Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Hi there reader
Do you find this message annoying?
Why not register and make a post to get rid of it?

[George]

"All dog owners in England and Wales would have to insure against their pet attacking someone under Labour proposals to tackle dangerous breeds" Source: www.bbc.co.uk Any excuse in order to extract more money from as many people as possible, somehow. At the very least, Labour will hope to rake in the insurance premium tax but I suspect it goes further than that - jobs for the boys - Labour's friends in the insurance industry. So the 99% of owners with perfectly docile dogs will end up paying perhaps £400/year ++ on compulsory insurance just because 1% of owners have "dangerous breeds." Perhaps it's Google Chrome. I can't separate the paragraphs or put in line breaks.

[suntanned dude]

George,
 
Yes as always minority spoil things for majority, but how else could this be done? You will always get those that will refuse to pay this anyway & then it is up to the enforcers to enforce that. But I would be surprised if £400 p.a. is the right figure. We as a Company pay >£270 p.a. for our public liability part of required insurances with £2million cover for us as Solar, Gas & Electrical installers/works cover and would say we are perhaps more at risk than say a dog bite with potential falls from height, using blow torches etc? Early days for this legislation though.
 
SD
 
 

[mythoughts]

...and no insurance company would take the risk of selling it to them anyway.
 
The RSPCA's Special Operations Unit and the Police already have enough intelligence regarding many individuals and gangs that deliberately breed vicious dogs for fighting/selling on. What they don't have are enough powers to prosecute the scum responsible. Even when they do, the penalities are often meaningless.
 
Personally, I already pay in excess of this amount being mooted for pet insurance to cover ever-increasing vet bills. Such insurance also includes public liability. However, this proposed scheme will do nothing to eradicate the menace of those that breed and torment these poor dogs to a point where they go against their own nature; attacking and killing other dogs and people.
 
Such scum behind these "ventures" will not purchase insurance. Decent dog owners, like those with a mild-mannered lick-you-to-death old labbie, most probably will if it becomes compulsory.
 
Indeed, many simply walk their dogs around in high-streets without a lead nor a collar on....no identity you see! If anything happens it's then a case of "It's not mine guv..." 
 
It's like car insurance. Firstly, scum don't get their cars insured which then causes problems for those they injure or the families left behind of those they kill. Secondly, insurance companies won't touch them with a barge poll anyway.
 
Result; the responsible majority are targeted because the government hasn't got the guts to tackle the minority that cause most of the problems.
 
Compulsory insurance will not solve the problem.
 
Simple as that.
 
 

[Mighty Hatfield]

The key word within all of that hysteria in the original post is "perhaps".
 
I dont see the problem, if you drive a flashy car, you pay more insurance (particularly if you have a history of driving badly) if you own a dangerous dog, youll pay more (particularly if you have a history of negligence in controlling said dog). You pays your money you take your choice. 
 
Ive read the bbc article, which outlines the scale of the problem with dog attacks, which unfortunately ive experienced myself recently, and this flippant "its a stealth tax" response really doesnt do the issue justice.
 
Even the tories have admitted this problem is huge (which they blame labour for not doing anything about whilst screaming nanny state at any and all attempts TO do something about it)
 
Im not sure who "Labours friends" are in the insurance industry. Wasnt aware they were a political force?
 
In any event, this will require policing, in order to be effective. on that basis, ive not problem with charging the worst offenders large amounts, in order to pay for the increased cost of policing.
 
Its clear to remember that dangerous dogs, are the problem here, its part of a wider discussion but you cant really say that rottweilers, pitt bulls etc are going "against their nature" when they kill or injure something/someone.
 
 

[disgruntled]

The key word within all of that hysteria in the original post is "perhaps".
 
I dont see the problem, if you drive a flashy car, you pay more insurance (particularly if you have a history of driving badly) if you own a dangerous dog, youll pay more (particularly if you have a history of negligence in controlling said dog). You pays your money you take your choice. 
 
Ive read the bbc article, which outlines the scale of the problem with dog attacks, which unfortunately ive experienced myself recently, and this flippant "its a stealth tax" response really doesnt do the issue justice.
 
Even the tories have admitted this problem is huge (which they blame labour for not doing anything about whilst screaming nanny state at any and all attempts TO do something about it)
 
Im not sure who "Labours friends" are in the insurance industry. Wasnt aware they were a political force?
 
In any event, this will require policing, in order to be effective. on that basis, ive not problem with charging the worst offenders large amounts, in order to pay for the increased cost of policing.
 
Its clear to remember that dangerous dogs, are the problem here, its part of a wider discussion but you cant really say that rottweilers, pitt bulls etc are going "against their nature" when they kill or injure something/someone.

Its just propoganda. The hint is in the owrding of the thread title......"Stealth Tax"

[mythoughts]

The key word within all of that hysteria in the original post is "perhaps".
 
I dont see the problem, if you drive a flashy car, you pay more insurance (particularly if you have a history of driving badly) if you own a dangerous dog, youll pay more (particularly if you have a history of negligence in controlling said dog). You pays your money you take your choice. 
 
Ive read the bbc article, which outlines the scale of the problem with dog attacks, which unfortunately ive experienced myself recently, and this flippant "its a stealth tax" response really doesnt do the issue justice.
 
Even the tories have admitted this problem is huge (which they blame labour for not doing anything about whilst screaming nanny state at any and all attempts TO do something about it)
 
Im not sure who "Labours friends" are in the insurance industry. Wasnt aware they were a political force?
 
In any event, this will require policing, in order to be effective. on that basis, ive not problem with charging the worst offenders large amounts, in order to pay for the increased cost of policing.
 
Its clear to remember that dangerous dogs, are the problem here, its part of a wider discussion but you cant really say that rottweilers, pitt bulls etc are going "against their nature" when they kill or injure something/someone.
 
 

I'm not going to be drawn into an argument about breeds as I've seen softie rotties savaged by giant poodles and mental rotties frothing at the mouth at the thought of chewing up a happy go lucky terrier cross-breed bounding up to say "hello mate, my name's Rufus, what's yours?" And we all know the potential of the generally family-loving German Shepherd.

I think a better solution would be to focus on creating a Dangerous Persons Act, especially as it's been shown that violent offences against the person whether or not involving dogs has increased significantly over the past ten years.
 
As for compulsory insurance to tackle the problem of dangerous dogs, well, it's estimated that 1,700,000 drivers drive without insurance, fewer are being caught and those that do suffer paltry fines. If we can't get people to insure their cars, nor prosecute many that don't despite all the technology available to DVLA and the police,  how on earth can the Government honestly expect to force people to insure their dogs? The very people being targeted will just ignore it. Remember, it's people that buy insurance, not dogs!
 
 
BTW, 150 people are killed each year by uninsured drivers, with three people injured every hour by them.
 

http://www.beatthatquote.com/news/car-insurance/nearly-two-million-drivers-dodge-car-insurance.html
 
 
More than 2m untaxed and uninsured drivers are laughing at the law as prosecution rates more than halve in eight years
 

More than two million rogue drivers escaped prosecution last year as an underclass of untaxed and uninsured drivers grows at an alarming rate, figures reveal today.They show that there are 63 per cent more road tax evaders than eight years ago - yet only half the number of successful prosecutions

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-559506/More-2m-untaxed-uninsured-drivers-laughing-law-prosecution-rates-halve-years.html#ixzz0hhRp7KOt

 
Uninsured drivers get lower fines but are killing more people
 
 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4535423.ece
 

[jonmorris]

In any event, this will require policing, in order to be effective. on that basis, ive not problem with charging the worst offenders large amounts, in order to pay for the increased cost of policing.

Well that's the end of this idea then. The police are so disinterested/under-resourced (delete as appropriate to your view) that there are loads of laws that aren't enforced and it seems that people have to almost argue for the police to clamp down on one thing, often at the expense of another.

Thus, it will end up relying on people abiding by the law, and we've already had mythoughts say it exactly as it is - someone living in the real world. To compare this with insurance on a flashy car, where people who can afford a better car should pay more is nothing like the same thing. We're talking about people who probably can't afford a flashy car and insurance and drive around uninsured instead of not driving. These are the people more likely to have a dangerous dog, or not keep them under control, and won't bother to get insurance.

