156 replies to this topic

[Mumby Magic]

I don't think it's an aggressive look, I dunno, something about the shape of their head just look odd to me, almost like a balloon, and they're all white with pink flashes. The rest of your post is top-notch!

Are you on about the Rotts or Gary's lasses?

[Gary Coyle]

Are you on about the Rotts or Gary's lasses?

Ha,ha.

[Phil]

If course the mugger wasn't understood and should've been bought to justice.I just don't see how having his face ripped off by a dog is justice.

No you don't do you?

Got any daughters? Have they been mugged by a scroat? The police weren't interested, after all it was only 30p, never mind the effect it had on a young girl. Still, ###### like that doesn't happen in Perfectville does it?

Actions have consequences, scroats who choose actions of this kind may well suffer physical consequences.

Edited by Phil, 27 September 2012 - 10:20 PM.

[Charlie Parker]

No you don't do you?

Got any daughters? Have they been mugged by a scroat? The police weren't interested, after all it was only 30p, never mind the effect it had on a young girl. Still, ###### like that doesn't happen in Perfectville does it?

Actions have consequences, scroats who choose actions of this kind may well suffer physical consequences.

I'm pretty new on here, and I must admit to being taken aback by the level of righteous indignation being thrown around in this thread.

It's nice to know that everybody, bar one, is a "model" dog owner, with unquestionable morals. It's also nice to know that the majority of posters in this thread would be nice enough to potential muggers to ask them to desist nicely, rather than supporting violence.

What is also clear is that there are a lot of niaive fools on here.

[Severus]

I'm pretty new on here, and I must admit to being taken aback by the level of righteous indignation being thrown around in this thread.

It's nice to know that everybody, bar one, is a "model" dog owner, with unquestionable morals. It's also nice to know that the majority of posters in this thread would be nice enough to potential muggers to ask them to desist nicely, rather than supporting violence.

What is also clear is that there are a lot of niaive fools on here.

Don't be ###### ridiculous. I am not naive, I just don't subscribe to the notion of vigilante violence and don't take enjoyment in a dog ripping someone's throat out. I've live in Manchester for years, including Moss Side so I hardly come from 'perfectville' (whatever that is).

Let's examine the outcome had Phils Rottweiler been around to rip the face off the scrote who mugged his daughter. The animal would have to be put down, so due to the irresponsible owner an animal loses their life. The mugger would be killed or maimed for life, hardly a punishment proportional to the crime. Phil would probably have criminal charges applied and banned from keeping dogs. Phil's daughter would have witnessed a horrific incident (the mugging would've been a terrible experience but imagine someone's face being ripped off by a dog).

Phil came on here bragging about how some idiot almost 'got his throat ripped out' by his dog. I wonder what he thought the reaction would be.

Edited by Severus, 28 September 2012 - 07:17 AM.

[Phil]

I'm pretty new on here, and I must admit to being taken aback by the level of righteous indignation being thrown around in this thread.

It's nice to know that everybody, bar one, is a "model" dog owner, with unquestionable morals. It's also nice to know that the majority of posters in this thread would be nice enough to potential muggers to ask them to desist nicely, rather than supporting violence.

What is also clear is that there are a lot of niaive fools on here.

Thanks Charlie, on consideration it's Lalaland rather than Perfecville

[Kenilworth Tiger]

I don't like dogs - never have and never will

[Johnoco]

I'm pretty new on here, and I must admit to being taken aback by the level of righteous indignation being thrown around in this thread.

It's nice to know that everybody, bar one, is a "model" dog owner, with unquestionable morals. It's also nice to know that the majority of posters in this thread would be nice enough to potential muggers to ask them to desist nicely, rather than supporting violence.

What is also clear is that there are a lot of niaive fools on here.

I don't know which bits you are reading but the concern is not about muggers but the possible consequences of teaching a dog that going for someone in public (ie not their backyard or territory) is good and merits a reward. What if in 6 months time a child runs up near the dog squealing about something or other? What if it manages to get off the leash this time?

People are 'indignant' because most have been faced with a vicious dog situation. Only to be told by the owner 'its harmless' or plain old 'eff off'.

Not sure where naivety comes into it either.

[Phil]

What if in 6 months time a child runs up near the dog squealing about something or other? What if it manages to get off the leash this time?

Next doors kids run up squealing every time we leave the house "Can we stroke roxy?" she loves it. The idiot wasn't squealing he was growling.

There's so many "what ifs" on this thread it's like a health and safety forum.

[l'angelo mysterioso]

I don't like dogs - never have and never will

I love them

Thanks Charlie, on consideration it's Lalaland rather than Perfecville

no it isn't

it's a question of responsible dog ownership

[Johnoco]

Next doors kids run up squealing every time we leave the house "Can we stroke roxy?" she loves it. The idiot wasn't squealing he was growling.

There's so many "what ifs" on this thread it's like a health and safety forum.

I wish I had a pound for every story I've read where a dog has attacked someone and the first response is.....'well its never done anything like that before, always been great with the kids'

Your dog knows next doors kids, it doesn't know others. How is it meant to know this strange kid shouting at it means no harm?

Edited by Johnoco, 28 September 2012 - 09:06 AM.

[Charlie Parker]

I love them



no it isn't

it's a question of responsible dog ownership

It's also a question of understanding the role of dogs in human society. Have you any idea why dogs were domesticated?

I have a large dog, and it is as well trained as any dog you will find. It was trained by a relative of mine who is a gamekeeper on a Scottish estate.

However, I make no apologies in admitting that part of the dog's responsibilities is to act as a guardian for my home and my family. Isn't that what all dogs used to be about?

I don't advocate having a dog rip anyone's throat out, but if my family is ever subjected to the type of feral behaviour that seems to be becoming more prevalent in this society, I will not complain if the dog attempts to protect them.

People on this thread have been pushing the idea that the scroats who own Staffordshire Bull Terriers only have them as a fashion accessory. I put the question to you, If you don't have a dog to perform one, or more, of it's originally intended functions, i.e. working, guarding, hunting, etc, then you have it as an accessory, and are no better than than the scroats.

[Old Frightful]

I don't live in Peefectville or Lalaland.

I live in a country where stories often appear in the news about a child savaged by a dog and the owner stating "I don't understand it, the dog's a big softy and has never done that before", usually followed by a canine expert commenting "Any dog can turn vicious at any time without warning even when never having shown a nasty trait previously".

Where I live it's known as the real world.

[l'angelo mysterioso]

It's also a question of understanding the role of dogs in human society. Have you any idea why dogs were domesticated?

I have a large dog, and it is as well trained as any dog you will find. It was trained by a relative of mine who is a gamekeeper on a Scottish estate.

However, I make no apologies in admitting that part of the dog's responsibilities is to act as a guardian for my home and my family. Isn't that what all dogs used to be about?

I don't advocate having a dog rip anyone's throat out, but if my family is ever subjected to the type of feral behaviour that seems to be becoming more prevalent in this society, I will not complain if the dog attempts to protect them.

People on this thread have been pushing the idea that the scroats who own Staffordshire Bull Terriers only have them as a fashion accessory. I put the question to you, If you don't have a dog to perform one, or more, of it's originally intended functions, i.e. working, guarding, hunting, etc, then you have it as an accessory, and are no better than than the scroats.

my dogs are members of my family, I live in a rural area and care for them responsibly. I regularly see the consequences of irresponsible dog ownership at first hand.


people own dogs for all sorts of reasons, and I don't think anyone has pushed the idea that 'scroats'(what on earth is a scroat?) have staffordshire bull terriers as a fashion accessory. Al sorts of people have dogs of all sorts as 'fashion accessories': this was brought about the 'toy' breeds generations ago.

People are supposed to be in control of their dogs. I find the use of them, other than by trained handlers in legally defined situarions, as a means of intimidation disturbing. Phil could have and should have dealt with the situation differently IMHO.

[Leeds Wire]

I put the question to you, If you don't have a dog to perform one, or more, of it's originally intended functions, i.e. working, guarding, hunting, etc, then you have it as an accessory, and are no better than than the scroats.

So anyone who keeps a dog for companionship is "no better than the scroats"?

That's an absurd comment and smacks of the righteous indignation that you complained about earlier.

[l'angelo mysterioso]

So anyone who keeps a dog for companionship is "no better than the scroats"?

That's an absurd comment and smacks of the righteous indignation that you complained about earlier.

it certainly is
also over the centuries rottweilers have been bred for herding livestock and as fighting dogs
so according to this person unless Phil has a load of cattle and/or takes part in illegal blood sports he's a 'scroat'(whatever a scroat is)

[Charlie Parker]

it certainly is
also over the centuries rottweilers have been bred for herding livestock and as fighting dogs
so according to this person unless Phil has a load of cattle and/or takes part in illegal blood sports he's a 'scroat'(whatever a scroat is)

So it's nonsense.

It's nice to know that you are so in control of your wild animals, that you feel confident enough to preach to other people about them.

Any dog can harm a human being, no matter how well trained, apart from yours of course, so I offer you my congratulations.

[Charlie Parker]

So anyone who keeps a dog for companionship is "no better than the scroats"?

That's an absurd comment and smacks of the righteous indignation that you complained about earlier.

No, the keeping of a wild animal for companionship, and then not expecting it to resort to type if you are threatened, is absurd.

Whether you like it or not, or agree with it or not, a dog that you have integrated as part of your family will respond accordingly if that family is threatened. To expect it to do anything less is ridiculous.

Dogs have been tamed, and can be trained, but you can't take the dog out of a dog.

My breed of dog appears nowhere in the list of dog bite statistics, but I am realistic enough to accept that, given the right circumstances, it would.

[l'angelo mysterioso]

So it's nonsense.

It's nice to know that you are so in control of your wild animals, that you feel confident enough to preach to other people about them.

Any dog can harm a human being, no matter how well trained, apart from yours of course, so I offer you my congratulations.

it would look that way.

disagreeing with someone on an internet forum isn't 'preaching', it's just disagreeing with someone.
Phil is a long standing and respected member of this forum: he can do far better than having you in his corner.

Any dog can harm a human being even mine. That is why I keep them under control, and don't use them as a channel for my own ego or agrression.

Phil's point(see original post) was that a stupid man made a silly noise at his dog, and his dog's aggressive reaction(he coiuld barely keep hold of it) was a good thing. I disagree with him. Also if Phil's dog gets it into his head that being aggressive when people make funny noises at her is a good think, then there could be tragic consequences in store.

What is your other username?

[Charlie Parker]

it would look that way.

disagreeing with someone on an internet forum isn't 'preaching', it's just disagreeing with someone.
Phil is a long standing and respected member of this forum: he can do far better than having you in his corner.

Any dog can harm a human being even mine. That is why I keep them under control, and don't use them as a channel for my own ego or agrression.

Phil's point(see original post) was that a stupid man made a silly noise at his dog, and his dog's aggressive reaction(he coiuld barely keep hold of it) was a good thing. I disagree with him. Also if Phil's dog gets it into his head that being aggressive when people make funny noises at her is a good think, then there could be tragic consequences in store.

What is your other username?

My other username? What are you talking about?

I make about 3 posts that seem contrary to yours, and already you are judging me. The hypocrisy is staggering.

Phil's original point was a bit daft I admit, but so are many of the other points in this thread. You may think your dogs are under control, but so do probably 95% of the owners whose dogs have bitten someone.

You do not have full control of a wild animal. You will probably do your best to keep your dogs out of a potentially bad situation, but if it comes to it, you will have very little choice in what your animal chooses to do.