UA-12921627-3 Jump to content

Kennel Club Hails Changes To Dangerous Dogs Legislation In Scotland ‘a Step In The Right Direction’


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 123
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I was under the impression that Ruben had bitten the aunty on the leg :unsure:

Also the proposed law change might have prevented the recent case of the GSD who had bitten three times on three diffrent occassions, yes it would have bitten the first person but perhaps the other two would have been prevented. No law is perfect, a multi headed approach is whats needed IMO, law, education and tackling the breeding and selling of dogs, no one part is going to work on it's own, just because there's a law about something dosn't mean it will be heeded, if it were there would be no crime, same with education................well thats my tuppence worth on the subject :biggrin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree :flowers:

 

 

I believe this law, if it is passed, may well stop dog attacks. For instance if a dog bites a visitor and the owner is then forced by this law to muzzle this dog when visitors are around (which could well be children) then that would prevent another attack. Similarly, if he ignores the order to muzzle his dog and then goes on to get banned from having a dog, then that may well prevent other attacks. It is not something that is measurable or visible but I believe it will prevent attacks. :flowers:

 

 

It may well reduce dog attacks, but it will not stop them, because all the measures proposed are reactive, not one is pro-active.

 

Nevertheless, extension into the home will happen, because the people who make the laws have no idea, in the main, of what else can be done. They are taking advice from the Kennel Club who, as always, are following their own agenda which is to prevent other breeds being placed on the list in order to protect their income.

 

The law may start in the way that you envisage, however, when someone's postman calls at a time they are not expected, or some other such event, it will then be interpreted in such a way that those dogs will be required to wear a muzzle or be caged 24/7, 'in order to protect the public at large'.

 

Carry that through to the dogs that are on the exempted register, as they are already deemed potentially dangerous because of their 'type', so have to wear a muzzle in public. Dogs who have done no wrong will be condemned to that 'life'. Do you really think that is fair? Easy, yes, but hardly fair.

 

Please don't think that won't happen either. I would never consider the back of someone's car to be a public place, but others did and it cost Aaron his life, but not before he had been kept by the authorities for years without proper care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

education and tackling the breeding and selling of dogs

 

To me this is the bit that needs more focus.

 

While anyone can go and buy whatever dog they want (many from less "reputable" sources), the laws we already have in place are just going to deal with problems once they've occurred (and penalise dogs that haven't caused problems but just happen to look the "wrong" way).

 

While people own dogs without really having a clue about how they "work" and what they need, or own dogs for the wrong reason, problems will still occur. Restrictions on who can breed and sell dogs would reduce the number of unsuitable owners. In conjunction with education for the owners, maybe there'd be a positive way ahead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was under the impression that Ruben had bitten the aunty on the leg :unsure:

Also the proposed law change might have prevented the recent case of the GSD who had bitten three times on three diffrent occassions, yes it would have bitten the first person but perhaps the other two would have been prevented.

 

But heres the thing...we already have a law that could have been used When the aunt was bitten and the first time the GSD bit. The proposal doesnt do anything different to what is already here in those cases...so why it is so fantastic? there is a big problem with the aunts situation but that wouldnt have been solved by the proposal either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of my neighbours had GSD which was never walked or trained, barely talked to. The worse her behaviour became the more she was shut out in the garden. She started fence running and lunging at everybody who went up the adjoining gardens.

 

One day she managed to slip out of the front door and bit a visitor to a neighbouring house. That person would not report the bite. A few months later it happened again, but this time it was a child that was bitten. Again, the mother did not want to report the bite, but it turned out the child needed stitches in the wound. When she went to tell the owner, she was advised the dog had already been pts.

 

Six months later another GSD pup appeared and was treated the same way with the same end result.

 

Would the proposed law made any difference? No, because the people concerned wouldn't report the bite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But heres the thing...we already have a law that could have been used When the aunt was bitten and the first time the GSD bit. The proposal doesnt do anything different to what is already here in those cases...so why it is so fantastic? there is a big problem with the aunts situation but that wouldnt have been solved by the proposal either.

