A woman has been jailed at Newcastle crown court due to her staff attack on 12 kids at Blyth Northumberland.
The police have now tightened up their procedure to ensure dangerous dogs ''are delt with in a timely manner'', source BBC news at 1.
see link

http://metro.co.uk/2017/12/12/woman-jailed-four-years-dangerous-pet-dog-attacked-12-children-7152271/
.

SMH.  What an absolute fool of a woman.  Twice convicted before?  So irresponsible.

I had always assumed that if an order of destruction was made against a dog that the authorities then took and destroyed it. Reading the article it sounds like an order of destruction had been issued and the expectation was that the owner was going to carry it out!?

Initially the owner said the dog belonged to the police or authorities which makes me wonder if she was waiting for them to come and get it/destroy it not grasping that it was on her to do so?

In the circumstances (dog had been trained to bite by her partner and had twice before attacked and bitten children, and an order of destruction issued on the dog) one does have to wonder how the animal was even still in her possession on the day of the 3rd attack.

One wonders why/how the partner wasn't held to account for his part in the dogs behaviour then. Surely he's just as responsible?

Presumably she is the registered (by chip) "keeper" of the dog. Or possibly she is the sole listed tenant at the address where the dog resided. And therefore legally responsible for it.

However I do question whether we can rationally expect a woman living with an obviously violent man to destroy a dog he has trained and must therefore regard as "his".

Listening to a report on it yesterday, my understanding is that she was ordered to hand the dog in for destruction and had not done so.  I don't understand why he wasn't seized or any follow up made to ensure it was done.

And yes, why hasn't the partner been jailed too?

In the circumstances (dog had been trained to bite by her partner and had twice before attacked and bitten children,

That was 'heresay' comments I have only seen made in various press reporting, 'heresay' is not admissible UK criminal courts. It also seems that the woman charged with the offence said her boyfriend had trained the dog to be aggressive as part of her defence.

Metro:
''Newcastle Crown Court heard screaming children clambered up trees and climbing frames in a bid to get away from the animal, who had been trained by Neal’s partner to be aggressive.''

http://metro.co.uk/2017/12/12/woman-jailed-four-years-dangerous-pet-dog-attacked-12-children-7152271/

You would think in this day n age once a dog is ordered to be destroyed that police would enforce this.
Back when I was a kid a friends family got around it when they had a gsd who was ordered by police to be putdown, it had bitten a few people. Their grandparents had an older one with cancer so they took that dog in its place. It was later ordered to be putdown again after biting more people.

I'd guess they did class the partner as an owner/one responsible for keeping the dog.

You would think in this day n age once a dog is ordered to be destroyed that police would enforce this.

I think on some occasions they do, that might be because the police were involved more or less at the time of the incident. One press report says this one was destroyed after the incident but it does not say by who, it might be something to do with the law, guesswork on my part but if the police and see an attack or part of it they can then take it & destroy it as they witnessed the dog attacking & maybe under that specific circumstance that can take it & have it destroyed.
Either way, somewhere down the line she was left to take it to be PTS herself probably because it bit, was then reported, then she went to court whilst the dog still in her possession & the court ordered that she had it euthenased by a certain date, in this latest case the police probably took the dog because they might have the right  in law 'under this set of circumstances' to do that.

And yes, why hasn't the partner been jailed too?

He was not involved in any part of this incident as far as any reports I have seen, lets hope the day never comes when police can march into someones home, grab the person watching a DVD, TV or maybe still in bed & puts them on a charge of 'breathing', thats what happened 75 years ago in Germany.

Fair enough, the way the report was read it sounded like it was a known part of the case rather than just hearsay.  It should be investigated if possible though, as if true, he could easily go on to do it again with another dog.

''the way the report was read it sounded like it was a known part of the case rather than just hearsay.''

It quite probably was said & it might quite well be true, but, the reason it was/might have been used in the case was offer some 'mitigating' circumstances for the woman to try & get her a lighter sentence.  (eg ''I only pulled the guns trigger, he had loaded it'')

''It should be investigated if possible though, as if true,''

Do I assume correctly that you mean him 'training' the dog to be aggressive should be investigated?
'If thats what you mean', there would be nothing to investigate >because< it is not a criminal offense to train a dog to make it aggressive.

''he could easily go on to do it again with another dog.''

He almost certainly will, he is not banned from keeping a dog, it seems, it was/is the only type of dog either of them were interested in.