RahAAARrantarantaranta!
Mar. 16th, 2010 10:01 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
smokingbootI have just written to my MP about the new proposed legislation requiring all dog owners to take out third party insurance on their animals.Jesus.
Now that our prisons are busting at the seams, clearly someone thinks it's a grand idea to extend that wondrous sense of community to our animal rescue centres. Cos they aren't tragic enough. Here's my letter:
I am writing to you to voice my extreme dismay at the currently
discussed proposals regarding dog legislation, specifically the idea of
forcing all owners to take third party insurance in order to compensate
victims of dog attacks.
I would like to quote to you an excerpt from the government's response
to a petition re hare hunting in 2009:
"It is important to remember changing legislation is only justified if
there is clear evidence that the changes are necessary and that they
will achieve their stated goal."
Please tell me, how do the new proposals fit this government's
criteria stated above? Or has the government moved from this stance?
Why would someone who sets their dog on another person suddenly feel
stricken by the need to get insurance? They already show lack of regard
for others, and contempt for the law, do you really think that they
will rush out and insure their dogs? And how is this to be enforced?
This proposal, if made law, will not touch those who use their dogs
illegally. The only people this will affect are ordinary dog owners,
who may not be able to afford the insurance; so then what? How many
gentle dogs will get put down because their owners just can't afford
the cash...consider pensioners at this point, often people who do not
have much spare money, but love their dogs as lifelong companions.
Consider so many people already suffering from the credit crunch. And
in the end, how many dogs would end up abandoned?
I do not own a dog, and as an owner of four cats, I feel very strongly
that dog owners need to be responsible for their animals. But
commonsense alone makes it clear that this proposal is not the answer.
The way to fight crime is not to bandy about new legislation which
makes more people potentially criminal. This particular proposal
targets the wrong group entirely. Those already operating outside the
law regarding their dogs will get round it or ignore it.
Now that our prisons are busting at the seams, clearly someone thinks it's a grand idea to extend that wondrous sense of community to our animal rescue centres. Cos they aren't tragic enough. Here's my letter:
I am writing to you to voice my extreme dismay at the currently
discussed proposals regarding dog legislation, specifically the idea of
forcing all owners to take third party insurance in order to compensate
victims of dog attacks.
I would like to quote to you an excerpt from the government's response
to a petition re hare hunting in 2009:
"It is important to remember changing legislation is only justified if
there is clear evidence that the changes are necessary and that they
will achieve their stated goal."
Please tell me, how do the new proposals fit this government's
criteria stated above? Or has the government moved from this stance?
Why would someone who sets their dog on another person suddenly feel
stricken by the need to get insurance? They already show lack of regard
for others, and contempt for the law, do you really think that they
will rush out and insure their dogs? And how is this to be enforced?
This proposal, if made law, will not touch those who use their dogs
illegally. The only people this will affect are ordinary dog owners,
who may not be able to afford the insurance; so then what? How many
gentle dogs will get put down because their owners just can't afford
the cash...consider pensioners at this point, often people who do not
have much spare money, but love their dogs as lifelong companions.
Consider so many people already suffering from the credit crunch. And
in the end, how many dogs would end up abandoned?
I do not own a dog, and as an owner of four cats, I feel very strongly
that dog owners need to be responsible for their animals. But
commonsense alone makes it clear that this proposal is not the answer.
The way to fight crime is not to bandy about new legislation which
makes more people potentially criminal. This particular proposal
targets the wrong group entirely. Those already operating outside the
law regarding their dogs will get round it or ignore it.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-03-16 01:33 pm (UTC)RAH!
(snorgles silky doggeth-beastie)
no subject
Date: 2010-03-18 08:16 am (UTC)