Dangerous dog's Newport owner first man in Gwent to be jailed using new sentencing powers after attack on woman in Pill

Kirk Fleming was jailed under tough new dangerous dog sentences

Kay Piatek suffered serious injuries to her arm in the attack

First published in Gwent news

A DOG owner whose animal savaged a woman's arm was jailed for nine months under tough new sentencing powers - the first time they have been used in Gwent.

Jobless Kirk John Fleming, 31, of Alexandra Road, Newport, was sentenced under the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act, using new guidelines for courts in England and Wales which came into force on August 20.

The court heard it had cost Gwent Police more than £10,000 to keep Fleming's dogs in designated kennels since the incident in September last year.

The victim underwent three operations and spent a week in hospital after what Judge William Gaskell described as a sustained and repeated attack.

Fleming had already admitted owning a white Pitbull-Mastiff cross which had caused injury and was dangerously out of control in a public place, when he appeared before Cardiff Crown Court yesterday.

The court heard how the complainant, Kay Piatek was walking her three Yorkshire Terriers in Pill on September 24, 2011.

Mrs Piatek turned onto Mendalgief Road when a white Pitbull cross and a brown Staffordshire Terrier ran towards her. The Pitbull, known as Cain, jumped onto her back and knocked her over.

One of Mrs Piatek's dogs, Alfie, ran home and she was trying to protect another, Maxi, when Cain bit into her left arm.

The defendant then appeared, punching his own dog and lying on top of it, but Cain and the Staffordshire Terrier managed to get at Maxi and dragged him away before mauling him to death.

The third dog, Mitch, died shortly after the incident.

Mrs Piatek was treated at the Royal Gwent Hospital for open wounds on her left wrist and arm, and a broken left arm.

Fleming was taken to Newport Central Police Station and his dogs were seized.

The court heard about one of two previous incidents involving Cain, where the Pitbull jumped a garden fence and attacked a Labrador while a five-year-old boy was nearby.

Mr Smyth, mitigating, said Fleming had taken steps to secure the animals, and that the dogs had been taken out of the house by a trusted friend of the defendant's, not the defendant himself.

Mr Smyth said Fleming "bitterly regrets" the incident.

Judge William Gaskell told Fleming: "You've had previous incidents involving this dog and know the danger it represents.

"The consequences for the complainant are very serious, her arm was bitten down into sinew and bone.

"She is frightened to go out and walk her dogs for fear of meeting you and another one of your dogs. She describes herself as losing everything."

Judge Gaskell said Fleming had failed to respond to warnings.

"You effectively allowed the dog out through inadequate supervision," he said.

Fleming was sentenced to nine months in prison. The brown Staffordshire Terrier is currently involved in other proceedings but the white Pitbull, Cain, is to be destroyed and Fleming was disqualified from owning dogs for three years.

No order for compensation or costs was made because Fleming has not been employed for five years.

 


 

Fleming is the first person in the Gwent Police area to be sentenced using the new guidelines which came into force on August 20.

A spokesman for the Crown Prosecution Service confirmed that two people from Dyfed-Powys and one person from Barry in the South Wales Police area have been sentenced for dangerous dog offences since the guidelines were introduced.

Comments (33)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:17am Wed 29 Aug 12

richie55 says...

Unemployed for more than 5 years but can afford to keep two dangerous dogs, the unemployed are obviously getting too much benefits.
Unemployed for more than 5 years but can afford to keep two dangerous dogs, the unemployed are obviously getting too much benefits. richie55
  • Score: 0

11:17am Wed 29 Aug 12

richie55 says...

Unemployed for more than 5 years but can afford to keep two dangerous dogs, the unemployed are obviously getting too much benefits.
Unemployed for more than 5 years but can afford to keep two dangerous dogs, the unemployed are obviously getting too much benefits. richie55
  • Score: 0

11:17am Wed 29 Aug 12

richie55 says...

Unemployed for more than 5 years but can afford to keep two dangerous dogs, the unemployed are obviously getting too much benefits.
Unemployed for more than 5 years but can afford to keep two dangerous dogs, the unemployed are obviously getting too much benefits. richie55
  • Score: 0

11:19am Wed 29 Aug 12

rhinestine says...

This is a horrific story, the owner of the aggressive dog should be banned for life from owning another animal.

