Ramsey

Just how ignorant humans are about dogs.

Oh this made me laugh. My mum teaches piano in our living room and Mich does the same thing and gets himself banned

Most of it was funny but call me a stick in the mud, the clip of the dog shaking the toddler by her clothing made my stomach turn

Awww yay Way to go Hugo and Sue! Im so chuffed for you guys

Fantastic! We had a great day, lovely weather, the OH didnt complain once and it was by far more enjoyable than last weekends show we went to Im so glad the total continued to rise, next year £2000 then? Big thankyou to the organisers who did a fantastic job, liked the competition entry forms, much easier to use than many weve seen and categories were well organised and placed Hope youre all having a well earned rest

'Dinner?' Its nearly 2am young lady!

This was taken this weekend, the flying dog is Harry who is 15yrs next month! His mind is not aware that his body is giving up but hes hardly got a gray hair on him!

Mich, Harry and I have 1 each

I would be interested dependent on dates and funds

Aww I didnt know you knew when she was born, thankyou for adding that I hope she is now being kind to her siblings she was such a lil terror but very entertaining and always busy

Becks my dwarf hammy left for the bridge today Were not sure how old she was as she was a rescue from sproggie but she leaves behind her mouse friend Bud and im sure she will wait for him at the bridge even if she did grump at him and tell him off for trying to cuddle her too much Sweet Dreams naughty Becks, run on the biggest wheel you can find

Thats fantastic news Mel !!

Ive done level 1&2 with the international center for reiki training a few years ago now. Highly recommended! Reiki has changed my life

Couldnt agree more Signed

£14 Hadn't realised Mich was 'featured' in standard collars section We love it but you can never have too many collars right?

£5

£4 ..does it work on humans

I do the mornin garden wander too.. but in my robe not pants I thought after I hammered the crate back into shape that i should have taken a pic but perhaps we should allow her to keep her innocent persona Good to hear that shes making friends

