Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 83
  1. #1
    The Dentist English Noodles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Burning Down a Pikey Caravan
    Posts
    17,230

    Young Girl Savaged By Three Rottweilers

    Breaking News

    9:44am UK, Monday August 30, 2010

    A 10-year-old girl is undergoing plastic surgery after three rottweilers attacked her when she was riding her bike.


    She has a fractured jaw, bite marks on her face, and injuries to her right arm and left leg.


    Tayside police say the attack happened in Dundee on Saturday morning.
    More follows...


    Dogs Attack: Girl Aged 10 Has Plastic Surgery After Being Savaged By Three Rottweilers In Dundee | UK News | Sky News


  2. #2
    The Dentist English Noodles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Burning Down a Pikey Caravan
    Posts
    17,230
    Okay, it's down to 2 dogs now.


    Breaking News

    10:11am UK, Monday August 30, 2010

    Young Girl Savaged By Pair Of Rottweilers


    A 10-year-old girl is undergoing plastic surgery after being attacked by two rottweilers.

    She was riding her bike in Dundee's Dryburgh Street when she was set upon by the dogs.
    She suffered a fractured jaw, bite marks to her face and injuries to her right arm and left leg.
    It is understood the rottweilers will be put down and their owners may be charged.
    Tayside Police say the attack happened at around 11am on Sunday as the girl was cycling near some shops.
    The dogs were disturbed by her grandmother, who ran from her nearby home, and a passing motorist who tooted his horn.
    The girl is being treated at Ninewells Hospital.
    Police are appealing for witnesses.
    Anyone with any information is asked to call 0300 111 2222 or Crimestoppers on 0800 555 111.


    Dogs Attack: Girl Aged 10 Has Plastic Surgery After Being Savaged By Two Rottweilers In Dundee | UK News | Sky News

  3. #3
    Thailand Expat
    kmart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 10:25 AM
    Location
    Rayong.
    Posts
    10,714
    Good dogs if they have a good owner, but sadly (like several other 'macho' breeds) they seem to appeal to the type of person who would not normally own dogs..
    Hope the poor girl isn't too badly disfigured.

  4. #4
    Member
    harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    Today @ 01:56 AM
    Posts
    60,583
    The dogs were disturbed by her grandmother, who ran from her nearby home, and a passing motorist who tooted his horn.
    What a fucking hero. How about running the fuckers over, or wrapping a tire iron round their heads?

    Well done Granny I say.

  5. #5
    Molecular Mixup
    blue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Last Online
    09-06-2019 @ 01:29 AM
    Location
    54°N
    Posts
    11,353
    All thats needed to know about the mentality of many people who own bully breed weapon dogs are the names they give them -Hannibal, Terminator, Bruiser etc
    when more details of this story come out it will be something like this-
    '' Tyson never attacked anyone before , i just can't understand it.. ''

  6. #6
    Thailand Expat
    keda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Last Online
    17-12-2010 @ 12:06 PM
    Posts
    9,831
    Quote Originally Posted by kmart View Post
    Good dogs if they have a good owner, but sadly (like several other 'macho' breeds) they seem to appeal to the type of person who would not normally own dogs..
    Hope the poor girl isn't too badly disfigured.
    The saying goes, no bad dogs only bad owners. While the owner should be held personally responsible for any damage that his dog causes, this is rarely applied. Worst way they end up with a fine, unless the dog has provable form, but that isn't easy to 'legally' prove.

    Also, no matter how people-friendly a dog may be, it is still a dog and therefore unpredictable, either off the leash on the road or with people/children; that goes doubly underlined for the more aggressive breeds.

    Hopefully the girl won't be too badly disfigured, and learns to come to terms with the obvious trauma.


    I have had personal experience with two Staffs in the UK that savaged my (gf's) mini-yorkies. The owner was charged and prosecuted. She plead guilty, on legal aid, but successfully defended the dogs being put down. Strict conditions were imposed including muzzles and 'psychological' dog counseling or training or some other idiotic bleeding hearts substitute for a big hug, but everything was back to normal within days and they were routinely loose in public without a muzzle. It also emerged, from her kids (about 5-7 yr-old), that one or both dogs had more than once bared their teeth as they approached their little (newborn) sister; they told mum, and she said don't leave the baby alone with the dogs. No need for comment! Anyway, all was resolved when someone poisoned the dogs, and I do hope it was as painful for the owner.

  7. #7
    Member bretby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Last Online
    21-04-2019 @ 09:49 PM
    Posts
    713
    'Those were not dogs, they were machines.' Girl, 10, mauled by two Rottweilers ... Daily Mail

    Girl, 10, mauled by two Rottweilers as she rode her bike | Mail Online

  8. #8
    Member

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    13-10-2015 @ 03:54 PM
    Posts
    578
    Keda What you doing going out with a girl who's got mini yorkies

  9. #9
    Member
    harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    Today @ 01:56 AM
    Posts
    60,583
    Quote Originally Posted by corned dog View Post
    Keda What you doing going out with a girl who's got mini yorkies
    So a dog chewed your chocolate bars. Taking them to court's a bit steep, ennit.

  10. #10
    Thailand Expat
    billy the kid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Last Online
    19-11-2016 @ 07:57 PM
    Posts
    7,639
    they should have been on leads attached to their stupid owners.
    they really should be made to pay.
    destroyed this young girls life.
    what a fokin nitemare.

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Last Online
    10-05-2014 @ 05:08 PM
    Posts
    710
    any dog of any decent size should be on a lead,
    these things are not bred to be nice, if an owner wants to stand up for these things then put them on a lead and act responsibly.
    sorry boys we're in england, resposibility seems to be lacking somewhat.

    This poor mite has been harmed, possibly for life. how many times do we need to see this, fooking discracefull,
    seriously, give me a gun and i'd shoot every dog not on a lead, and possibly the owners.

  12. #12
    mc2
    mc2 is offline
    Member mc2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Last Online
    30-03-2013 @ 01:28 AM
    Posts
    907
    if you were a passerby and saw this what can you do ? as much as i'd like to hop out of the car and help, without a good weapon unfortunatly theres not much one can do.

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Last Online
    10-05-2014 @ 05:08 PM
    Posts
    710
    Quote Originally Posted by mc2 View Post
    if you were a passerby and saw this what can you do ? as much as i'd like to hop out of the car and help, without a good weapon unfortunatly theres not much one can do.
    while i totally agree with what you have stated, personally with or without a weapon it is in my nature to help and i would in what ever way possible. And further more i would not stop with the dogs.

    We in this green and pleasant land called england, have bred a nation of idiots who seem to think it is 'ard' to own these things, with out proof of resposibility.

    Look to the owners, Dogs act on impulse without emotion, compassion or reason.

    Dogs are lethal weapons.

  14. #14
    Thailand Expat
    dirtydog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Pattaya Jomtien
    Posts
    58,774
    Quote Originally Posted by harrybarracuda
    What a fucking hero. How about running the fuckers over,
    I should imagine they were pretty well latched onto the girl, the owners of the dogs should be charged for the attack as if they themselves done the attack,you want a rottie you take responsibilty for it.

  15. #15
    Thailand Expat
    keda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Last Online
    17-12-2010 @ 12:06 PM
    Posts
    9,831
    Quote Originally Posted by corned dog View Post
    Keda What you doing going out with a girl who's got mini yorkies
    Poppy and Pixie, the scattiest dogs I've ever had but not your best friends in a brawl.

  16. #16
    Thailand Expat
    keda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Last Online
    17-12-2010 @ 12:06 PM
    Posts
    9,831
    Quote Originally Posted by harrybarracuda View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by corned dog View Post
    Keda What you doing going out with a girl who's got mini yorkies
    So a dog chewed your chocolate bars. Taking them to court's a bit steep, ennit.
    Could be, but rogue dogs that get away with savaging pipe cleaners could just as well go for kids next. As we learned later, they had also displayed agression towards the newborn, which their slut owner didn't seem to overly mind.

    And anyway the vet's bill was c£2,000 + aftercare; not that I got any of it back but it was fair compo to witness the howling when they were offed.

  17. #17
    Thailand Expat
    keda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Last Online
    17-12-2010 @ 12:06 PM
    Posts
    9,831
    Quote Originally Posted by meepho View Post
    any dog of any decent size should be on a lead,
    these things are not bred to be nice, if an owner wants to stand up for these things then put them on a lead and act responsibly.
    sorry boys we're in england, resposibility seems to be lacking somewhat.

    This poor mite has been harmed, possibly for life. how many times do we need to see this, fooking discracefull,
    seriously, give me a gun and i'd shoot every dog not on a lead, and possibly the owners.
    Either the owner is personally responsible or he isn't. If he is then seize his assets, and if none then garner his wages or benefits.

    Send out the message to other dog owners, and more important to the career liberals that survive only by renouncing personal responsibility.

  18. #18
    Thailand Expat
    Mr R Sole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Last Online
    10-09-2019 @ 08:01 PM
    Location
    The back of beyond..on the bloody PC by the looks of it!!
    Posts
    2,049
    Quote Originally Posted by corned dog
    Keda What you doing going out with a girl who's got mini yorkies
    Yeah, I 2nd that. Bad enough just normal size yorkies!!!! but the mini ones....Good god...Yappy little buggers.

    Quote Originally Posted by harrybarracuda
    So a dog chewed your chocolate bars. Taking them to court's a bit steep, ennit.


    Quote Originally Posted by meepho
    fooking discracefull,
    seriously, give me a gun and i'd shoot every dog not on a lead, and possibly the owners.
    Shit, if that's really how you feel, you should never ever come to Thailand. There are loose dogs everywhere....It'd cost you a bleeding fortune in bullets..

    Plus, I let my dog run round the street I live in...with me watching, she is no threat what so ever to the kids playing in the street. She won't even blink when my little one rags her and even occasionally pulls her tail...
    (my little one gets a bollocking for that, my dog isn't particularly fond of that!!!)

    A cat loose, then the cat better be fast...or it's curtains for the little spraying bastards (males only)

    Quote Originally Posted by mc2
    if you were a passerby and saw this what can you do ? as much as i'd like to hop out of the car and help, without a good weapon unfortunatly theres not much one can do.
    The dogs would more than likely savage you as well....but hey you could get a medal from the parents of the kid...and come to think of it where were the little kids parents in all this...a 10 yr old just riding round the streets on her own..I didn't think that it was safe in the west to allow your kettle lids to just roam without supervision...or that's what they'd like to us to believe... with all these kiddie scarer's about.

    Quote Originally Posted by meepho
    We in this green and pleasant land called england, have bred a nation of idiots who seem to think it is 'ard' to own these things, with-out proof of responsibility.
    It's always been like that....this ain't a new thing... and years ago statistics would show a very different story.. Labrador's, German Shepard's/Alsations and even those 'lovely' little toy breeds used to account for the vicious attacks on kids and people.

    So put that in your pipe and smoke it...
    I for one was attacked and bitten as a 8yr old by a Lab' but I still love dogs. Bloody hate the little yappy fuc*ers.

    Quote Originally Posted by meepho
    Look to the owners, Dogs act on impulse without emotion, compassion or reason.

    What a load of cobblers that is. Dogs behave as they have been trained...My old man was a copper and the police dogs never just attacked and nor did our family dog or any dog I have ever owned in my life...you talk like a bloody kitty loving nuffter...

    Dogs are lethal weapons.
    What the hell isn't a weapon?????