I feel so sorry for the owner and the her little dog that was mauled to death, how on earth these idiots come to own such dangerous dogs, while being jobless is beyond me? Why do they want such an animal? and how do they afford to keep them?

I am glad he is to be jailed, but I fear this wont teach him a lesson, if he just had his dogs on a lead then none of this would of happened.

Perhaps the birch would teach him a lesson, he might understand the pain and suffering that poor little dog had when it was mauled to death then.

I hope the poor woman has made a full recovery and wish her all the best.
This is a horrific story, the owner of the aggressive dog should be banned for life from owning another animal. I feel so sorry for the owner and the her little dog that was mauled to death, how on earth these idiots come to own such dangerous dogs, while being jobless is beyond me? Why do they want such an animal? and how do they afford to keep them? I am glad he is to be jailed, but I fear this wont teach him a lesson, if he just had his dogs on a lead then none of this would of happened. Perhaps the birch would teach him a lesson, he might understand the pain and suffering that poor little dog had when it was mauled to death then. I hope the poor woman has made a full recovery and wish her all the best. rhinestine
  • Score: 0

11:26am Wed 29 Aug 12

rhinestine says...

Just read the woman will receive no compensation for her injures due to him not working for 5 years......what a disgrace! surely the courts should seize his possessions and sell them, giving the proceeds to this woman.
Just read the woman will receive no compensation for her injures due to him not working for 5 years......what a disgrace! surely the courts should seize his possessions and sell them, giving the proceeds to this woman. rhinestine
  • Score: 0

11:49am Wed 29 Aug 12

evearthur says...

Any form of pitbull is illegal to own so why was he allowed to keep it after it attacked the Labrador that was in its own garden? They could have saved this poor woman from being attacked and losing 2 of her own dogs.
Any form of pitbull is illegal to own so why was he allowed to keep it after it attacked the Labrador that was in its own garden? They could have saved this poor woman from being attacked and losing 2 of her own dogs. evearthur
  • Score: 0

12:05pm Wed 29 Aug 12

Adrian Williams says...

Dangerous breeds should be banned in the first place, end of
Dangerous breeds should be banned in the first place, end of Adrian Williams
  • Score: 0

12:51pm Wed 29 Aug 12

robertce says...

The trouble is these type of dogs are status symbols for chavs.
I'm not sure who has the most brainpower sometimes, the dogs or the owners??
The trouble is these type of dogs are status symbols for chavs. I'm not sure who has the most brainpower sometimes, the dogs or the owners?? robertce
  • Score: 0

1:31pm Wed 29 Aug 12

Riley2012 says...

We must not loose site regarding dangerous dogs, the problem is a dangerous owner not being in control of the dog, the law states all dogs must be kept on a lead at all times and if need be in my opinion a muzzle, the problem is the owner not in control, i do hope in time that poor women will recover from her nasty ordeal.
We must not loose site regarding dangerous dogs, the problem is a dangerous owner not being in control of the dog, the law states all dogs must be kept on a lead at all times and if need be in my opinion a muzzle, the problem is the owner not in control, i do hope in time that poor women will recover from her nasty ordeal. Riley2012
  • Score: 0

1:57pm Wed 29 Aug 12

Kestra99 says...

It is not the dogs fault, it is down to the owner!!! And I hope the lady feels better soon, my heart goes out to her losing her beloved pets. But seriously, 3 year ban??? Why not a life ban??? Obviously he is not responsible enough to own such powerful animals!!!
It is not the dogs fault, it is down to the owner!!! And I hope the lady feels better soon, my heart goes out to her losing her beloved pets. But seriously, 3 year ban??? Why not a life ban??? Obviously he is not responsible enough to own such powerful animals!!! Kestra99
  • Score: 0

2:07pm Wed 29 Aug 12

KazB says...

I know this particular lady and she dotes on her animals. It's just an awful thing to have happened. The costs should be made by the Court for the suffering she has been through. No doubt this offender will receive money whilst in prison, so deny him that right and let her have that money. It may not go anywhere near to replacing her beloved pets but an example needs to be set.
I know this particular lady and she dotes on her animals. It's just an awful thing to have happened. The costs should be made by the Court for the suffering she has been through. No doubt this offender will receive money whilst in prison, so deny him that right and let her have that money. It may not go anywhere near to replacing her beloved pets but an example needs to be set. KazB
  • Score: 0

2:09pm Wed 29 Aug 12

rhinestine says...