 

...........................ah, you've got me on that one.................nuts :rolleyes: :laugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...........................ah, you've got me on that one.................nuts :rolleyes: :laugh:

 

S'ok...I'll be very mature about it. Im not gonna shout ONE UP! stick my tongue out at the computer screen while dancing around the room yelling LOOOOSERRR lol...where are those pink elephant emoticons when you need em?! :wink:

 

No seriously, if it was a good idea I would be all for it but its not really any different to what we already have and that concerns me. Sure there are a few changes that are new but I personally fail to see how it will stop or even help. I put together an article that goes through the proposal step by step and at points I even say "yay good idea do it" but overall the proposal isnt anything great :( Ill post the article tomorrow and you guys can take a look and discuss :) I dont suggest to have the answers or be able to stop dog attacks (unlike some proposals :wink: ) but the need for a law that makes no real difference??? I just dont get that!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

S'ok...I'll be very mature about it. Im not gonna shout ONE UP! stick my tongue out at the computer screen while dancing around the room yelling LOOOOSERRR lol...where are those pink elephant emoticons when you need em?! :wink:

 

:laugh: yeah yeah.......................Allie 1 Jane 0...................this time :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol If i get 2-0 do i get spud :biggrin:

 

Heres my thoughts. Please remember i dont suggest to have the answers but do feel the suggested proposal is madness.

http://www.dogmagazine.net/archives/308/co...og-legislation/

 

What we have here is failure to communicate

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have tried, really tried, for the last two days to make sense of the proposal for a Control of Dogs (Scotland) Bill by MPS Alex Neil. I have forced everyone I know to listen to me asking question after question after question. I have emailed people (sorry to those who have had the influx of emails!) scenarios and asked them to show me what I must be missing because I just do not get it.

 

 

 

I will try and communicate my issues about the proposal to you, the reader and probable dog owner. I am a mother too and want to see something in place that protects my children from irresponsible dog owners, I truly do. But I cannot see it in this proposal. Maybe you can explain what I must surely be missing. Lets take it slowly, step by step, probably more for my sake than yours. I’ve got a headache now so bare with me while I try and get this straight. If you need to make a coffee, do it now. I have a feeling this may need all your powers of concentration too. Ready? Lets take a look…..

 

 

 

First the easy bit for me…

 

 

 

The Dangerous Dogs Act (DDA) 1991 was introduced at a time where several high-profile dog attacks on humans had caused alarm amongst the public. This legislation was hurriedly produced and poorly drafted, and has failed to make the public any safer from dangerous dogs. The DDA outlaws specific breeds of dog, but takes no account of the behaviour of dog owners.

 

 

 

Excellent start. Well done. Totally agree. The very reason BSL does not work.

 

 

 

Furthermore, dog attacks are not criminal offences when they occur on private property.

 

 

 

(POINT ONE: Your need to come back to this later) True again, however the 1871 dogs Act means civil proceedings can be brought. While the owner gains no criminal record if found guilty, a dangerous dog can be ordered to be restricted or even destroyed. Being a civil case, you do not have to prove “beyond reasonable doubt†simply “on the balance of probabilitiesâ€. This actually makes it more likely to get a guilty verdict than using the DDA, which doesn’t cover private property where the dog has a right to be. Doesn’t that actually make that a better law than the DDA, which was meant to improve the 1871 act?

 

 

 

 

 

The police also report that, for various reasons, the DDA is difficult to enforce, and a huge drain on resources.

 

 

Difficult to enforce. Why is that? We don’t ban pit bulls, we ban any dog, regardless of parentage that has enough characteristics of a pit bull type. Fact is, police have the right to seize any dog they think is type. They don’t have to know its type, just think it. Heck the burden of proof is even reversed! They have to prove nothing; YOU have to prove your dog isn’t a type dog. They have everything on their side…how is that difficult to enforce? They just take the dog, go to court and see what happens.

 

 

 

Section 3 of dangerously out of control in a public place. Again, how is that hard to enforce. All someone has to do is make a complaint and the case can be taken if the dog was infact, dangerously out of control in a public place. If it is difficult to enforce this, why will it be easier to enforce exactly the same thing in a private place?

 

 

 

So there’s little me thinking hard on this. What on earth does he mean… I think I have the answer. Its actually rather simple when you think about it… this country has almost 7 million dogs. That’s a lot of dogs isn’t it? So what we are asking is for our overstretched police force to also spend time watching and checking 7 million dogs. Difficult to enforce… That would make sense wouldn’t it? As for the drain on resources, that’s bound to happen with a law that makes it an offence to have any dog that may resemble a certain type regardless of whether its actually dangerous! If only we had thought of a better DDA first time round eh? Lets hope this time round we think it through properly....

 

 

 

Excellent…lets move on….

 

 

 

With such shortcomings in mind, there is clearly a need for more practical, up-to-date legislation. I propose to introduce a Bill, which aims to give the public greater protection by addressing the shortcomings of the existing legislation, and placing more responsibility on the owner for the dog’s treatment and behaviour.

 

 

 

Sounds good to me…responsibility on the owner. Brilliant idea.

 

 

 

 

 

My Bill would include the following key changes:

 

The law will operate on a preventative basis.

 

 

Before a dog becomes dangerous. Fantastic idea. That will help desperately to stopping dog attacks!

 

 

 

Control Orders will be issued to owners of dogs that are dangerously out of control, to ensure they do not endanger public safety.

 

 

And this is where its starts to get a little cloudy in my mind. Preventative basis with control orders issued to owners of dogs that are dangerous out of control. If the dog is dangerously out of control, where’s the preventative bit? If a dog is out of control, isn't it already endangering public safety? Answer on a postcard please…. NEXT!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This would include compulsory microchipping for such dogs, in order to keep track of them, and it would be an offence not to notify authorities if details such as address or owner are changed.

 

 

 

Ok…this one is full of problems. Depending on how much room this takes up I may or may not list all those I have thought of…I'm trying not to bore you I promise..

 

 

 

How hard will it be to enforce this when it’s already been stated they can't enforce current laws. Make it an offence by all means. Lets chip all dogs, I don't mind personally. But how on earth do you intend enforcing it. Actually, ill just stick with that one point…told you I'm trying not to bore you J

 

 

 

On we plod…

 

 

 

 

 

Make attacks an offence wherever they occur.

 

 

 

 

Ok but re-read POINT ONE. So this proposal will make it a criminal offence if your dog attacks someone. Fact: criminal, civil it’s still able to have the same outcome on the dog. A few other interesting points, If anyone deliberately sets their dog on another person, whether on private property or not, there’s already a criminal charge available under the Offences against a Persons act. If someone didn't do it deliberately and your dog attacks someone at your home…surely you would know whom the dog attacked? Surely you would be horrified? Surely a criminal conviction couldn't make you feel any worse or take it any more seriously? Surely you would have not let it happen if you could have? So I fail to see how a criminal conviction will help.

 

 

 

Also making it an offence for a dog to attack wherever they occur…again, someone show me how that is pre empting anything?

 

 

 

The proposal further on then states briefly the current legislation before explaining why he claims they have failed.

 

 

 

 

 

It fails to offer the same level of protection in private places in which the dog is permitted to be. If the attack occurs in the dog’s own home – as is very often the case - the owner cannot be prosecuted. For example, in 2005, a two-year-old girl required hours of surgery after being attacked by her neighbour’s Japanese Akita in Carmarthenshire, West Wales. As this happened in the neighbour’s home where the dog lived, there was no scope for prosecution under the DDA, and the dog still lives next door to the girl.

 

 

 

Go back to POINT ONE.

 

 

 

 

 

Attacks on other animals are not a criminal offence. The Scottish SPCA recently reported a case in which a swan was attacked by a Rottweiler. The swan had to be put down and her six cygnets were left abandoned. In another incident, a terrier crawled into a badger’s sett and killed the cub. The owners were clearly partly responsible in that they did not keep their dogs under control. However, they faced no criminal charges.

 

 

 

It Is already a criminal offence to kill injure or maim a swan. It is already a criminal offence to kill, injure or take a badger. It is illegal to cause a dog to enter or for you or dog to interfere with a badger sett. Why where charges not brought?

 

 

 

The proposal goes on to say that whoever is in charge of the dog at the time of the offence is to be taken as the owner. No problem with that, but again “at the time of the offence†is not preventing anything!

 

 

 

Onwards and upwards reader! We are on page 7 of 10! The end is in sight!

 

The next bit is somewhat long…go with it…I have reasons!

