FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Dog Owners Beware....
Dog Owners Beware....
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
Dog owners could be required to insure themselves against the risk of their pet attacking someone, it has been announced. Skip related content
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.
If these proposals are passed will it be a good thing, or will it just be another example of the Nanny State? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
More meddling from ministerial miscreants. IMHO.
It's a shame the govt doesn't extend such licences to the parents of children who are more out of control than a rabid dog in some town centres/housing estates. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Well i can see that happening on the lawless estates round the UK. They can't even enforce the ban on breeding american pitbulls here so how they think they can get the dregs of society to hand over their benefit money for insurance will be an interesting one. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Sounds like a good idea to me, we have to staffs and have them insured, in the same way we have our house insured, car etc.
its only a responsible thing to do |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Insurance is a con. It preys on your fears that something that may happen once in a lifetime will leave you without the financial resources to pay for it. How many dogowners have had a harmless pet all their lives but will now have to fork out for insurance they don't need, can't afford or want.
It's the same old same old - the lawless few making the honest pay. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Dog owners could be required to insure themselves against the risk of their pet attacking someone, it has been announced. Skip related content
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.
If these proposals are passed will it be a good thing, or will it just be another example of the Nanny State? "
DOGBO ..... hahahahaha  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I wouldn't immediately dismiss the idea of 3rd party insurance for dog owners as a bad one.
A good few years ago, I had an accident Car v Labrador dog.
Sadly the dog died and my car suffered almost £300 worth of damage, which I had to pull out of my own pocket, the pet owner was a no hoper - not a penny to their name, so had compulsory insurance been in force at the time, I'd have most probably had my car repaired at the other parties expense.
Granted the majority of pet ownwers would never have reason for anyone to claim against them, but that's the same with all insurance - we've all seen the adverts, "If you died tomorrow, how would your family cope?"
Then you'd always get the rogue ownwers who didin't bother with insurance in much the same way as some car ownwers think it's an optional extra, it's just a little bit more difficult to enforce with a dog. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Sadly the dog died and my car suffered almost £300 worth of damage, which I had to pull out of my own pocket, the pet owner was a no hoper - not a penny to their name, so had compulsory insurance been in force at the time, I'd have most probably had my car repaired at the other parties expense."
That's just it though, they were penniless so had compulsory insurance been in place at the time would they have bothered with it?
You would still have had to pay for the repairs youself, probably. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Sadly the dog died and my car suffered almost £300 worth of damage, which I had to pull out of my own pocket, the pet owner was a no hoper - not a penny to their name, so had compulsory insurance been in force at the time, I'd have most probably had my car repaired at the other parties expense.
That's just it though, they were penniless so had compulsory insurance been in place at the time would they have bothered with it?
You would still have had to pay for the repairs youself, probably."
Some will never pay because they cant or wont and its nearly impossible to stop them having dogs anyway. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
You're most probably right. To make compulsory insurance work, the sale and movement of dogs would have to be akin to the motor trade each dog would need a registration certificate like a car.
An impossible task methinks |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"You're most probably right. To make compulsory insurance work, the sale and movement of dogs would have to be akin to the motor trade each dog would need a registration certificate like a car.
An impossible task methinks"
All this new license will amount to is yet another tax-through-the-back-door by this incompetent government. Insurance is subject to V.A.T. isn't it?  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ugby 123Couple
over a year ago
Forum Mod O o O oo |
"More meddling from ministerial miscreants. IMHO.
It's a shame the govt doesn't extend such licences to the parents of children who are more out of control than a rabid dog in some town centres/housing estates."
lmao I think you are right there.
I do know a dog who has an ASBO though, for barking lol |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Dog owners beware...... I thought ey up, fugy's back 
.
.
Ahhhh Fugy....I do miss him so 
Who on earth was fugy?"
Fugy.....how does one describe dear...dear Fugy?
Well......
He was a Scottish Gnome who liked to ress in red velvet pantaloons. He owned his own little shop that brought him into contact with many, many folk from the streets. He was a closet bisexual, scared to come out of the closet and cross over to the dark side. He enjoyed hanging around the harbour of an evening and he loved dogs, carnally.
In Scottish chat room and forum, he was a legend in his own own codpiece. Sadly he decided to leave the site a short time ago and concentrate on other things.
He was a top bloke with a great sense of humour and a bottomless teapot |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
This is supposed to prevent people using dogs as weapons or to intimidate others. The sort of people who do this aren't going to bother complying with the law - these are the sort of scum who carry knives and guns despite what the law says.
What it will mean is that responsible people will get their dogs insured and micro-chipped while low-lifers will carry on as before. It will be another burden on responsible people and not solve the problem.
But it will be a nice little earner for Gordon Brown's friends in the financial industry and mean more civil servants and more taxes. That's the real reason. It's all a 'new liebour' con trick!  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"More meddling from ministerial miscreants. IMHO.
It's a shame the govt doesn't extend such licences to the parents of children who are more out of control than a rabid dog in some town centres/housing estates."
My first thoughts!!  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oobCouple
over a year ago
Netherlands |
In Holland we got this "responsibility" type insurance package, if your kids break a window, or your dog eats a postman or whatever, it's all covered, dirt cheap as well.
Heh, reminds me of a great dane I used to know, got hit be a Honda Civic, the car was a right off, the dog limped home. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
It's just a money scam for people to make money, if they brought it in today there would be thousands of dogs tossed out in the street, there would be over populated dog pounds which there is already and dogs would be put to sleep or killed by owners who can't pay a penny, so what next cat insurance cuz the piss and shit in everyones garden, we live in a world of people who want to make up rules and scare us into taking out more policys to think it is gonna make the world a safer place, it will never happen just another surggestion to go along with all the other thought up by overpaid dimwits |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *exeteraWoman
over a year ago
Bridgend |
I think this is a total waste of time. They don't use the laws they currently have in place under the DDA. There are already numerous laws for numerous crimes already in place and most are not used to their full capacity. IMHO it's nasty people who have nasty dogs, I blame most on nurture not nature. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Even on the account that some of you will stone me ,we are fully behind this new law. Being German and having lived there we had it for many years. You insure your dog, pay dog tax and have them chiped and you even have to provide a certificate that shows you can handle your dog approprictly if its over a certain size. Whats wrong with that? Its something to concider before you get a dog and might stop people getting them and then deciding they dont want them after all. You insure you car and house and yourself ,so why not your dog. We have two by the way and they are chipped and insured, before you have a go at me lol |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Even on the account that some of you will stone me ,we are fully behind this new law. Being German and having lived there we had it for many years. You insure your dog, pay dog tax and have them chiped and you even have to provide a certificate that shows you can handle your dog approprictly if its over a certain size. Whats wrong with that? Its something to concider before you get a dog and might stop people getting them and then deciding they dont want them after all. You insure you car and house and yourself ,so why not your dog. We have two by the way and they are chipped and insured, before you have a go at me lol |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
It'll be the same as gun laws and knife laws............only the honest will abide by it.
Our old Staffy is insured for £3,000,000 public liability along with his health insurance.
XXXX |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Part of the new proposed law will allow police or dog wardens to enforce muzzling of dangerous dogs. This is only a good thing. Our young son was attacked by a dog, and not a breed you would think of attacking people. Under the new law this dog would now need to wear a muzzle at all times in public. This would prevent another child suffering the same way ours did.
The dog is often seen out, with it's owner, running free with no muzzle. It's another potential attack waiting to happen.
Yes we have a dog, a very large docile dog, he is insured and microchipped and is never left alone with our young son.
Even docile dogs can bite. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I don’t see how the government would make a penny from it.
The vets will get paid for implanting the chip and the insurance companies will take the money for the insurance premiums.
It’s not meant to raise money for the government. It’s meant to be a preventative measure… which is a bollox preventative measure as has already been said. The twatty “oowww I’m ‘ard, look at my dog” chavvie thugs won’t bother getting their dog chipped and so won’t be traced when it attacks someone and the victim tries to claim on the insurance the twat also didn’t get…. and the responsible dog owners will have to coughed up to prevent feck all!
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