I agree with all the above posts, all dogs should be on a lead, end of.

My dog has been attacked by other dogs a few times, my dog is always on the lead, the dogs who attacked him were not.
I agree with all the above posts, all dogs should be on a lead, end of. My dog has been attacked by other dogs a few times, my dog is always on the lead, the dogs who attacked him were not. rhinestine
  • Score: 0

3:07pm Wed 29 Aug 12

Howie' says...

Riley2012 wrote:
We must not loose site regarding dangerous dogs, the problem is a dangerous owner not being in control of the dog, the law states all dogs must be kept on a lead at all times and if need be in my opinion a muzzle, the problem is the owner not in control, i do hope in time that poor women will recover from her nasty ordeal.
The law does not state that dogs must be kept on a lead at all time.

http://www.naturenet
.net/law/dogs.html


It isn't necessary for dogs to be leashed at all times. However, dogs must be kept on a lead in designated pedestrian zones and on land where livestock is present. Councils can also introduce bye-laws to indicate areas where leashing is required, such as in public parks.

Newport Council I believe did just that in Tredegar Park a few years ago.

Most public places though do not require a dog to be leashed.
[quote][p][bold]Riley2012[/bold] wrote: We must not loose site regarding dangerous dogs, the problem is a dangerous owner not being in control of the dog, the law states all dogs must be kept on a lead at all times and if need be in my opinion a muzzle, the problem is the owner not in control, i do hope in time that poor women will recover from her nasty ordeal.[/p][/quote]The law does not state that dogs must be kept on a lead at all time. http://www.naturenet .net/law/dogs.html It isn't necessary for dogs to be leashed at all times. However, dogs must be kept on a lead in designated pedestrian zones and on land where livestock is present. Councils can also introduce bye-laws to indicate areas where leashing is required, such as in public parks. Newport Council I believe did just that in Tredegar Park a few years ago. Most public places though do not require a dog to be leashed. Howie'
  • Score: 0

3:15pm Wed 29 Aug 12

TK355 says...

The victim wasn't allowed any compensation because the offender hasn't had a job for 5 years yet Gwent Police have to cough up £10k to pay to keep the animal for the length of time it took to get it to court, what a society we live in. If you are an offender you can expect every help but as the victim, you are pretty much on your own.
The victim wasn't allowed any compensation because the offender hasn't had a job for 5 years yet Gwent Police have to cough up £10k to pay to keep the animal for the length of time it took to get it to court, what a society we live in. If you are an offender you can expect every help but as the victim, you are pretty much on your own. TK355
  • Score: 0

3:41pm Wed 29 Aug 12

Dee-Gee says...

richie55 wrote:
Unemployed for more than 5 years but can afford to keep two dangerous dogs, the unemployed are obviously getting too much benefits.
No, the unemployed do not get enough benefits to comfortably keep two animals that need that much feeding. Young man likely has another source of income, no doubt undeclared. Perhaps the Benefits Agency will figure he's been living beyond his means and launch an investigation.
[quote][p][bold]richie55[/bold] wrote: Unemployed for more than 5 years but can afford to keep two dangerous dogs, the unemployed are obviously getting too much benefits.[/p][/quote]No, the unemployed do not get enough benefits to comfortably keep two animals that need that much feeding. Young man likely has another source of income, no doubt undeclared. Perhaps the Benefits Agency will figure he's been living beyond his means and launch an investigation. Dee-Gee
  • Score: 0

4:01pm Wed 29 Aug 12

utherpd says...

These are not the only dangerous dogs in Newport, you need only walk in dog exercising areas to see the large number of dangerous breeds present in close proximity of children.

I agree its down to nutur rather than nature on the most parts, but it does not excuse keeping a dog classed as a dangerous breed in the first place.

My lab has bitten by another resulting in scaring to his face and inside his mouth, done by a 'staphie' whilst my daughter was close by.

Kids walking these dogs on insufficient leads bits of frayed rope meaning the dog can break it any time horrifies me, how many ties have we seen kids attacked by a family dog? Or one known to them, to many times.

The law needs to clamped down and the people owning them brought to book!
These are not the only dangerous dogs in Newport, you need only walk in dog exercising areas to see the large number of dangerous breeds present in close proximity of children. I agree its down to nutur rather than nature on the most parts, but it does not excuse keeping a dog classed as a dangerous breed in the first place. My lab has bitten by another resulting in scaring to his face and inside his mouth, done by a 'staphie' whilst my daughter was close by. Kids walking these dogs on insufficient leads bits of frayed rope meaning the dog can break it any time horrifies me, how many ties have we seen kids attacked by a family dog? Or one known to them, to many times. The law needs to clamped down and the people owning them brought to book! utherpd
  • Score: 0

4:29pm Wed 29 Aug 12

warriorwalesdotcom says...

What I am about to say maybe be outside of the box of sheeple thinking. I agree on the points of the man should have had his dogs on a leash if they were dangerous to common law people and other natural law living creatures around him as well as his the animals he kept. I have a stray pitbull that is on the streets behind where I live and it is most friendly living animal I have met.

It is interesting how people demonize the unemployed but not researching how our own government wastes billions of pounds on the olympic games that will have £8 billion not coming back into the UK which could easily gone to the infrastructure of the UK creating Jobs (Just over broke society). Now that money gone to MacDonalds and other sponsors that poisons the people health (naturalnews.com) which then leads to more people being ill. Then you got the fluoride in the water that causes cancer that leads to more people being off work. So before we go around attack the unemployed and the disabled as the disabled falls under the unemployed with some people. We need to look at the cause and not afffect that and believing government BS. The government hands over billions of taxe payers money to the banks, as we are in debt to the mega corporative banks not the local banks to get it clear. Yet, do we the public screaming out like Iceland did to tell banking cartels to go bleep themselves? No, we just carry on blaming the weak and vunerable in Britain when elite (Elite definition in this case is not people having loads of money is not the problem, it's those that abuse they position in society and using corrupted methods to get they way by using faudulent fiat money printed by the banks). Watch the money masters on youtube while you still can and secret of oz that delves into the banking cartels profiting wars and so forth.

Also read ukcolumn.org, why ain't the government printing they own greenback pound instead of being a slave to the banks?

While you at it, check common purpose and the child stealing state.

Also it is obvious this man broke Common Law which is different from legal (Corporate ruling law of contracts). Under Common Law it does state in basic terms, Do not cause harm, lost and injury to others. It is that simple and yet we all these regulations and so on.

Under common law, he should pay for the damages and not the tax payer. Why ain't we talking about common law anymore? Common law and natural is born inside of anyone, yet we bow down like slaves to corporate law.

This man broke common law and should help the lady get back to full health and pay for the damages if he is a proper man.
What I am about to say maybe be outside of the box of sheeple thinking. I agree on the points of the man should have had his dogs on a leash if they were dangerous to common law people and other natural law living creatures around him as well as his the animals he kept. I have a stray pitbull that is on the streets behind where I live and it is most friendly living animal I have met. It is interesting how people demonize the unemployed but not researching how our own government wastes billions of pounds on the olympic games that will have £8 billion not coming back into the UK which could easily gone to the infrastructure of the UK creating Jobs (Just over broke society). Now that money gone to MacDonalds and other sponsors that poisons the people health (naturalnews.com) which then leads to more people being ill. Then you got the fluoride in the water that causes cancer that leads to more people being off work. So before we go around attack the unemployed and the disabled as the disabled falls under the unemployed with some people. We need to look at the cause and not afffect that and believing government BS. The government hands over billions of taxe payers money to the banks, as we are in debt to the mega corporative banks not the local banks to get it clear. Yet, do we the public screaming out like Iceland did to tell banking cartels to go bleep themselves? No, we just carry on blaming the weak and vunerable in Britain when elite (Elite definition in this case is not people having loads of money is not the problem, it's those that abuse they position in society and using corrupted methods to get they way by using faudulent fiat money printed by the banks). Watch the money masters on youtube while you still can and secret of oz that delves into the banking cartels profiting wars and so forth. Also read ukcolumn.org, why ain't the government printing they own greenback pound instead of being a slave to the banks? While you at it, check common purpose and the child stealing state. Also it is obvious this man broke Common Law which is different from legal (Corporate ruling law of contracts). Under Common Law it does state in basic terms, Do not cause harm, lost and injury to others. It is that simple and yet we all these regulations and so on. Under common law, he should pay for the damages and not the tax payer. Why ain't we talking about common law anymore? Common law and natural is born inside of anyone, yet we bow down like slaves to corporate law. This man broke common law and should help the lady get back to full health and pay for the damages if he is a proper man. warriorwalesdotcom
  • Score: 0

4:44pm Wed 29 Aug 12

warriorwalesdotcom says...

Added note: It is unlawful to pay taxes towards a government that is taking a country to war by being the aggressor like the United Kingdom is at the moment under the war crimes act with the UN signed by over 100 countries. We went to unlawful war with Iraq and other countries.
Watch Make Wars History and Prosecute the Leaders - Chris Coverdale 2009 (MUST SEE!) http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=02Ugv1rvO
mc&feature=related As by paying your taxes to government that is commiting war crimes can be seen as a accessory to murder to those in other countries or one own.
Added note: It is unlawful to pay taxes towards a government that is taking a country to war by being the aggressor like the United Kingdom is at the moment under the war crimes act with the UN signed by over 100 countries. We went to unlawful war with Iraq and other countries. Watch Make Wars History and Prosecute the Leaders - Chris Coverdale 2009 (MUST SEE!) http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=02Ugv1rvO mc&feature=related As by paying your taxes to government that is commiting war crimes can be seen as a accessory to murder to those in other countries or one own. warriorwalesdotcom
  • Score: 0

4:45pm Wed 29 Aug 12

warriorwalesdotcom says...

amend Taken a country to war.
amend Taken a country to war. warriorwalesdotcom
  • Score: 0

6:57pm Wed 29 Aug 12

chris227 says...

well one question i would like to ask Gwent police £10 a night x 30 days x 2 dogs *10 months = £6000 (thats even if you didnt ask for a discount for length of stay in a kennels like a normal person would ) where has the other 4 k gone to?? back hander?? Some things never change in the public sector
well one question i would like to ask Gwent police £10 a night x 30 days x 2 dogs *10 months = £6000 (thats even if you didnt ask for a discount for length of stay in a kennels like a normal person would ) where has the other 4 k gone to?? back hander?? Some things never change in the public sector chris227
  • Score: 0

8:12pm Wed 29 Aug 12

Michael Weedall says...

Adrian Williams wrote:
Dangerous breeds should be banned in the first place, end of
What is a dangerous breed of dog? I have STAFFORDSHIRE BULL TERRIER X ENGLISH BULL TERRIER and he looks like a pitbull but has a great fun loving temperament. I had GSD and he was over protective towards the family and could of been deemed dangerous in some situations especially at night and he hated men and people with hats on but he was controlled as I was a responsible owner. So I would say it is all down to stupid idiotic owners who have not got a clue how to control these dogs and in the right hands these dogs would not be a problem.
[quote][p][bold]Adrian Williams[/bold] wrote: Dangerous breeds should be banned in the first place, end of[/p][/quote]What is a dangerous breed of dog? I have STAFFORDSHIRE BULL TERRIER X ENGLISH BULL TERRIER and he looks like a pitbull but has a great fun loving temperament. I had GSD and he was over protective towards the family and could of been deemed dangerous in some situations especially at night and he hated men and people with hats on but he was controlled as I was a responsible owner. So I would say it is all down to stupid idiotic owners who have not got a clue how to control these dogs and in the right hands these dogs would not be a problem. Michael Weedall
  • Score: 0

8:42pm Wed 29 Aug 12

welshmen says...

Warriorwalesdotcom. i have seen The Secret Of Oz, your right on the money in more ways than one, the people of our Country need to wake up see whats in front of them and stop getting brainwashed by the Famous Three and the Media, Rockafella £10 Trillion personal wealth, Rothchild £129 Trillion...Its the BIG picture we need to sort out...
Warriorwalesdotcom. i have seen The Secret Of Oz, your right on the money in more ways than one, the people of our Country need to wake up see whats in front of them and stop getting brainwashed by the Famous Three and the Media, Rockafella £10 Trillion personal wealth, Rothchild £129 Trillion...Its the BIG picture we need to sort out... welshmen
  • Score: 0

9:31pm Wed 29 Aug 12

chris227 says...

not sure why the chavs on the estates see these dogs as a must have accessory along with a shell suit a cap and a over fed girlfriend with a packet perm from superdrug!!
not sure why the chavs on the estates see these dogs as a must have accessory along with a shell suit a cap and a over fed girlfriend with a packet perm from superdrug!! chris227
  • Score: 0

12:31am Thu 30 Aug 12

Howie' says...