 

 

Keeping all dogs under control – introducing Control Orders

 

It has been demonstrated in the previous chapter that the dogs banned under section 1 of the DDA contribute only a small amount of the dog bites seen by A&E departments. What is needed is a method of acting against dogs of any breed that endanger public safety.

 

 

 

“against any breed that endanger public safety†Any breed or any dog? I assume he meant any dog, will give him credit for that.. If the dog is endangering public safety are we preventing anything? Currently you have to go to court to get a control order wouldn't it be a bit late by then?

 

 

I therefore propose to make it an offence for anyone in charge of a dog to allow it to be dangerously out of control. This will apply to whoever is in charge of the dog at the time of the offence, whether they are the owner of the dog or not.

 

 

 

Fair enough. As a dog owner I don't allow anyone I don't trust to walk my dogs. In a public place this already exists. What is dangerously out of control in a private place exactly?

 

 

It will also be an offence if, under these same circumstances, the dog attacks another animal. At the moment allowing a dog to attack another animal is not covered under criminal law. However, I feel that it is important that people take steps to ensure that a dog under their control does not harm other animals. In addition this will provide protection for working dogs such as guide dogs, police dogs and other assistance dogs.

 

It would be a defence however if the dog attacked the other animal in self-defence, or if it was defending its owner who was being attacked by the other animal. I would also propose to include a defence for police dogs carrying out their duties.

 

If a dog which is out of control attacks and/or injures a person, then it will be an aggravated offence. Again it would be a defence if the dog was being attacked by the person and it was acting in self-defence, or if it was defending its owner who was being attacked by another person. I would again propose a defence for police dogs carrying out their duties.

 

 

 

We are still taking about when a dog attacks. Has anyone spotted the preventative measures as yet?

 

 

 

I also propose that the offences will apply anywhere.

 

 

 

 

 

Anywhere, including private property. Cat comes into my garden over my high fence and my dog attacks it. I’m in deep trouble. This is do not like. I cannot stop a cat coming into my garden. What about a rat? A bird? A mouse? Now things are not looking that good are they?

 

 

 

The exception to this would be if the dog were kept in a secure area to which there was no way that the member of the public would ordinarily be able to access, but that the person who was attacked had attempted to enter it. For example, if the dog were kept in a secure garden consisting of a high fence which had no gate, and someone climbed over the fence to gain entry and was attacked, then that would be a defence, as the owner had taken all reasonable steps to prevent the public from accessing the area. It would not be a defence, however, if someone visiting the owner was attacked, such as a postman or a tradesman.

 

 

High fence wont stop the cat! My window cleaner once used their ladder to climb very my 6 ft fence to gain access to clean my windows while I was out. He had already been told never to clean them If I wasn't in (it upset the dogs and makes them bark) He ignored me. This is not looking good at all now…

 

 

 

If a person is convicted of any of these offences then the Court will be able to use their discretion and apply any or all of the following control measures:

 

 

• That the dog be subject to conditions such as being muzzled and kept on a lead at all times

 

 

 

Can already be done.

 

 

 

• That the owner attend a mandatory dog-training course

 

 

A court can order any means of control which could cover this too.

 

 

 

• That the owner be disqualified from owning a dog for a period as determined by the court

 

 

 

Already in place.

 

 

 

• That the dog be re-homed

 

 

 

This is new and fine with me although disqualifying an owner will have exactly the same effect!

 

 

 

• That the owner pay up to £5000 in compensation for personal injury, loss or damage arising from actually caused harm in a minor incident

 

 

 

Already liable for damages under the Animal act.

 

 

• In the most serious cases, a fine of up to £5000 and/or up to 6 months imprisonment, or an unlimited fine and/or up to 2 years imprisonment .

 

 

 

In the most serious cases on public property and private property where the dog had no right to be, this already stands. On private property if you set a dog on someone you can be charged under the Offences against a persons act which I believe carries similar sentences. If it wasn't deliberate I cannot see how this will help. That person already carries a life sentence knowing what has happened. This certainly doesn't prevent anything.

 

 

• Anyone convicted of an aggravated attack should be disqualified from owning animals.

 

Depending on the reason for the attack I agree however as mentioned previously, if the person didn't do it on purpose wouldn't it be better to explain how it happened so they know in future? This doesn't prevent anything either.

