Dangerous Dogs

Dangerous Dogs

1) Give an outline of the various views on dangerous dogs presented in text 1, 2 and 3.

The views on the dangerous dogs in text 1, 2 and 3 are very different. In text 1, "Police back new law on killer dogs" by Jamie Doward, the police officer, Bernard Hogan-Howe, has demanded a change to the law on dangerous dogs, so children are better protected and so the rules will target the owners of the dangerous dogs, rather the animals themselves. Because of the fact that many owners are having to put their pets down needlessly, Bernard Hogan-Howe wants to make it possible for owners to apply for their dogs to be exempted from the banned dogs list, without the police or court needing to be involved. Four breeds were banned as followed by the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act, and that led to hundreds of people handing in their dogs in the Merseyside area, because they were afraid of being prosecuted. Bernard Hogan-Howe says that a result of this is, that there are now 200 fewer illegal dogs in the Merseyside area.

Text 3 "If the dog is dangerous, the owner will be too" by Simon Heffer has another view. Simon Heffer thinks that the Dangerous Dogs Act is a pointless piece of legislation, because many pit bulls are still to be found in the country. He writes that the owner of the dog that killed five-year-old Ellie Lawrenson, Kiel Simpson was a drugs dealer and that he was jailed for possessing 441b of cannabies. He thinks that this underlines that if you meet a dangerous dog, a dangerous human is not far away. Simon Heffer writes that the pitt bulls and their associated breeds are the criminal classes' "Chiens du choix". So therefore the Dangerous Dogs Act was not what the country needed, but a Dangerous Humans one because he sees the dogs as dangerous but the humans as more dangerous.

In text 1 a Kennel Club spokeswoman says that the definition of what constitutes an American pit bull is a grey area. She says that the dog in the hands of responsible owners would not be a danger and agrees with Simon Heffer in meaning that the act was pointless because of the fact that it has failed to prevent a significant number of attacks. The RSPCA in text 1 also finds the act unsuccessful. They do not believe that some breeds are more dangerous than others, and it is besides very difficult the see whether the dog is an Amrican pit bull or not. According to them only very few people in this century can prove it.

In Text 2, "Jail owners of killer dogs" by Victoria Stilwell, Victoria writes that you should face jail without no doubt about it, if your dog kills someone. She thinks it is manslaughter if you know the dog to be dangerous but still let it be around people. She is also against the breed-specific legislation because not all rottweilers are killers. She says that all what is needed is a bit of sense. She points out that the owner has the responsibility, and if you do not want to leave you child with a stranger, then why a dog.

2) Characterize the tone used by Simon Heffer in text 3. Illustrate your answer with examples from the text.

Simon Heffer is a bit hard in his tone and very judgemental. He starts out writing "I know we have many other things to worry about but let us never forget, as the Victorians didn't, that the poor are always with us" and by this he means that the poor is the ones having uncontrolled dogs. After my opinion it is a bit hard to compare them as something poor that are always meant to be with "us". Of course you can find other people not owning a pit bull or Rottweiler who still behave badly.

Then he starts telling that the little girl was being dropped off at her great-grandmother's house, and that the owner of the dog that injured her was her uncle who also lived there. Simon Heffer writes that the dog was one of the banned breeds but "apparently because of a loophole in the Act, 1.057 of these