Full Debate HERE for those that want to read it all. In response... Ben Bradshaw (Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Hands) for raising the issue of organised dog fighting. It is a barbaric activity, which has no place in a civilised society. Parliament first passed laws to stop it in 1835, and it is a sad reflection that nearly 200 years later we are still debating the same problem. In many cases, dog fighting is associated with other crime. Organised fights can be highly organised. People may travel hundreds of miles to attend, and large sums of money are placed as bets on the outcome. Fighting dogs may change hands for £1,000 to £2,000. Recordings of fights are often made, and may be supplied to people who either take perverted pleasure in watching animals suffer or are in the business of buying and selling fighting dogs and need evidence of their "gameness" to keep their price high. There are worries, too, that pet dogs are being stolen to be used in the training of fighting dogs, and I should like to thank the Dogs Trust and others for raising public awareness of the issue. Robust laws are in place to deal with any form of theft, but the loss of a dog always causes immense heartache. I urge dog owners to be vigilant and to make sure that their pets are kept in secure areas as far as possible. I join the hon. Gentleman in applauding the work done by the police and the RSPCA in investigating and prosecuting offences related to fighting. I recognise, too, that a lot of effort, particularly with regard to intelligence gathering, has to be put in to bring the culprits to justice. Recently, the issue of dogs being bred for fighting has been given media attention following the tragic death of Ellie Lawrenson on 1 January after being attacked by a pit bull-type dog in Merseyside. As hon. Members know, dog fights normally involve pit bulls, and the keeping of such dogs is banned under the Dangerous Dogs Acts. The action taken by the police in the wake of Ellie's death to combat the keeping of pit bull-type dogs, which included an amnesty that resulted in 107 dogs being seized, has confirmed that a significant number of those dogs are still held illegally. They are kept for a variety of purposes—not just fighting—and I would not want to draw any rushed conclusions as to whether the problems that have occurred in Merseyside indicate that dog fights are about to become as commonplace as they were in the 1980s before the Dangerous Dogs Acts came into force. The hon. Gentleman highlighted a number of his constituents' concerns about problems in his area. I have not had the chance to reflect on them, but my initial response is that many of the problems that he outlined sound illegal. They would, in my view, be illegal. If they have not been reported, they should be reported both to the police and the RSPCA. He said that in many cases the police, the RSPCA and his local street wardens had already taken effective action in Hammersmith and Fulham to help to tackle the problem. He said that pit bull terriers were exercised in communal gardens and spaces. The mere possession of such dogs is illegal, so if that phenomenon has not been reported to the police already, I suggest that it should be. If he has not already done so, he may wish to seek a meeting with his local police or, indeed, the Metropolitan police, to press his view that dog fighting and the keeping of illegal dogs should be taken more seriously. The hon. Gentleman mentioned that dog control orders had been, or were in the process of being, introduced by his local authority, which I very much welcome. Those are new measures that the Government introduced to help local authorities clamp down on problem dogs and problem dog owners in a particular area without having to go through too many bureaucratic hoops and loops. He mentioned the problem of blinged- up Staffs outside Fulham Broadway—I think that that is how he described it—being walked after dark as status symbols. One has to be careful—and he alluded to that later in his speech—not to blame the dogs themselves. Staffs are a perfectly legal breed, and many people tell me—like the hon. Gentleman, I am not a dog owner—that they can make extremely lovely, loyal and well-behaved pets. In the wrong hands, however, they can be intimidating and unpleasant for bystanders. The fact that they are dressed up may be a fashion statement but it does not, in itself, cause offence. Obviously, if the dog then causes problems or the owners behave aggressively, that may contravene the laws to which I have referred. As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, there has been a decrease in the number of prosecutions brought for pit bull ownership under the dangerous dogs legislation, but I would expect that to happen after the Acts were passed. In the immediate aftermath, more prosecutions would be brought in relation to pit bulls and pit bull-type dogs than in relation to other species. _________________________ I will address that issue, because I think that I may have misunderstood one of the hon. Gentleman's points and should correct the record. Under some elements of the 1871 Act, there has been an increase in prosecutions over the past 10 years or so. In 1992, for example, there were 310 prosecutions under the clause that makes it an offence to allow a dog to be dangerously out of control in a public place, injuring a person. There were 645 prosecutions in 2005, the last year for which figures are available. Similarly, as regards prosecutions of a person in charge allowing a dog to enter a non-public place and injure a person, there were 20 prosecutions in 1992 and 44 in 2005. Prosecutions for breeding have indeed declined since 1992, but that is comparable to the situation regarding prosecutions for possessing an illegal breed. One would expect prosecutions to decline as the clampdown kicks in and fewer illegal breeds are bred or owned. That is reflected in the fact that the number of prosecutions for possession of an illegal breed has fallen from 209 in 1992 to 11 in 2005. However, the overall number of prosecutions under the 1871 Act and the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 are still significant at 1,335 for 2005, the last year for which figures are available. I hope that the attention that the hon. Gentleman has brought to this issue, and that several recent tragic cases have brought to it, will result in a new vigour by the police and enforcement authorities in taking this issue very seriously. However, I recognise that there are problems with enforcement, particularly when it comes to recognising pit bull-type dogs. In some areas, that may lead the police to give it a low priority. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we are undertaking a complete review of the 1991 Act in light of the recent attacks. That was spurred initially by my concern that under the law in this country, in contrast to that in most other countries, the convictions and punishments available to the authorities for attacks that take place on private property are far less serious than those for attacks that take place on public property. When a human being is injured or killed, as some have been in certain circumstances, many people fail to understand why the matter should be treated much less seriously if it takes place on somebody's private property than it would on public property. I simply draw the House's attention to the fact that the ongoing proceedings in respect of the Liverpool case are for manslaughter, so clearly the Crown Prosecution Service and the police believe that there are existing powers to prosecute for serious offences when an attack takes place on private property. We have written round to all the police forces, including the Metropolitan police, and to the Association of Chief Police Officers, asking for their views on the operation of the 1991 Act. I urge the hon. Gentleman, and any hon. Member who has an interest in this area, to feed into that review. We have also asked formally for the views of animal welfare organisations such as the RSPCA and the Dogs Trust. For some time, the RSPCA and, in particular, the Dogs Trust have been campaigning against the breed-specific bans contained in the 1991 Act passed by the previous Administration in the belief—I have some sympathy with this—that the deed, not the breed, is the real issue at stake. I have to tell the House that it would be hugely controversial with the public, who have memories of those terrible cases in the 1980s that involved breeds that were far more terrifying, big and specifically bred for fighting than, for example, a Staffordshire bull terrier, to allow those breeds again. Indeed, most other European countries have followed the UK in introducing some sort of restriction on them. However, that does not mean that I do not fully accept the hon. Gentleman's comments about the need to consider more carefully the behaviour that is associated with the sort of dog fighting that he describes in his constituency. It sounds as if it happens on a more ad hoc, less formal basis, although some of the more serious organised criminal gangs and syndicates are involved. The Animal Welfare Act 2006 is a commoner's Act and it is therefore possible for any Member of Parliament, organisation or institution to take out a prosecution under it. I hope that the police and the courts use the new powers, some of which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, to ensure that the public are aware of how seriously we take the issue. The penalties that are now available to the courts as a result of the 2006 Act have been increased. The maximum fine has increased from £5,000 to £20,000. The Act also provides for offenders to be jailed for up to 12 months. I hope that the courts will take seriously the offences that the hon. Gentleman described. As he also said, the Act contains improvements, which include repealing the vague and confused rules that enabled culprits to escape justice in the past. The law now clearly defines all the activities associated with dog fighting. They are not confined to people who actively manage the fighting ring or spectators at the fight, but also cover those who may not necessarily be present but are involved in promoting it. The RSPCA and others welcomed such changes to the law. Like the hon. Gentleman, I deplore the current macho youth culture of keeping dangerous dogs as a status symbol. It is worrying, and clearly the law is being broken if the dog is of a banned breed. As part of our review of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, we want to examine whether there should be more training for police in recognising breeds. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that that can be difficult in some circumstances. More publicity is required for the public, a new generation of whom have grown up long since the introduction of that Act almost 20 years ago. They may not even be aware that what they are doing is illegal. It is also illegal to keep a dog in a way that is incompatible with its welfare. I believe that that would cover some of the issues that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. People who committed such an offence would fall foul of the cruelty provisions of the 2006 Act. Hanging dogs from trees to strengthen their jaws is in that category. It is also illegal to have aggressive dogs that cause harm to the public. It is important to convey the message from the House that those who break the law could be heavily fined and, in the worst cases, sent to prison. I remind hon. Members that dog fighting, like any other criminal activity, can be effectively tackled only if members of the public are willing to come forward and tell the police when they suspect that a fight is being arranged or has taken place. I urge members of the public who are worried about dog fighting in their local area to do that. However good one's laws, they can work only if we work together to end this abhorrent activity.

Hello Graham and Margret! Great to see you here on the Refuge, was lovely meeting you and I was very glad of the cuppa, thankyou so much Glad to hear that Pooch is settling in well, the second pic of her cheeky face gave me a chuckle, she looks so innocent Looking forward to updates and more piccies I enjoyed having a little sneeky peek at Tejay's pics too Sue: Pooch is quite a lot like Hugo (just a bit rounder shhh)

Awwwwww sarah you soft moo I can see why though, he is lovely Sometimes you just know and theres no point fighting it

We have a bean bag and a donut too and think theyre great. Harrys donut has been through the wash no problems twice since xmas and is absolutely fine. The dogs love them and the bean bag is lovely to sit on the floor if youre like me. It stays really warm. Mich an I have an arrangement that I sit on the beanbag and he sits on me

Awww missed it but happy belated gottcha day Daisy

Awwwww well done Ollie! I cried the first time I got our two playing tug of war I find they will only have a go at tug if its a long rope or toy (there again with Harrys breath I dont blame Mich)

hehe can we have a vid of him bringing it back cause that lap of honour is normal in this house He does look pleased with himself doesnt he