 

 

• That the dog be destroyed (in extreme cases).

 

 

 

Already stands on private and public property.

 

 

Adding a range of control measures is more flexible, and takes into account that every dog represents a varying degree of danger to the public. Importantly, it is only when a dog is actually shown to have an aggressive nature that it becomes subject to any legal restraints.

 

 

 

No preventative measures here. How do you define aggressive nature?

 

 

For such Control Orders to work, it would also be necessary to keep track of the dogs. For this reason, I propose that all dogs for which a Control Order has been issued should be microchipped. This would mean that the owner of the dog would irrefutably be the person responsible for ensuring that the requirements of the Control Order would be carried out. This would be irrespective of whether or not they were in charge of the dog at the time of the offence.

 

 

 

I do not get this at all. I have no problems with chipping all dogs full stop but fail to see how chipping a dog will ensure a court order is followed. Example: court orders Fido to be muzzled at all times in public. Fido is chipped to ensure court order works. Fido’s owner walks fido without the muzzle. Now…are we asking every police officer to scan every dog they see walking without a muzzle to ensure that dog doesn’t have a control order on it?

 

 

 

Are we asking them to know and be able to recognize every dog and owner incase they see them on the street breaking the restrictions? If Fido’s owner breaks the restrictions and Fido does something he will either vanish so no one knows it was him (m icrochip will not help here) or stick around and hold his hands up. If he does the second them he could be traced anyway and the police will know if he has a court order in place. So I am just confused. Again, if you can see how this will work please let me know.

 

 

 

 

 

Details of the dog’s owner would be held on a database, as is currently the case with microchipped dogs, and would be accessible to organisations which required it. It would also be an offence not to notify the database’s administrators of a change of address, or if the dog was given to a different owner.

 

 

 

 

 

How on earth will we A) know if a dog has been moved on unless it attacks again? If it does attack again how is that preventing anything? B) Keep a check on everyone to ensure they haven't moved or passed the dog on. What if they do pass the dog on but have no idea exactly who too? Then what?

 

 

 

 

 

When a person in charge of a dog has been convicted of an offence as outlined above, a control measure could be issued to the owner, even if the owner was not in charge of the dog at the time.

 

 

 

Fine depending on the definition of out of control in a private place however, again, not preventing anything.

 

 

 

 

 

This proposal would act pre-emptively, and give courts more flexible powers to use against the owner of any dog considered by the court to be acting dangerously.

 

 

No it would not act pre-emptively! Everything listed happens AFTER a dog is out of control and/or AFTER a dog attacks. That is not pre empting anything!

 

 

 

 

These proposals, if adopted, would help address the shortcomings of the existing dog legislation – allowing authorities to act on the owner of any dog which has an aggressive nature before it injures anyone, and therefore giving the public greater protection.

 

 

 

If a dog is out of control there’s a good chance if it is going to injure anyone, it will do so at that point. Therefore this is wrong claiming to act before a person is injured. What about the recent case of Archie? The dog is claimed to have mixed with the children and hadn’t attacked anyone before. How would this have helped him or his family? Unless the definition of dangerously out of control covers behaviour which is not out of control and not an actual attack in which case we will end up with a nation of muzzled dogs!

 

 

 

 

Overview : What we have here is failure to communicate and failure to protect the public yet again.

 

 

 

This proposal pre empts nothing.

 

 

 

This proposal does nothing more to protect the public than the laws we ALREADY have in place, in fact by making it a criminal offence on private property they are actually making it HARDER to get a conviction as it will become “beyond reasonable doubt†instead of “on the balance of probabilitiesâ€

 

 

 

This proposal points out the blinding errors in the 1991 DDA regarding Breed Specific Legislation and doesn’t absolutely nothing about it!

 

 

 

This proposal affects all dog owners. I think we have a right to know, a right to comment and a right to shout loudly from the rooftops if we disagree. Organisations may back this and hail it a “step in the right direction†but dog owners and the public have been misled before. Organisations do not speak for me, do you allow them to speak for you or your dogs? Do you trust them to decide for you when you don't know the full facts? The proposal includes questions to be answered. All very valid questions that we do not have the answer too. Without those answers how on earth do we know what exactly, is being proposed? Maybe those organisations backing this have some information we don't have which is why they back it? Well as a dog owner I would like to know what that is! Keeping secrets helps no one. My mother always told me to look before I leap. So looking I am.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you have read this and think “Hang on…this bit doesn't make sense†, simply do not understand a point of the proposal or want further clarification I urge you to contact Alex Neil and ask your questions. Ask the organisations that back it too...maybe they know something you don't and can explain how this is good. You may think this doesn't effect you but this has a real chance of coming to England if it goes through in Scotland. In 1991 we allowed a law to go through which has been condemned by many groups ever since. It has cost the lives of many dogs that have never shown any aggression and has not protected the public. I do not want to go through that again…do you? If not please write to Alex Neil at the following address:

 

 

 

. Responses must be submitted by Monday 14th April 2008, and should be sent to the following address:

 

Alex Neil MSP

 

Room M4.19

 

The Scottish Parliament

 

Edinburgh

 

EH99 1SP

 

Alternatively, please email responses to [email protected]

 

In addition, feel free to pass this consultation document on to any other interested parties that you may be aware of.

 

 

 

N.B. To help inform debate on the matters covered by this paper and in the interests of openness, all the responses submitted on this consultation document will be made public. Names will also be made public unless you indicate otherwise. Personal data referring to third parties included in the response will not be accepted without explicit written consent from the third party. If you wish the contents of your response to be treated in confidence and not made public, then please indicate so.

 

All responses will be included in any summary or statistical analysis, which does not identify individual responses.

 

 

 

To read the proposal and questions for consideration in full please see here:

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s3/bills...onsultation.pdf

Edited by Allie No Dots
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bluddy hell Allie, well done lass, you've opened my eyes anyway :huh:

So basically, this guy has just re-hashed the existing legislation :dry: I take it you've sent this to the Scottish parliament ? any response ?

 

Hmmmm, ok, it's a deal, you can get Spud as long as you promise to take Daisy too :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bluddy hell Allie, well done lass, you've opened my eyes anyway :huh:

So basically, this guy has just re-hashed the existing legislation :dry: I take it you've sent this to the Scottish parliament ? any response ?

 

Hmmmm, ok, it's a deal, you can get Spud as long as you promise to take Daisy too :rolleyes:

 

 

Thank gawd for that! Your a hard nut to crack lady! I think I earnt Spud personally but, provided you give him a hug from me ill let you keep him :)

 

TBH, im not really sure what this guy is doing. I dont get it at all, honestly dont. We do need something but this isnt it. I havent sent it anywhere yet(except to the dog mag in a rant mood lol ). The idea behind it was simply to be able to show people (like you!) what faults I can see in the hopes you contact those responsible for the proposal and ask questions they want to ask.

 

If there are workable good answers then great. If it turns out that it really does protect the public and helps dogs and dog owners, fantastic. But lets make sure it does that first. I am bitterly disappointed with the KC as their hailing it a step in the right direction is, IMHO, misleading as i cant see the step in the right direction! People listen to them and put faith in them to protect the issues surrounding dogs and the public. Yet unless they know something i dont (which is not on as i am a dog owner and have a right to know as this may affect me!) it doesnt do what it says on the tin.

 

 

The above article probably has faults in it, i dont claim its perfect but i do beleive the core stands. The proposal isnt going to make any difference. It will only be if real people contact Alex neil and the orgs behind this that we have a chance to stop this if it really wont work or improve it so it does. In sort, you have a voice.. USE IT! :flowers:

Edited by Allie No Dots
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well done Allie. Excellent critique. I read it first on http://www.dogm.php?act=aagazine.net/ and then came here.

 

The NDWA Proposals by Cuthbert are here: http://www.rykat.org/forums/index.php?act=...post&id=465

 

They will be interested to hear your, and anyone elses views on it.

 

It has gone to Defra and to many other websites too. If the link doesn't work just go back on the Posts to Melps 'KC And NDWA Proposals for New Dog Legislation' and scroll down to Pingu's link.

I think the legislators are beginning to believe their own spin, or, are so cynical that they are sure that the public always will.

 

No legislation has ever Prevented Anything from actually happening. All legislation can do is tell people what is unacceptable or required and then spell out the possible consequences, but a politician will always try to persuade us otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


×
×
  • Create New...