Michael Weedall wrote:
Adrian Williams wrote:
Dangerous breeds should be banned in the first place, end of
What is a dangerous breed of dog? I have STAFFORDSHIRE BULL TERRIER X ENGLISH BULL TERRIER and he looks like a pitbull but has a great fun loving temperament. I had GSD and he was over protective towards the family and could of been deemed dangerous in some situations especially at night and he hated men and people with hats on but he was controlled as I was a responsible owner. So I would say it is all down to stupid idiotic owners who have not got a clue how to control these dogs and in the right hands these dogs would not be a problem.
What is a dangerous breed of dog you ask Michael (Surprised no one has bothered googling this for two days to find out)?

These are what the Government define as dangerous dogs:

Legislation

Section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 prohibits four types of dog:

the Pit Bull Terrier
the Japanese tosa
the Dogo Argentino
the Fila Brasileiro

Hope that helps.

Warrior Rhinestone please note the second one says Japanese not Rhinestone.......ho hum.
[quote][p][bold]Michael Weedall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Adrian Williams[/bold] wrote: Dangerous breeds should be banned in the first place, end of[/p][/quote]What is a dangerous breed of dog? I have STAFFORDSHIRE BULL TERRIER X ENGLISH BULL TERRIER and he looks like a pitbull but has a great fun loving temperament. I had GSD and he was over protective towards the family and could of been deemed dangerous in some situations especially at night and he hated men and people with hats on but he was controlled as I was a responsible owner. So I would say it is all down to stupid idiotic owners who have not got a clue how to control these dogs and in the right hands these dogs would not be a problem.[/p][/quote]What is a dangerous breed of dog you ask Michael (Surprised no one has bothered googling this for two days to find out)? These are what the Government define as dangerous dogs: Legislation Section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 prohibits four types of dog: the Pit Bull Terrier the Japanese tosa the Dogo Argentino the Fila Brasileiro Hope that helps. Warrior Rhinestone please note the second one says Japanese not Rhinestone.......ho hum. Howie'
  • Score: 0

8:05am Thu 30 Aug 12

rhinestine says...

Howie' wrote:
Michael Weedall wrote:
Adrian Williams wrote:
Dangerous breeds should be banned in the first place, end of
What is a dangerous breed of dog? I have STAFFORDSHIRE BULL TERRIER X ENGLISH BULL TERRIER and he looks like a pitbull but has a great fun loving temperament. I had GSD and he was over protective towards the family and could of been deemed dangerous in some situations especially at night and he hated men and people with hats on but he was controlled as I was a responsible owner. So I would say it is all down to stupid idiotic owners who have not got a clue how to control these dogs and in the right hands these dogs would not be a problem.
What is a dangerous breed of dog you ask Michael (Surprised no one has bothered googling this for two days to find out)?

These are what the Government define as dangerous dogs:

Legislation

Section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 prohibits four types of dog:

the Pit Bull Terrier
the Japanese tosa
the Dogo Argentino
the Fila Brasileiro

Hope that helps.

Warrior Rhinestone please note the second one says Japanese not Rhinestone.......ho hum.
Howie, quite the hard man it seems? restoring to personal insults eh? very becoming of you.

perhaps you would like to call me names to my face? I would be happy to meet up to discuss.
[quote][p][bold]Howie'[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Michael Weedall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Adrian Williams[/bold] wrote: Dangerous breeds should be banned in the first place, end of[/p][/quote]What is a dangerous breed of dog? I have STAFFORDSHIRE BULL TERRIER X ENGLISH BULL TERRIER and he looks like a pitbull but has a great fun loving temperament. I had GSD and he was over protective towards the family and could of been deemed dangerous in some situations especially at night and he hated men and people with hats on but he was controlled as I was a responsible owner. So I would say it is all down to stupid idiotic owners who have not got a clue how to control these dogs and in the right hands these dogs would not be a problem.[/p][/quote]What is a dangerous breed of dog you ask Michael (Surprised no one has bothered googling this for two days to find out)? These are what the Government define as dangerous dogs: Legislation Section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 prohibits four types of dog: the Pit Bull Terrier the Japanese tosa the Dogo Argentino the Fila Brasileiro Hope that helps. Warrior Rhinestone please note the second one says Japanese not Rhinestone.......ho hum.[/p][/quote]Howie, quite the hard man it seems? restoring to personal insults eh? very becoming of you. perhaps you would like to call me names to my face? I would be happy to meet up to discuss. rhinestine
  • Score: 0

9:07am Thu 30 Aug 12

Howie' says...

Rhinestone I realise now that you do not have a sense of humour, your very good at taking the mickey but not very good at receiving it. When you resort to veiled threats of violence you have lost the argument. This forum is about comment and debate, something which you have shown yourself to be incapable off.
Rhinestone I realise now that you do not have a sense of humour, your very good at taking the mickey but not very good at receiving it. When you resort to veiled threats of violence you have lost the argument. This forum is about comment and debate, something which you have shown yourself to be incapable off. Howie'
  • Score: 0

9:50am Thu 30 Aug 12

rhinestine says...

Howie' wrote:
Rhinestone I realise now that you do not have a sense of humour, your very good at taking the mickey but not very good at receiving it. When you resort to veiled threats of violence you have lost the argument. This forum is about comment and debate, something which you have shown yourself to be incapable off.
No one mentioned violence? until you just did?

I have no problem with people having some banter, but when they resort to personal insults of a rude nature, then I object.

I merely offered you the chance to debate in person, no mention of violence.

You are very antagonistic and you're interpretation of a harmless post is laughable.

I would advise you stick to the banter, which is fine, but when you make posts that elude to bad language and personal insults, that's a very different thing.

You know my answer to such behavior.......the BIRCH!! ; )))
[quote][p][bold]Howie'[/bold] wrote: Rhinestone I realise now that you do not have a sense of humour, your very good at taking the mickey but not very good at receiving it. When you resort to veiled threats of violence you have lost the argument. This forum is about comment and debate, something which you have shown yourself to be incapable off.[/p][/quote]No one mentioned violence? until you just did? I have no problem with people having some banter, but when they resort to personal insults of a rude nature, then I object. I merely offered you the chance to debate in person, no mention of violence. You are very antagonistic and you're interpretation of a harmless post is laughable. I would advise you stick to the banter, which is fine, but when you make posts that elude to bad language and personal insults, that's a very different thing. You know my answer to such behavior.......the BIRCH!! ; ))) rhinestine
  • Score: 0

1:02pm Thu 30 Aug 12

Victor Melldrew says...

warriorwalesdotcom wrote:
What I am about to say maybe be outside of the box of sheeple thinking. I agree on the points of the man should have had his dogs on a leash if they were dangerous to common law people and other natural law living creatures around him as well as his the animals he kept. I have a stray pitbull that is on the streets behind where I live and it is most friendly living animal I have met.

It is interesting how people demonize the unemployed but not researching how our own government wastes billions of pounds on the olympic games that will have £8 billion not coming back into the UK which could easily gone to the infrastructure of the UK creating Jobs (Just over broke society). Now that money gone to MacDonalds and other sponsors that poisons the people health (naturalnews.com) which then leads to more people being ill. Then you got the fluoride in the water that causes cancer that leads to more people being off work. So before we go around attack the unemployed and the disabled as the disabled falls under the unemployed with some people. We need to look at the cause and not afffect that and believing government BS. The government hands over billions of taxe payers money to the banks, as we are in debt to the mega corporative banks not the local banks to get it clear. Yet, do we the public screaming out like Iceland did to tell banking cartels to go bleep themselves? No, we just carry on blaming the weak and vunerable in Britain when elite (Elite definition in this case is not people having loads of money is not the problem, it's those that abuse they position in society and using corrupted methods to get they way by using faudulent fiat money printed by the banks). Watch the money masters on youtube while you still can and secret of oz that delves into the banking cartels profiting wars and so forth.

Also read ukcolumn.org, why ain't the government printing they own greenback pound instead of being a slave to the banks?

While you at it, check common purpose and the child stealing state.

Also it is obvious this man broke Common Law which is different from legal (Corporate ruling law of contracts). Under Common Law it does state in basic terms, Do not cause harm, lost and injury to others. It is that simple and yet we all these regulations and so on.

Under common law, he should pay for the damages and not the tax payer. Why ain't we talking about common law anymore? Common law and natural is born inside of anyone, yet we bow down like slaves to corporate law.

This man broke common law and should help the lady get back to full health and pay for the damages if he is a proper man.
Great post, and bang on the money.
[quote][p][bold]warriorwalesdotcom[/bold] wrote: What I am about to say maybe be outside of the box of sheeple thinking. I agree on the points of the man should have had his dogs on a leash if they were dangerous to common law people and other natural law living creatures around him as well as his the animals he kept. I have a stray pitbull that is on the streets behind where I live and it is most friendly living animal I have met. It is interesting how people demonize the unemployed but not researching how our own government wastes billions of pounds on the olympic games that will have £8 billion not coming back into the UK which could easily gone to the infrastructure of the UK creating Jobs (Just over broke society). Now that money gone to MacDonalds and other sponsors that poisons the people health (naturalnews.com) which then leads to more people being ill. Then you got the fluoride in the water that causes cancer that leads to more people being off work. So before we go around attack the unemployed and the disabled as the disabled falls under the unemployed with some people. We need to look at the cause and not afffect that and believing government BS. The government hands over billions of taxe payers money to the banks, as we are in debt to the mega corporative banks not the local banks to get it clear. Yet, do we the public screaming out like Iceland did to tell banking cartels to go bleep themselves? No, we just carry on blaming the weak and vunerable in Britain when elite (Elite definition in this case is not people having loads of money is not the problem, it's those that abuse they position in society and using corrupted methods to get they way by using faudulent fiat money printed by the banks). Watch the money masters on youtube while you still can and secret of oz that delves into the banking cartels profiting wars and so forth. Also read ukcolumn.org, why ain't the government printing they own greenback pound instead of being a slave to the banks? While you at it, check common purpose and the child stealing state. Also it is obvious this man broke Common Law which is different from legal (Corporate ruling law of contracts). Under Common Law it does state in basic terms, Do not cause harm, lost and injury to others. It is that simple and yet we all these regulations and so on. Under common law, he should pay for the damages and not the tax payer. Why ain't we talking about common law anymore? Common law and natural is born inside of anyone, yet we bow down like slaves to corporate law. This man broke common law and should help the lady get back to full health and pay for the damages if he is a proper man.[/p][/quote]Great post, and bang on the money. Victor Melldrew
  • Score: 0

2:59pm Thu 30 Aug 12

Adrian Williams says...

I would add rottweilers and staffordshire bull terriers to the list. There are hundreds of breeds to choose from, so it's not as if dog owners are limited with choice. The point is, these dogs are dangerous in the wrong hands so public protection should come first, second and third.
I would add rottweilers and staffordshire bull terriers to the list. There are hundreds of breeds to choose from, so it's not as if dog owners are limited with choice. The point is, these dogs are dangerous in the wrong hands so public protection should come first, second and third. Adrian Williams
  • Score: 0

6:32pm Thu 30 Aug 12

Dee-Gee says...

TL:DR
TL:DR Dee-Gee
  • Score: 0

8:31pm Thu 30 Aug 12

digispamman says...

did any of these dogs foul the pavement?
did any of these dogs foul the pavement? digispamman
  • Score: 0

10:32pm Fri 31 Aug 12

Nichoole says...

Breeds don't make a difference, just last week I was walking my gundog mixed breed, and due to an irresponsible owner of an unleashed golden retriever, my dog was traumatised. It's never the dog, always the owner. People should be vetted before they buy any pet and told about the laws but the council don't do anything about dog fouls or children being mauled, why would we expect them to do anything about this?
Breeds don't make a difference, just last week I was walking my gundog mixed breed, and due to an irresponsible owner of an unleashed golden retriever, my dog was traumatised. It's never the dog, always the owner. People should be vetted before they buy any pet and told about the laws but the council don't do anything about dog fouls or children being mauled, why would we expect them to do anything about this? Nichoole
  • Score: 0

8:24am Sat 1 Sep 12

digispamman says...

the more dangerous breeds of dog, including cross breeds must require licensing. owners of these breeds should be vetted at their own expense. a lead, and muzzle should be mandatory when in a public place. chav owners should be neutered.
the more dangerous breeds of dog, including cross breeds must require licensing. owners of these breeds should be vetted at their own expense. a lead, and muzzle should be mandatory when in a public place. chav owners should be neutered. digispamman
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree