Why must decent pet owners be penalised? (From Worcester News)
Get involved! Send your photos, video, news & views by texting WN NEWS to 80360 or e-mail us
Why must decent pet owners be penalised?
8:00am Tuesday 16th March 2010 in
SIR – So the government now want dog owners to insure against their dogs biting other people – OK.
But why should decent owners who care for and control their pets be, in effect, penalised because of yobs who couldn’t care less?
No, of course, there should not be these dog attacks, but how often is the owner of an offending dog caught? Rarely. So any “insurance claim” would be non-existent, and the likelihood of such an owner being insured is doubtful.
Yes, I would conform, though my dogs are never out of control – in fact one is too disabled to exercise anymore.
Again, the Government comes up with a futile idea.
M Hoskins
Worcester
Comments(7)
Richard5
says...
8:45am Tue 16 Mar 10
I can't help wondering whether any lobbyists for the Insurance industry have been involved - after all they stand to make a great deal of money out of this.
Tulstar
says...
8:55am Tue 16 Mar 10
.
As Mr/Mrs Hoskins mentions, how would they enforce it when offending dog owners are rarely caught as it is!?!? And as for Richard5's point above about the Insurance Companies being involved - that wouldn't surprise me in the slightest. I can almost see the £ signs in their eyes!
Common Sense
says...
9:45am Tue 16 Mar 10
Remember school? All got to stay in, because one misbehaved?
Nothing changes!
I am not a dog owner, so I sympathise - although, that said, from what I can see, dogs are just pee and poo machines - for some reason, everything in sight has to be peed on!
(Yeah, I know - it's "marking their territory"!)
It's still disgusting.
CS.
Tulstar
says...
9:54am Tue 16 Mar 10
Common Sense wrote:I can live with the pee and poo (so long as the owner cleans the poo up afterwards)...
This is life, folks....it's called the innocent suffering for the guilty!
Remember school? All got to stay in, because one misbehaved?
Nothing changes!
I am not a dog owner, so I sympathise - although, that said, from what I can see, dogs are just pee and poo machines - for some reason, everything in sight has to be peed on!
(Yeah, I know - it's "marking their territory"!)
It's still disgusting.
CS.
.
At least dogs don't leave McDonalds wrappers, crisp packets and drinks bottles everywhere. I can put up with them peeing on Trees :)
Richard5
says...
4:03pm Tue 16 Mar 10
lowlybarnacle
says...
5:18pm Tue 16 Mar 10
It will not punish 'decent pet owners' as they will be rewarded for their 'decency' with low premiums whilst the minority will be hit with higher premiums.
This must be on condition that any pet that is not insured be confiscated from the owner immediately and a large fine levied for possessing a dog without insurance.
Richard5
says...
5:31pm Tue 16 Mar 10
"Any pet not insured must be confiscated" - that's right. Because we really need more pointless bureauracy and State intervention, don't we?
More Read stories
- I’m not sure National Service is the answer
- Why won’t Government stop price increases?
- It sounds like we had a lucky escape...
- Surely they won’t put price up this much?
- Listen to Labour? You’re having a laugh
- Canon John Davies was perfect gentleman
- Please, let’s have an Englishman this time
- We are lucky to have hospital facilities
- So what advantages would we lose?
- We must do more to protect countryside
Most popular
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
Comment now! Register or sign in below.
Log in with us
Fields marked with * are mandatory.
Or
Log in with