Those who have pedigree dogs will obviously pay, but are they a risk to others?

[jonmorris]

As for compulsory insurance to tackle the problem of dangerous dogs, well, it's estimated that 1,700,000 drivers drive without insurance, fewer are being caught and those that do suffer paltry fines. If we can't get people to insure their cars, nor prosecute many that don't despite all the technology available to DVLA and the police,  how on earth can the Government honestly expect to force people to insure their dogs? The very people being targeted will just ignore it. Remember, it's people that buy insurance, not dogs!
 
BTW, 150 people are killed each year by uninsured drivers, with three people injured every hour by them.

Wow, and when I said how this was being routinely shown to be the case on programmes like Road Wars and so on - I was ridiculed, being told that it was all edited for television and they cherry picked all the things that showed the police - well more importantly the justice system - in a bad light (despite the police willingly allowing the media to follow them).

No, this actually proves that the punishments are stupid and that the police are in fact wasting their time doing all the hard work to catch people. Can you imagine how the police feel when they've had a huge car chase with loads of damage to property and you then hear the words 'no further action was taken', 'charges were later dropped' or whatever.

It's clearly happening unless the Daily Mail made up all the stats or twisted them?

[mythoughts]

As for compulsory insurance to tackle the problem of dangerous dogs, well, it's estimated that 1,700,000 drivers drive without insurance, fewer are being caught and those that do suffer paltry fines. If we can't get people to insure their cars, nor prosecute many that don't despite all the technology available to DVLA and the police,  how on earth can the Government honestly expect to force people to insure their dogs? The very people being targeted will just ignore it. Remember, it's people that buy insurance, not dogs!
 
BTW, 150 people are killed each year by uninsured drivers, with three people injured every hour by them.

Wow, and when I said how this was being routinely shown to be the case on programmes like Road Wars and so on - I was ridiculed, being told that it was all edited for television and they cherry picked all the things that showed the police - well more importantly the justice system - in a bad light (despite the police willingly allowing the media to follow them).

No, this actually proves that the punishments are stupid and that the police are in fact wasting their time doing all the hard work to catch people. Can you imagine how the police feel when they've had a huge car chase with loads of damage to property and you then hear the words 'no further action was taken', 'charges were later dropped' or whatever.

It's clearly happening unless the Daily Mail made up all the stats or twisted them?

No it's true. These are Department of Transport figures.  It's a sorry state of affairs. It's even shown that 1 in 4 motorcyclists don't tax their bikes...that being so, even if they have insured their vehicles technically that insurance is invalid anyway. I've watched those car-crimes programmes too where most of culprits don't have any insurance, MOTs etc etc. They nearly always get off or get a little fine. 

 
Now, don't get me wrong, I still believe pet insurance is a good idea as it ensures that animals get proper treatment when they need it. Vets are stupidly over-priced!!! Indeed, providing care to a sick pet is now a statutory obligation. But it's not the solution to this problem. The people that have these dogs don't give a damn about their welfare.
 
 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1540585/Two-million-drivers-dodge-road-tax.html

[George]

I dont see the problem, if you drive a flashy car, you pay more insurance (particularly if you have a history of driving badly) if you own a dangerous dog, youll pay more (particularly if you have a history of negligence in controlling said dog). You pays your money you take your choice. 

I wouldn't be concerned if the proposed compulsory insurance only applied to dangerous breeds. But I think they are talking about forcing every dog owner to cough-up for dog insurance. I suggested it could be £400pa and I've seen other headline figures of £600pa. Who knows? Even at, say, £200pa this would be a savage amount for people on low incomes to pay, especially if they have a genuinely harmless poodle.  How can you say: 'you pays your money and takes your choice'? Do you have no concern for the less well off members of society, for whom their dog might be their best friend, and probably can't afford such huge premiums?

[markwoods39]

Well I hope the government will supply plenty of money to the animal rescue centers to cope with the increase of dump dogs.

