the care of her baby. Too many selfish young women . So easy to become a mother but unwilling to be a mother in the sense of nurture. I feel sorry for the baby's natural father. Appears she moved on , taking his child  to satisfy her own desires. He must be devastated .

Quite agree with you...

Will be interesting to hear what the RSPCA and the Police have to say about it after reading reports that the dog had been reported in the past to them.
Banned breed or not, it's as much about the type of person who owns them and the law must start clamping down hard.

I'm not slating you because you are absolutely right!!  

Further, just as with this latest smoking in cars with children on board (what about dogs onboard!!) law, laws that basically cannot be enforced, are stupid laws.   This DD Act was always going to be unenforceable.    And it's not helped by people putting their Pits to Staffies either.

I also agree Jan re the father BUT call me old fashioned, isn't this all about 'I want a baby' regardless of whether the circumstances are right to bring an innocent into the world.  What happened to a committed (marriage anybody?) relationship.   I know not what went on with this couple but it takes two to tango.

Mamabas, you are so right in what you say. So easy to become a mother. Baby often just an accessory . No stability in relationships -easy come/easy go and baby born regardless of circumstances. So sad. When did it become so ?  Must be fairly recent because I worked as a nurse in outports in Newfoundland in the early 1980s. It was very common for young girls to present in late pregnancy , often in labour at the cottage hospital. They were often as young as 12 and 13.  This was a bit of an eye opener to me as I had never encountered this in the UK .Indeed it was pretty well considered that first you got married and then you had  the baby and that usually occurred in your 20s or 30s. There was still a certain stigma attached to unmarried mothers. Today there is an abundance of sex education from a young age and easy access to contraception but babies are still born to mothers who are too immature to take responsibility for the life they have created.

Being young does not mean you will be a bad mother, I had my first at 16 and my kids are fantastic,  I own my own home both work don't drink go without for them. Bad people are just that bad people regardless of age and upbringing.

You are right Boody, and of course, mature mums are just as likely to be bad mothers. It just seems to be so common these days for young girls to have babies by serial partners with no regard for the responsibilities that being a parent entails.

Sorry if I offended. I had five children and cringe at some of the things I said and did . I was  by no means a perfect mother but did my best at the time. They're doing okay despite me !

No offence taken and I know what your saying.  Parenting on the whole seems to be slipping on this country. A lack of responsibility is a big issue.

> It just seems to be so common these days for young girls to have babies by serial partners with no regard for the responsibilities that being a parent entails.

I wonder how much of that is to do with the fathers moving on? They seem to be the ones IME how cannot cope with the reality of fatherhood and up sticks so the girl then looks for another partner.