Allie No Dots Posted May 14, 2007 Report Share Posted May 14, 2007 Police back new law on killer dogs Move to target irresponsible owners, not breeds, after death of five-year-old Ellie Lawrenson Jamie Doward, home affairs editor Sunday May 13, 2007 The Observer One of Britain's most senior police officers has demanded a change to the law on dangerous dogs so that children are better protected. The Chief Constable of Merseyside Police - the force that investigated the death of five-year-old Ellie Lawrenson, who was mauled by a pit bull terrier on New Year's Day - said that the present legislation was confused and needed to be overhauled. Bernard Hogan-Howe said he had reached the decision after talking to other chief constables. 'In consultation with partners, other police forces and the Association of Chief Police Officers, we would now welcome a considered and thoughtful review of the current legislation,' he said. Article continues -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- His intervention is likely to be interpreted as providing tacit backing for new rules that would target the owners of dangerous dogs rather than the animals themselves. Animal welfare groups say that at present many responsible owners have their pets put down needlessly. Hogan-Howe is understood to back moves that would allow such owners to apply for their dogs to be exempted from the banned dogs list without the need for police or court involvement. This is likely to be welcomed by the Kennel Club, which has campaigned for legislation based on 'deed not breed'. The call comes as Ellie's uncle awaits sentence on Wednesday for owning the banned animal that killed the five-year-old. Kiel Simpson, 23, pleaded guilty to owning the American pit bull called Reuben, which was later shot dead by police. His lawyer maintains that a prison term would achieve nothing as Simpson 'is already serving a life sentence' following the tragedy. The little girl's death prompted a national debate over the ownership of dangerous dogs. It also highlighted serious flaws in the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act - which bans only four breeds, including the American pit bull, and does not cover many similarly aggressive breeds. The confusion saw hundreds of people in the Merseyside area hand in their dogs to police during an amnesty amid concerns they might be prosecuted. Hogan-Howe said that over a seven-day period in February police received 600 calls and looked at 461 dogs. 'As a result there are now 200 fewer illegal dangerous dogs in Merseyside,' he said. But following intervention by the Kennel Club, which represents dog owners in Britain, a number of animals that police had classed as American pit bulls were later released and placed on the Index of Exempted Dogs, a register that allows owners to keep the animals providing they are microchipped, neutered and muzzled. As of September last year, there were 1,067 pit bull terriers and three American Staffordshire terriers on the register, which campaigners for a reform of the law say highlights the continuing confusion surrounding the Dangerous Dogs Act. 'The definition of what constitutes an American pit bull is a grey area,' said a Kennel Club spokeswoman. 'Pit bulls have certain traits but in the hands of responsible owners they would not be a danger. The act hasn't worked; it's failed to prevent a significant number of attacks.' The RSPCA has also been a vocal critic of the current law. Statistics show that only around half of prosecutions brought under the act are successful. 'We find the Dangerous Dogs Act unworkable,' said an RSPCA spokesman. 'We don't believe certain types are more dangerous than others. It's extremely difficult to prove in court whether a dog is an American pit bull. There are only one or two people in the country who have the ability to prove it.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
staffymonkey Posted May 14, 2007 Report Share Posted May 14, 2007 thanks for posting. will get in touch with him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paddysky Posted May 14, 2007 Report Share Posted May 14, 2007 Does this now mean that merseyside police admit the amnesty in liverpool was a big joke from the start that all it achieved was the needless destruction of so many innocent family pets just for looking a certain way that it caused distress to famillies whose pets were locked away for weeks in bad conditions and stress to those dogs who now have restrictions placed against them for looking a certain way. Very Very wrong Does this now mean that the owners of so called "pitbull type" dogs, can now take their pets for a walk, without fear of them being seized? If merseyside police had thought the whole thing through as they now have, we would not have had any of this heartache for so many decent famillies and dogs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rip and cap Posted May 14, 2007 Report Share Posted May 14, 2007 'As a result there are now 200 fewer illegal dangerous dogs in Merseyside,' he said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melp Posted May 14, 2007 Report Share Posted May 14, 2007 Does this now mean that merseyside police admit the amnesty in liverpool was a big joke from the start that all it achieved was the needless destruction of so many innocent family pets just for looking a certain way that it caused distress to famillies whose pets were locked away for weeks in bad conditions and stress to those dogs who now have restrictions placed against them for looking a certain way. Very Very wrong Does this now mean that the owners of so called "pitbull type" dogs, can now take their pets for a walk, without fear of them being seized? If merseyside police had thought the whole thing through as they now have, we would not have had any of this heartache for so many decent famillies and dogs Well in a nutshell no. They are still taking dogs, even young puppies but they have scaled back their operation somewhat [according the them]. What they're saying now is no diferent from what the KC, us, Dogstrust and many others have been saying for months. I honestly don't see them changng their policy overnight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts