So why do I think that Boris Johnson's Deputy Mayor, Kit Malthouse could do with a Willy? Well today there are not one, but two blogs on the Tory Troll blog, which suggest to me that a bit of calm, sensible advice over a nice cup of tea may be of use to Mr Malthouse.
First he is proposing that "all breeds of bull terriers" are summarily ceased in the United Kingdom. he want's to follow the draconian legislation enacted in Ontario, where all of these dogs are forced by law to be castrated. Any non compliance and the poor little doggies are taken of and put down. As the owner of a dog for many years, I know and any sensible dog owner will know that it isn't the dogs, it's the owners which make them aggressive. Sensible owners will generally neuter overly aggressive dogs. I'm all for a law which bans people from keeping dogs who are unfit owners, but to commit ethnic cleansing on the doggy population of London is a horrible concept. Mr Malthouse hasn't twigged that many Tory voters like dogs and this would be a massive vote loser at the election.
Just to make matters worse it seems that someone, shall we say, very, or even extremely close to Mr Malthouse has been leaving messages on the Tory Troll website.These "anonymous" messages are always rather supportive of Mr Malthouse. It's well worth clicking on the link to read the full story.
Now I wonder. If Mr Malthouse actually did have a Willy, what would his Willy say to him about these. I suspect Kit's Willy may have this message about his genocide for Dogs idea
"Kit, this is your Willy talking. Have a nice cup of tea. Sit down, relax, think it through. Many old dears who like the Tory party, like doggies even more. If you bring in your "gas chambres for doggies" idea, we'll loose thousands of ardent supporters, just when we need them most. If you want to deal with dangerous dogs, target the problem - bad owners - who no one will vote Labour to save".
And what would Kit's Willy advise him to do about his "rather close associates" leaving messages on nasty bloggers sites, using anonymous ID's?
"Kit, this is your Willy talking, have a nice digestive biscuit with that cup of tea. These Leftie bloggers are nasty people. They know all the nasty tricks of the internet and they love trying to catch honest, decent, upright people such as your good self out. If you see something you don't like, ignore it. Getting your "friends and very close associates" to post messages will only make you look rather silly."
Now as ever, being a dyslexic, I ran this by my good Lady to tell me if I'd made any terrible typo's. She tells me that Willy Whitelaw is actually a Willie !!!!!! She informs me that a Willy is a part of your anatomy !!!!! Even so, if I was Kit, I'd start listening to my Willy as I suggested, rather than talking through that other rather naughty bit of his anatomy, as he seems to be doing in his "gas the doggies" scheme. We wouldn't want him to end up looking like that even ruder bit of anatomy which Lady Thatcher had and Willie Whitelaw didn't, would we?
9 comments:
Rog
I would go further than Kit Malthouse. I would like to see an end to all “aggressive” dogs being kept as pets. I disagree with your comment that it is the owners who make their dogs aggressive. Dogs do what they are genetically programmed to do, and owning these savage breeds is just asking for trouble.
How many times do we see/hear on the news about some child who has been killed or horribly mutilated by a dog only for the owner to say “we don’t understand how the dog could have done this It was always such a gentle animal”? You can’t fight nature and children are more important than dogs.
If someone really wants a dog, there are plenty of docile breeds to choose from. The more aggressive types are simply unsuitable as domestic pets.
David,
Would you apply the same logic to cars, which cause many thousands times more deaths and injuries than dogs?
You cannot legally drive a car without training, a test and a license. I'd apply the same logic to dogs.
Very much with RogT and Theresa Villiers on this one. Theresa fought hard to fend of this Stalinism in the EU and it needs to be fought here too.
Of course children are way more important than dogs, but things really aren't as simple as you portray.
There are some dogs that are trained to attack people and have a guarding instinct. Staffordshire Bull Terriers aren't one of these (they just happen to bear a resemblance). In fact, after one takes the trouble to research the breed, it becomes clear that they are one of the few breeds specifically recommended to have with children as they are of very stable temperament.
Staffordshire Bull Terriers are also useless, lousy guard dogs and are more likely to be attacked by an intruder who they will see as a friend.
Given the position of some of the papers and the massive popularity of Staffordshire Bull Terriers is it not surprising to have not had more than the freakish occurrences that are reported from time to time ie starving dog left alone with screaming baby in room? If these dogs were 'genetic killers' would we not see incidents every week?
Sure, a Staffordshire or other docile breed can be trained to be a killer but this is no more 'genetic' than an abused feral child was 'genetically destined' to be a murder.
In response to the general point about young kids and dogs, that is correct. Any twit of a parent who leaves their 'precious' alone with a dog needs their head testing. Normally it is the same 'precious' child who the parent doesn't trust with knife, open VHS recorder or plug socket who is thought reliable unattended with a pet with a big jaw. More often than not it is the child's 'interest' in poking the dog in the eyes or mouth than the dog spontaneously attacking a child. The greatest danger is a child running and screaming around and the dog thinking it wants to play and the kid is knocked over, which can be serious.
DCMD normally thinks hard before you post a message on a subject, I'm not sure this has passed his normal rigorous standards.
If there is to be regulation it should be of owners not dogs.
Rog
Car crashes are not caused by cars, but by drivers. You can train your dog to the best of your ability. You can be a completely responsible pet owner. But you cannot give a 100% guarantee that something might happen to make a seemingly “normal” dog suddenly become violent for no reason.
It doesn’t happen often, but it does happen and Barnet’s Doggie Mafiosi will not change my mind on this.
David,
The reason why different people have different insurance premiums is because some people are more likely to have accidents than others (and more likely to kill someone). There are however some accidents caused by mechanical failure.
That is the same as dogs. Most dog related injuries and deaths are caused when dogs are owned by wholly inappropriate owners who do not look after the dog properly.
Sure there are some "psychotic" dogs, but I'd still hazard a guess that these are extremely few and far between.Probably far fewer than the number of mechanically unsound cars (usually uninsured).
This isn't a lobbying issue or Dog Mafiose. It's just about understanding what is the real issue.
Science shows seemingly normal dogs don't become violent without reason. Dogs are instinctive animals, they don't weigh things up and think about it, they react. They can't be psychopaths, they don't wake up in the morning and thing "...hmm I fancy some crushed baby skull".
That, I would content, the problem with your argument.
The way you are arguing this is just how people argue for speed humps, pervasive surveillance and ID cards. It's the 'we must smash everything' to wipe out a perceived risk.
Show me where there are dogs that are under the control of their owners, not trained for aggression and violence who have, without explanation mauled and attacked people? Unfortunately for dogs, they can't stand up for themselves.
This has nothing to do with science, Mr Hope. It is biology. We are talking about domesticated pets which have evolved from wild animals but which still posses a (mostly) latent primeval instinct. You simply can’t compare human behaviour to animal behaviour. We are sentient creatures. Dogs are not.
My right wing libertarian credentials are not in question. Children who climb trees know that there is a risk they could fall and hurt themselves. That does not mean we should chop down all trees. Babies and small infants, however, do not possess the same level of knowledge as older children and should be protected from animals which, for no rational reason, can suddenly turn on them irrespective of whether the pet owner is a responsible citizen or a lout.
Correction: replace "biology" with "nature"
Well it would seem that, given the comments I have made earlier on, that I cannot see much disagreement on practical matters regarding this.
Babies and your infants require special protection. They aren't brought into contact with many things that adults do, yet we don't ban these outright. Boiling water, cars and sharp knives are still permissible to use.
As you agree that dogs don't possess free will, they are as predictable as a knife or boiling water and as such SHOULD NEVER EVER be left with babies and young children.
The problem is not with people who see dogs as they are, animals, but those who endow them with human qualities and come out with comments like 'oh my doggie wouldn't harm a fly' etc.
If they are seen as and treated as animals, the rare and extreme cases that the tabloids furiously search out would not take place.
Post a Comment