RyanK9

I'll take 'some bloke' over some of the things I sometimes get called, quite right. Sincerely, Some Bloke.

I went it very deliberately to be restrained Myself and Caroline had a rather frank exchange of views yesterday morning http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/networks/le...y_wadsworth_wed (debate starts 10 mins in) I felt Caroline got a little too defensive and ended up ranting so I was determined that under no circumstances would I be drawn in to a slanging match on Mr Titchmarsh's show. He's a bit of a legend so I thought it appropriate to steer clear of any animosity on his watch. In the end, I thought he raised the most salient points to Caroline any way so I was comfortable that the important issues had at least been aired.

No. I didn't. I made a statement in general. Yes. They get prosecuted. Correct. As they should do. I don't really see what point you are trying to make. I am going to bow out now. I came to address some accusations that were untrue and actually quite offensive. Checking back over the thread, it was you who said I was a dog trainer, you who accused Cenydd of being me and you who hinted at the fact that I might have an alterior motive after having 'laughed' at the proposal from your first post having 'seen similar'. I have been researching this for two years quite intensively. I haven't seen similar so perhaps you might want to check again. Provided I have corrected those inacurate statements that were made, I have done what I intended to. I have no problem whatsoever that you disagree with the proposal. Many people will do.

Joy rider - person who steals a car? It would not need 'an army' to get in motion, any more than it requires 'an army' to licence drivers and check that MOT's are in place, insurance is in place. There are systems and examples already in effect which regulate far, far larger schemes than this. Last time I checked, it was not the army who regulated driving licences or even school exams. Well, here we'll have to disagree. I would not have spent years researching it and discussing it if I thought that. You said it is the law that people have licenses in Ireland but that they ignore that fact. On the basis that we don't have a law just because some choose to ignore it, that IS flawed logic. If it were not, we may as well have no laws. There is a law against murder but people still do it. That's life. Does it mean we should not have a law against it? There is a saying, people get the laws they deserve. Apathetic people who find the negative in everything and insist that this can't be done, that can't be done etc. Those people deserve the laws they get.

The uptake would be law. Similar test? You will have to direct me. I know of no similar test to the one I am proposing. I don't know what a joy rider is. We'll stick with what we've got then because some people choose to disobey the law? Seems like flawed logic. The entire basis of the whole proposal is the education of owners. All owners. Without exception.

Hi forum, I just wanted to clarify a few issues related to what has been said on this thread. I'm not an advertising specialist. I am a publisher who operates in the pet sector. I have been 'on record' calling for a dog ownership test for several years. This is not a 'new' idea from me and is something I've spoken about publicly for years. People are perfectly entitled to question my motives, I have no problem with that. All I can do is say that if anyone can show me how or why I would choose this as an opportunity to make money, I'd be delighted to hear it. I don't know where the 'pay off' comes. I am not a dog trainer anymore, I don't need or want dog training clients. This proposal has been two years in the making and I have been regularly outspoken and quite public as to my views on existing dangerous dog laws. As Cenydd has mentioned, we share similar views on the test but also have some differences on the specifics. I was a little disturbed that he seemed to be attacked and one point was even accused of being me. There really isn't a hidden agenda to 'uncover' here but I honestly do appreciate why there may be cynicism. All I can say is this. If I was truly only interested in promoting myself or my magazine I would NOT have picked this issue. It would be far easier for me to make money and get more advertisers by simply ditching any anti BSL media work I have under taken. It is not a particularly media friendly or advertiser friendly stance to adopt as I would have thought people here would understand. I certainly don't attract advertisers by publicly asking for section 1 of the DDA to be lifted, you will have to trust me on that - advertisers are less likely to be involved with a magazine which has publicly asked for the ban on PBT's to be lifted! For the record, just to clarify, I have not 'used' this forum for free advertising, the links below are just some of the 'on record' calls from me for an introduction of a dog ownership test. I do not want, seek or ask for 'free advertising' from dog forums when I can quite easily get my message across using national media. That is in no way a dig, it is just me setting the record straight. As I mentioned, people will have to make their own minds up about my motives but quite frankly I'd be more interested in discussing why or how the proposal is flawed than people dismissing it because of the person behind it. Those who do know me, will know I have a personal NOT professional interest in BSL and dog laws in general. Thank you. http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/news/wales-...-name_page.html http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article65847.ece http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=1...-name_page.html http://www.rottweiler.net/forums/rottweile...ler-ban-uk.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-...-it-417965.html