I have a lab soft as anything never bitten anyone in his life he is 9 now ! but I would never let my grandchild alone with him, and I always have him on the lead when out walking the streets but let him off over the fields.

It is just common sense not to trust any dog no matter what breed they are ? Do you really think people with dangerous dogs would pay for insurance for there dogs ?

why not bring back licence for dogs say £30 per year and give the money raised to animal charities.If caught without one say £1.000 fine which also would go to animal charities.

Just a idea

[Mighty Hatfield]

I dont see the problem, if you drive a flashy car, you pay more insurance (particularly if you have a history of driving badly) if you own a dangerous dog, youll pay more (particularly if you have a history of negligence in controlling said dog). You pays your money you take your choice.

I wouldn't be concerned if the proposed compulsory insurance only applied to dangerous breeds. But I think they are talking about forcing every dog owner to cough-up for dog insurance. I suggested it could be £400pa and I've seen other headline figures of £600pa. Who knows? Even at, say, £200pa this would be a savage amount for people on low incomes to pay, especially if they have a genuinely harmless poodle.  How can you say: 'you pays your money and takes your choice'? Do you have no concern for the less well off members of society, for whom their dog might be their best friend, and probably can't afford such huge premiums?

I most certainly do, but i also have concerns for those who are affected by the negligence of owners of dangerous dogs. Particularly those, whose dog might be their best (and possibly only) friend, and see their best friend ripped to pieces by another dog.

We need to see exactly how and what any proposed legislation might work with regard to dangerous dogs down to the less dangerous breeds. Of course it isnt fair that the majority pay for the minority, and of course, as has been said above, if it isnt rigorously policed, theres little point in any of it.

Before we react by claiming its a stealth tax that wont work, we need to (if we can at all, i know this forum doesnt act in this way but hey ho) remember that its

a) a proposal that
b) proposes new police powers
c) is obviously very complex and will require lots of debate before/IF it ever comes to pass
d) isnt something that anyones suggesting can suddenly be chucked through parliament
e) isnt a popular or reactionary idea, but has arisen after looking at the statistics of a very real problem

Thats what politicians are supposed to do (take note Mr Cameron), come up with new ideas. Some get implemented, some dont.

[jonmorris]

I don't disagree with that, but I personally think that the only way to get people to abide by laws now is to have tough punishments. That way the police can actually get results straight away.

We must all acknowledge that the police can't enforce everything, and most laws in years gone by must have worked because people complied even if they weren't being watched 24/7. Now, I pretty much know that I can do just about anything and could/would get away with it.

As it happens I don't, and neither probably does anyone on here, but those who have no respect for the law have no fear of it either.

I certainly don't think that compulsory insurance or tagging/registration of a pet (why just a dog?) is a bad idea - but let's not think it will do anything to stop dangerous dogs.

[Kay]

Markwood - I totally agree with you here. There'll be plenty of dogs being 'dumped' on the RSPCA and Blue trust etc.,

Mine would be (sadly) one of them, I couldn't afford that amount each year.

I do agree dogs should be micro-chipped and have no problem with that being compulsory.

What about cats? are they going to be taxed next? GAWD   

tt4n - Kay

Well I hope the government will supply plenty of money to the animal rescue centers to cope with the increase of dump dogs.

I have a lab soft as anything never bitten anyone in his life he is 9 now ! but I would never let my grandchild alone with him, and I always have him on the lead when out walking the streets but let him off over the fields.

It is just common sense not to trust any dog no matter what breed they are ? Do you really think people with dangerous dogs would pay for insurance for there dogs ?

why not bring back licence for dogs say £30 per year and give the money raised to animal charities.If caught without one say £1.000 fine which also would go to animal charities.

Just a idea

[George]

I couldn't afford that amount each year.

Best remember that when you cast your vote (or before you abstain) at the forthcoming general election, then. If the allegations are true that Labour is behind this ruse to extract more money out of so many decent citizens, I don't think it matters whether it's called a stealth tax or some other name - it amounts to the same thing - a law or regulation introduced by Labour with the result that you have to hand over yet more or your cash, on top of sky-high Council Tax, fuel duty, the pensions raid and all the other extortions.