    A bloody newspaper is a weapon....'Millwall brick'..smash ya skull in after a good couple of wallops to the temples...
    There are no strangers here, just friends you haven't met yet.

  19. #19
    En route
    Cujo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 11:51 PM
    Location
    Reality.
    Posts
    28,540
    A mate of mine got attacked once by two dogs as he was walking past, had to go and get get stitches and a rabies shot.
    As soon as he was able he went back with a shovel and beat them to death.

  20. #20
    Member Ningi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Last Online
    23-05-2015 @ 12:56 AM
    Posts
    201
    There is no such animal as a dog that wont bite, It is just not many people get savaged by chihiuahas, most dog atacks are the fault of irresponsible owners occasionally irresponsible and negligent parents,but one fact is certain,owners are responsible for all damages and costs, in germany for example it is the law and owners have to pay no matter how long it takes, health insurance pay all medical and treatment costs up front, and then years down the track when the culprit thinks all is forgotten, their collectors pounce and take everything, I dont know whether they still do taschen pfandung, imagine being stopped by a policeman on the street,searched and everything of value on your person being confiscated including your house and carkeys, all they used to leave was 2 deutschmarks bus fare, that would go down well in england

  21. #21
    FarangRed
    Guest

  22. #22
    The Dentist English Noodles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Burning Down a Pikey Caravan
    Posts
    17,230
    Quote Originally Posted by dirtydog
    the owners of the dogs should be charged for the attack as if they themselves done the attack
    Quote Originally Posted by keda
    Either the owner is personally responsible or he isn't. If he is then seize his assets, and if none then garner his wages or benefits. Send out the message to other dog owners, and more important to the career liberals that survive only by renouncing personal responsibility.
    Agree completely with the above. The fact that the owner, after the attack bundled the dogs in a taxi and fucked off should also make it even more serious.

  23. #23
    FarangRed
    Guest
    don't they have some law about having dangerous dogs?

  24. #24
    The Dentist English Noodles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Burning Down a Pikey Caravan
    Posts
    17,230
    Quote Originally Posted by FarangRed
    don't they have some law about having dangerous dogs?
    Dangerous Dogs Act 1991

    1991 CHAPTER 65


    An Act to prohibit persons from having in their possession or custody dogs belonging to types bred for fighting; to impose restrictions in respect of such dogs pending the coming into force of the prohibition; to enable restrictions to be imposed in relation to other types of dog which present a serious danger to the public; to make further provision for securing that dogs are kept under proper control; and for connected purposes.
    [25th July 1991]
    Be it enacted by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

    1 Dogs bred for fighting

    (1) This section applies to—
    (a) any dog of the type known as the pit bull terrier;
    (b) any dog of the type known as the Japanese tosa; and
    (c) any dog of any type designated for the purposes of this section by an order of the Secretary of State, being a type appearing to him to be bred for fighting or to have the characteristics of a type bred for that purpose.
    (2) No person shall—
    (a) breed, or breed from, a dog to which this section applies;
    (b) sell or exchange such a dog or offer, advertise or expose such a dog for sale or exchange;
    (c) make or offer to make a gift of such a dog or advertise or expose such a dog as a gift;
    (d) allow such a dog of which he is the owner or of which he is for the time being in charge to be in a public place without being muzzled and kept on a lead; or
    (e) abandon such a dog of which he is the owner or, being the owner or for the time being in charge of such a dog, allow it to stray.
    (3) After such day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint for the purposes of this subsection no person shall have any dog to which this section applies in his possession or custody except—
    (a) in pursuance of the power of seizure conferred by the subsequent provisions of this Act; or
    (b) in accordance with an order for its destruction made under those provisions;
    but the Secretary of State shall by order make a scheme for the payment to the owners of such dogs who arrange for them to be destroyed before that day of sums specified in or determined under the scheme in respect of those dogs and the cost of their destruction.
    (4) Subsection (2)(b) and (c) above shall not make unlawful anything done with a view to the dog in question being removed from the United Kingdom before the day appointed under subsection (3) above.
    (5) The Secretary of State may by order provide that the prohibition in subsection (3) above shall not apply in such cases and subject to compliance with such conditions as are specified in the order and any such provision may take the form of a scheme of exemption containing such arrangements (including provision for the payment of charges or fees) as he thinks appropriate.
    (6) A scheme under subsection (3) or (5) above may provide for specified functions under the scheme to be discharged by such persons or bodies as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate.
    (7) Any person who contravenes this section is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or both except that a person who publishes an advertisement in contravention of subsection (2)(b) or (c)—
    (a) shall not on being convicted be liable to imprisonment if he shows that he published the advertisement to the order of someone else and did not himself devise it; and
    (b) shall not be convicted if, in addition, he shows that he did not know and had no reasonable cause to suspect that it related to a dog to which this section applies.
    (8) An order under subsection (1)(c) above adding dogs of any type to those to which this section applies may provide that subsections (3) and (4) above shall apply in relation to those dogs with the substitution for the day appointed under subsection (3) of a later day specified in the order.
    (9) The power to make orders under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which, in the case of an order under subsection (1) or (5) or an order containing a scheme under subsection (3), shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
    2 Other specially dangerous dogs

    (1) If it appears to the Secretary of State that dogs of any type to which section 1 above does not apply present a serious danger to the public he may by order impose in relation to dogs of that type restrictions corresponding, with such modifications, if any, as he thinks appropriate, to all or any of those in subsection (2)(d) and (e) of that section.
    (2) An order under this section may provide for exceptions from any restriction imposed by the order in such cases and subject to compliance with such conditions as are specified in the order.
    (3) An order under this section may contain such supplementary or transitional provisions as the Secretary of State thinks necessary or expedient and may create offences punishable on summary conviction with imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or both.
    (4) In determining whether to make an order under this section in relation to dogs of any type and, if so, what the provisions of the order should be, the Secretary of State shall consult with such persons or bodies as appear to him to have relevant knowledge or experience, including a body concerned with animal welfare, a body concerned with veterinary science and practice and a body concerned with breeds of dogs.
    (5) The power to make an order under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument and no such order shall be made unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
    3 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.
    (2) In proceedings for an offence under subsection (1) above against a person who is the owner of a dog but was not at the material time in charge of it, it shall be a defence for the accused to prove that the dog was at the material time in the charge of a person whom he reasonably believed to be a fit and proper person to be in charge of it.
    (3) If the owner or, if different, the person for the time being in charge of a dog allows it to enter a place which is not a public place but where it is not permitted to be and while it is there—
    (a) it injures any person; or
    (b) there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will do so,
    he is guilty of an offence, or, if the dog injures any person, an aggravated offence, under this subsection.
    (4) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) or (3) above other than an aggravated offence is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or both; and a person guilty of an aggravated offence under either of those subsections is liable—
    (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;
    (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine or both.
    (5) It is hereby declared for the avoidance of doubt that an order under section 2 of the [1871 c. 56.] Dogs Act 1871 (order on complaint that dog is dangerous and not kept under proper control)—
    (a) may be made whether or not the dog is shown to have injured any person; and
    (b) may specify the measures to be taken for keeping the dog under proper control, whether by muzzling, keeping on a lead, excluding it from specified places or otherwise.
    (6) If it appears to a court on a complaint under section 2 of the said Act of 1871 that the dog to which the complaint relates is a male and would be less dangerous if neutered the court may under that section make an order requiring it to be neutered.
    (7) The reference in section 1(3) of the [1989 c. 30.] Dangerous Dogs Act 1989 (penalties) to failing to comply with an order under section 2 of the said Act of 1871 to keep a dog under proper control shall include a reference to failing to comply with any other order made under that section; but no order shall be made under that section by virtue of subsection (6) above where the matters complained of arose before the coming into force of that subsection.
    4 Destruction and disqualification orders

    (1) Where a person is convicted of an offence under section 1 or 3(1) or (3) above or of an offence under an order made under section 2 above the court—
    (a) may order the destruction of any dog in respect of which the offence was committed and shall do so in the case of an offence under section 1 or an aggravated offence under section 3(1) or (3) above; and
    (b) may order the offender to be disqualified, for such period as the court thinks fit, for having custody of a dog.
    (2) Where a court makes an order under subsection (1)(a) above for the destruction of a dog owned by a person other than the offender, then, unless the order is one that the court is required to make, the owner may appeal to the Crown Court against the order.
    (3) A dog shall not be destroyed pursuant to an order under subsection (1)(a) above—
    (a) until the end of the period for giving notice of appeal against the conviction or, where the order was not one which the court was required to make, against the order; and
    (b) if notice of appeal is given within that period, until the appeal is determined or withdrawn,
    unless the offender and, in a case to which subsection (2) above applies, the owner of the dog give notice to the court that made the order that there is to be no appeal.
    (4) Where a court makes an order under subsection (1)(a) above it may—
    (a) appoint a person to undertake the destruction of the dog and require any person having custody of it to deliver it up for that purpose; and
    (b) order the offender to pay such sum as the court may determine to be the reasonable expenses of destroying the dog and of keeping it pending its destruction.
    (5) Any sum ordered to be paid under subsection (4)(b) above shall be treated for the purposes of enforcement as if it were a fine imposed on conviction.
    (6) Any person who is disqualified for having custody of a dog by virtue of an order under subsection (1)(b) above may, at any time after the end of the period of one year beginning with the date of the order, apply to the court that made it (or a magistrates' court acting for the same petty sessions area as that court) for a direction terminating the disqualification.
    (7) On an application under subsection (6) above the court may—
    (a) having regard to the applicant’s character, his conduct since the disqualification was imposed and any other circumstances of the case, grant or refuse the application; and
    (b) order the applicant to pay all or any part of the costs of the application;
    and where an application in respect of an order is refused no further application in respect of that order shall be entertained if made before the end of the period of one year beginning with the date of the refusal.
    (8) Any person who—
    (a) has custody of a dog in contravention of an order under subsection (1)(b) above; or
    (b) fails to comply with a requirement imposed on him under subsection (4)(a) above,
    is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
    (9) In the application of this section to Scotland—
    (a) in subsection (2) for the words “Crown Court against the order” there shall be substituted the words “High Court of Justiciary against the order within the period of seven days beginning with the date of the order”;
    (b) for subsection (3)(a) there shall be substituted—
    “(a) until the end of the period of seven days beginning with the date of the order”;
    (c) for subsection (5) there shall be substituted—
    “(5) Section 411 of the [1975 c. 21.] Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 shall apply in relation to the recovery of sums ordered to be paid under subsection (4)(b) above as it applies to fines ordered to be recovered by civil diligence in pursuance of Part II of that Act.”; and
    (d) in subsection (6) the words “(or a magistrates' court acting for the same petty sessions area as that court)” shall be omitted.
    5 Seizure, entry of premises and evidence

    (1) A constable or an officer of a local authority authorised by it to exercise the powers conferred by this subsection may seize—
    (a) any dog which appears to him to be a dog to which section 1 above applies and which is in a public place—
    (i) after the time when possession or custody of it has become unlawful by virtue of that section; or
    (ii) before that time, without being muzzled and kept on a lead;
    (b) any dog in a public place which appears to him to be a dog to which an order under section 2 above applies and in respect of which an offence against the order has been or is being committed; and
    (c) any dog in a public place (whether or not one to which that section or such an order applies) which appears to him to be dangerously out of control.
    (2) If a justice of the peace is satisfied by information on oath, or in Scotland a justice of the peace or sheriff is satisfied by evidence on oath, that there are reasonable grounds for believing—
    (a) that an offence under any provision of this Act or of an order under section 2 above is being or has been committed; or
    (b) that evidence of the commission of any such offence is to be found,
    on any premises he may issue a warrant authorising a constable to enter those premises (using such force as is reasonably necessary) and to search them and seize any dog or other thing found there which is evidence of the commission of such an offence.
    (3) A warrant issued under this section in Scotland shall be authority for opening lockfast places and may authorise persons named in the warrant to accompany a constable who is executing it.
    (4) Where a dog is seized under subsection (1) or (2) above and it appears to a justice of the peace, or in Scotland a justice of the peace or sheriff, that no person has been or is to be prosecuted for an offence under this Act or an order under section 2 above in respect of that dog (whether because the owner cannot be found or for any other reason) he may order the destruction of the dog and shall do so if it is one to which section 1 above applies.
    (5) If in any proceedings it is alleged by the prosecution that a dog is one to which section 1 or an order under section 2 above applies it shall be presumed that it is such a dog unless the contrary is shown by the accused by such evidence as the court considers sufficient; and the accused shall not be permitted to adduce such evidence unless he has given the prosecution notice of his intention to do so not later than the fourteenth day before that on which the evidence is to be adduced.
    6 Dogs owned by young persons

    Where a dog is owned by a person who is less than sixteen years old any reference to its owner in section 1(2)(d) or (e) or 3 above shall include a reference to the head of the household, if any, of which that person is a member or, in Scotland, to the person who has his actual care and control.
    7 Muzzling and leads

    (1) In this Act—
    (a) references to a dog being muzzled are to its being securely fitted with a muzzle sufficient to prevent it biting any person; and
    (b) references to its being kept on a lead are to its being securely held on a lead by a person who is not less than sixteen years old.
    (2) If the Secretary of State thinks it desirable to do so he may by order prescribe the kind of muzzle or lead to be used for the purpose of complying, in the case of a dog of any type, with section 1 or an order under section 2 above; and if a muzzle or lead of a particular kind is for the time being prescribed in relation to any type of dog the references in subsection (1) above to a muzzle or lead shall, in relation to any dog of that type, be construed as references to a muzzle or lead of that kind.
    (3) The power to make an order under subsection (2) above shall be exercisable by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
    8 Power to make corresponding provision for Northern Ireland

    An Order in Council under paragraph 1(1)(b) of Schedule 1 to the [1974 c. 28.] Northern Ireland Act 1974 (legislation for Northern Ireland in the interim period) which states that it is made only for purposes corresponding to the purposes of this Act—
    (a) shall not be subject to paragraph 1(4) and (5) of that Schedule (affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament); but
    (b) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House.
    9 Expenses

    Any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of this Act shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament.
    10 Short title, interpretation, commencement and extent

    (1) This Act may be cited as the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.
    (2) In this Act—
    • “advertisement” includes any means of bringing a matter to the attention of the public and “advertise” shall be construed accordingly;
    • “public place” means any street, road or other place (whether or not enclosed) to which the public have or are permitted to have access whether for payment or otherwise and includes the common parts of a building containing two or more separate dwellings.
    (3) 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, whether or not it actually does so, but references to a dog injuring a person or there being grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will do so do not include references to any case in which the dog is being used for a lawful purpose by a constable or a person in the service of the Crown.
    (4) Except for section 8, this Act shall not come into force until such day as the Secretary of State may appoint by an order made by statutory instrument and different days may be appointed for different provisions or different purposes.
    (5) Except for section 8, this Act does not extend to Northern Ireland.

    Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (c. 65)

  25. #25
    Thailand Expat
    Stinky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Next door to digit
    Posts
    11,170
    But the Police rarely act on it unless there is a serious incident or breading farm going on.

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •