Lancashire TelegraphRoyal Mail suspends post on Blackburn street after postman bitten by dog (From Lancashire Telegraph)

When news happens, text LT and your photos and videos to 80360. Or contact us by email or phone.

Royal Mail suspends post on Blackburn street after postman bitten by dog

Lancashire Telegraph: Winston the dog who bit the postman Winston the dog who bit the postman

ROYAL Mail has suspended all deliveries to a Blackburn street after a postman was bitten by a dog.

The company said it will no longer deliver to around 60 homes in Worcester Road, Whitebirk, because there is an ‘unacceptable level of risk’ to its workers posed by the animal.

Angry residents of the cul-de-sac have branded the decision ‘disgusting’ and ‘ridiculous’, while the dog’s owner said it was ‘out of order’ for the whole street to be punished.

Police said the postman was bitten on the arm after a child outside a house in the road was not strong enough to hold on to the animal’s lead.

All residents received a letter from Royal Mail after the incident last Thursday, which said that because of the seriousness of the incident deliveries had been suspended with immediate effect.

The letter said residents could collect their mail from the Blackburn Delivery Office in Canterbury Street, but any mail that remained uncollected after a period of 18 days would be returned to sender.

No time frame has been given as to when deliveries would be resumed, although the company has apologise to all affected customers and said it wants to resolve the situation as quickly as possible.

The owner of the dog, which is called Winston, said: “He’s never bitten before and everyone round here knows that he is safe.

“I have a nine-year-old little boy and a five-year-old little girl and Winston is brilliant with them both. He follows them round and is a great family pet.

“On the day of the incident my son had put him on a lead and taken him outside. I never let him do this because I know Winston is too strong for him.

“I was looking after my friend’s baby that day and so had just nipped upstairs to get her and in that split second, my little boy disobeyed me by taking the dog outside to show off to his mates.

“I heard my son scream and I looked outside.The postman had seen a dog run towards him, got scared and tried to fend him off.

“Winston had jumped up at him and bit the postman on the arm. The bite had drawn blood.

“The police and the RSPCA have been round and they’ve said they are happy that he is not a dangerous breed and just advised we get him neutered to calm him down a bit. He’s booked in for that today.

 

MORE TOP STORIES:

 

“I think that it’s out of order for Royal Mail to decided to punish the whole street for this.

“If they said that they wouldn’t deliver my post anymore then I’d understand but it’s just not fair on everyone else.”

Royal Mail spokeswoman Val Bodden said “Suspending deliveries is always a last resort but we take the health and safety of our employees very seriously and we are seeking assurances from the dog owners that their pet will be kept securely while we undertake deliveries.

“We apologise to all affected customers and would like to assure them that we will be working with the dog owners to resolve the situation as quickly as possible.

“In the meantime, affected customers can collect their mail from Blackburn Delivery Office on the production of photo ID.”

A spokeswoman from Lancashire Police said: “The dog was on a lead at the time but the lead was held by a child, who was not strong enough to hold on to the animal.

“The postman suffered a wound to his arm and was taken to hospital to be checked over.

The matter was passed on to the neighbourhood policing team who visited the dog’s owner on a joint visit with RSPCA who gave the owner a voucher to have the dog neutered and take it to dog training classes.

“The dog was not a banned breed or classed as a dangerous dog.”

Resident Clive Fisher said he had been waiting for a letter from Royal Blackburn Hospital oncology unit after being referred by his GP because he was exhibiting signs of cancer.

The 69-year-old said: “An appointment letter was left undelivered at the sorting office for days.

“There’s only a short period of time to treat disorders like this and I know that there’s a lot of people that live on this road that do have illnesses or disabilities.”

“I’m disabled but I’m lucky that I have a car. A lot of my neighbours don’t or are unable to drive.”

Another resident said: “Why can’t they just stop delivering to the house that has the dog?

“My wife is suffering from a terminal illness and she could be missing information about appointments, visits or even test results.

“She’s not going to be able to go into town every day to collect the post. It’s disgusting.”

Blackburn MP, Jack Straw said: “This is obviously aggravating to the residents but postmen and women face real danger everyday and until they can be sure the area is safe I support them taking this action.

“I’m hoping to meet with residents and Royal Mail to see how this issue can be resolved.”

Comments (63)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:31am Thu 27 Feb 14

woolywords says...

The operative word here is, responsible. The boy isn't, as he's too young nor is the dog, as it's not been trained. Responsibility lays with the owner, who failed to train the dog to be sociable when out of the house.
Neutering the dog won't cure his behaviour and it's a fallacy to believe so. It just ensures that he unable to pass on his genes.
Well done to the RSPCA and Police for spotting that the dogs claw length indicates that it is rarely walked long enough to wear them down, which shows to me, the level of attention that this dog receives.
The operative word here is, responsible. The boy isn't, as he's too young nor is the dog, as it's not been trained. Responsibility lays with the owner, who failed to train the dog to be sociable when out of the house. Neutering the dog won't cure his behaviour and it's a fallacy to believe so. It just ensures that he unable to pass on his genes. Well done to the RSPCA and Police for spotting that the dogs claw length indicates that it is rarely walked long enough to wear them down, which shows to me, the level of attention that this dog receives. woolywords
  • Score: 85

7:50am Thu 27 Feb 14

Steven Seagull says...

Why doesn't the moron who owns the dog offer, as a gesture of goodwill, to meet the postman at the end of the street and deliver the post to the said houses for him.

Just for the period of time that it takes him to train his dog properly etc etc.
Why doesn't the moron who owns the dog offer, as a gesture of goodwill, to meet the postman at the end of the street and deliver the post to the said houses for him. Just for the period of time that it takes him to train his dog properly etc etc. Steven Seagull
  • Score: 91

7:54am Thu 27 Feb 14

grimupnorth says...

Beware St Marks Place posties. Coming to a round near you soon!!!!!
Beware St Marks Place posties. Coming to a round near you soon!!!!! grimupnorth
  • Score: -27

8:04am Thu 27 Feb 14

A Darener says...

Another resident said: “Why can’t they just stop delivering to the house that has the dog?
Because the dog bit the postman on the street, not on the owners property!
Another resident said: “Why can’t they just stop delivering to the house that has the dog? Because the dog bit the postman on the street, not on the owners property! A Darener
  • Score: 58

8:57am Thu 27 Feb 14

adamdesk says...

hah first comes the postman being bitten and then instead of taking action against the owner the police given them voucher?
I think we tax payers are here to help such criminals.
We just heard news about toddler being mauled to death are police looking forward to case number 2
hah first comes the postman being bitten and then instead of taking action against the owner the police given them voucher? I think we tax payers are here to help such criminals. We just heard news about toddler being mauled to death are police looking forward to case number 2 adamdesk
  • Score: 33

9:11am Thu 27 Feb 14

Black Car Guy. says...

Steven Seagull wrote:
Why doesn't the moron who owns the dog offer, as a gesture of goodwill, to meet the postman at the end of the street and deliver the post to the said houses for him.

Just for the period of time that it takes him to train his dog properly etc etc.
Maybe the dog owner would rifle though the post. Anyway he would be too busy to collect post. I was in the sorting office and 2 males came in and said Worcester Road, they started to shout and swear as it was junk mail. I did wonder why they was there.
[quote][p][bold]Steven Seagull[/bold] wrote: Why doesn't the moron who owns the dog offer, as a gesture of goodwill, to meet the postman at the end of the street and deliver the post to the said houses for him. Just for the period of time that it takes him to train his dog properly etc etc.[/p][/quote]Maybe the dog owner would rifle though the post. Anyway he would be too busy to collect post. I was in the sorting office and 2 males came in and said Worcester Road, they started to shout and swear as it was junk mail. I did wonder why they was there. Black Car Guy.
  • Score: 27

9:17am Thu 27 Feb 14

Bluelizzy says...

“He’s never bitten before and everyone round here knows that he is safe".

Errrr.. except the postman !
“He’s never bitten before and everyone round here knows that he is safe". Errrr.. except the postman ! Bluelizzy
  • Score: 63

9:30am Thu 27 Feb 14

Rovers til I cry says...

adamdesk wrote:
hah first comes the postman being bitten and then instead of taking action against the owner the police given them voucher?
I think we tax payers are here to help such criminals.
We just heard news about toddler being mauled to death are police looking forward to case number 2
Couldn't agree more. If the dog was too strong for a child to hold whilst its on a lead, how would a child fend off the dog in an attack. The owner thinks the dog is safe but the mere fact that the dog has bitten someone in the street should indicate it is dangerous. I wouldn't trust this dog around my kids because if it has shown it can be aggressive once it will probably do it again.
[quote][p][bold]adamdesk[/bold] wrote: hah first comes the postman being bitten and then instead of taking action against the owner the police given them voucher? I think we tax payers are here to help such criminals. We just heard news about toddler being mauled to death are police looking forward to case number 2[/p][/quote]Couldn't agree more. If the dog was too strong for a child to hold whilst its on a lead, how would a child fend off the dog in an attack. The owner thinks the dog is safe but the mere fact that the dog has bitten someone in the street should indicate it is dangerous. I wouldn't trust this dog around my kids because if it has shown it can be aggressive once it will probably do it again. Rovers til I cry
  • Score: 51

9:38am Thu 27 Feb 14

burner says...

. . . . " All residents received a letter from Royal Mail after the incident last Thursday, " . . . errr . . . how ?
. . . . " All residents received a letter from Royal Mail after the incident last Thursday, " . . . errr . . . how ? burner
  • Score: 46

9:39am Thu 27 Feb 14

burner says...

Sorry, that should have read, Grrrrrrr . . . how ?
Sorry, that should have read, Grrrrrrr . . . how ? burner
  • Score: 14

9:53am Thu 27 Feb 14

ladysal says...

Rovers til I cry wrote:
adamdesk wrote:
hah first comes the postman being bitten and then instead of taking action against the owner the police given them voucher?
I think we tax payers are here to help such criminals.
We just heard news about toddler being mauled to death are police looking forward to case number 2
Couldn't agree more. If the dog was too strong for a child to hold whilst its on a lead, how would a child fend off the dog in an attack. The owner thinks the dog is safe but the mere fact that the dog has bitten someone in the street should indicate it is dangerous. I wouldn't trust this dog around my kids because if it has shown it can be aggressive once it will probably do it again.
Did anyone actually read the article? The owner states categorically that the child shouldn't have taken the dog out on its lead. Yes, maybe the dog needs more training, yes it should be neutuered. Yes, it should also be impossible for the child to get out of the house with the dog. However, if the postman reacted by putting up an arm, then the dog may have jumped up for a number of different reasons. And unfortunately, some dogs jump with their mouth open, which yes, means that their action can be construed as "biting". After all, the postman received "a bite" to its arm according to the police, which says to me that this dog was not actively attacking the postie. If it had been, then I'm sure he / she would have received more than one bite, unless they were a chapmion sprinter. How do I know this? Becuase my 16 year old dog, who has never actively bitten anyone, does it. We know not to put an arm close to her when she is excited, because panting and jumping may cause unwanted results.
[quote][p][bold]Rovers til I cry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]adamdesk[/bold] wrote: hah first comes the postman being bitten and then instead of taking action against the owner the police given them voucher? I think we tax payers are here to help such criminals. We just heard news about toddler being mauled to death are police looking forward to case number 2[/p][/quote]Couldn't agree more. If the dog was too strong for a child to hold whilst its on a lead, how would a child fend off the dog in an attack. The owner thinks the dog is safe but the mere fact that the dog has bitten someone in the street should indicate it is dangerous. I wouldn't trust this dog around my kids because if it has shown it can be aggressive once it will probably do it again.[/p][/quote]Did anyone actually read the article? The owner states categorically that the child shouldn't have taken the dog out on its lead. Yes, maybe the dog needs more training, yes it should be neutuered. Yes, it should also be impossible for the child to get out of the house with the dog. However, if the postman reacted by putting up an arm, then the dog may have jumped up for a number of different reasons. And unfortunately, some dogs jump with their mouth open, which yes, means that their action can be construed as "biting". After all, the postman received "a bite" to its arm according to the police, which says to me that this dog was not actively attacking the postie. If it had been, then I'm sure he / she would have received more than one bite, unless they were a chapmion sprinter. How do I know this? Becuase my 16 year old dog, who has never actively bitten anyone, does it. We know not to put an arm close to her when she is excited, because panting and jumping may cause unwanted results. ladysal
  • Score: -48

10:11am Thu 27 Feb 14

holmesy69 says...

The dog as bitten someone the owner should get a fine and no child should be taking a strong dog for a walk and to all of you moaning about there post get off your lazy backside and collect it
The dog as bitten someone the owner should get a fine and no child should be taking a strong dog for a walk and to all of you moaning about there post get off your lazy backside and collect it holmesy69
  • Score: 24

10:20am Thu 27 Feb 14

M.DANNY says...

A young baby killed by a dog a young girl was attacked by a dog now a postman was bitten by a dog.The streets and parks are full of dog mess so who's fault was it ?.
Yes it's the owners who have responsibility to keep the dog on the lead.The irresponsible owners of these dogs are to blame for dog mess on our streets on children play areas, parks and other public places.
Any dog that attack human beings must be taken away from it's owners and any dogs that foul our streets the owners must named and shamed.
Well done Royal Mail who have suspended all mails on this street until their postmen and women are safe to walk this street again.
BwD Council and the Police should get tough on irresponsible dog owners now.
A young baby killed by a dog a young girl was attacked by a dog now a postman was bitten by a dog.The streets and parks are full of dog mess so who's fault was it ?. Yes it's the owners who have responsibility to keep the dog on the lead.The irresponsible owners of these dogs are to blame for dog mess on our streets on children play areas, parks and other public places. Any dog that attack human beings must be taken away from it's owners and any dogs that foul our streets the owners must named and shamed. Well done Royal Mail who have suspended all mails on this street until their postmen and women are safe to walk this street again. BwD Council and the Police should get tough on irresponsible dog owners now. M.DANNY
  • Score: 32

10:28am Thu 27 Feb 14

Echo67 says...

I'm pretty sure this isn't the first time a postman has been bitten by a dog in this Country, So why all the fuss now? I wonder how long it will be before the Royal mail decides to ban any deliveries where there is a dog on the street?
Remember one of the Queens Corgis bit a postman and funnily enough she didn't have her mail stopped. I wonder why?
I'm pretty sure this isn't the first time a postman has been bitten by a dog in this Country, So why all the fuss now? I wonder how long it will be before the Royal mail decides to ban any deliveries where there is a dog on the street? Remember one of the Queens Corgis bit a postman and funnily enough she didn't have her mail stopped. I wonder why? Echo67
  • Score: -10

10:40am Thu 27 Feb 14

Steven Seagull says...

adamdesk wrote:
hah first comes the postman being bitten and then instead of taking action against the owner the police given them voucher?
I think we tax payers are here to help such criminals.
We just heard news about toddler being mauled to death are police looking forward to case number 2
Yes the police have a whole stash of vouchers that they hand out so people can get their dogs nuts chopped off.

Don't you think it's more likely that the RSPCA gave them the voucher?
[quote][p][bold]adamdesk[/bold] wrote: hah first comes the postman being bitten and then instead of taking action against the owner the police given them voucher? I think we tax payers are here to help such criminals. We just heard news about toddler being mauled to death are police looking forward to case number 2[/p][/quote]Yes the police have a whole stash of vouchers that they hand out so people can get their dogs nuts chopped off. Don't you think it's more likely that the RSPCA gave them the voucher? Steven Seagull
  • Score: 3

10:47am Thu 27 Feb 14

burner says...

woolywords wrote:
The operative word here is, responsible. The boy isn't, as he's too young nor is the dog, as it's not been trained. Responsibility lays with the owner, who failed to train the dog to be sociable when out of the house.
Neutering the dog won't cure his behaviour and it's a fallacy to believe so. It just ensures that he unable to pass on his genes.
Well done to the RSPCA and Police for spotting that the dogs claw length indicates that it is rarely walked long enough to wear them down, which shows to me, the level of attention that this dog receives.
. . woolywords . " Well done to the RSPCA and Police for spotting that the dogs claw length indicates that it is rarely walked long enough to wear them down, " . . . . . . . . . . . where does it say that????? You are even worse than the LT for stating unsubstantiated facts to support your own case.
.
Easy to prove - just re-read the whole article
[quote][p][bold]woolywords[/bold] wrote: The operative word here is, responsible. The boy isn't, as he's too young nor is the dog, as it's not been trained. Responsibility lays with the owner, who failed to train the dog to be sociable when out of the house. Neutering the dog won't cure his behaviour and it's a fallacy to believe so. It just ensures that he unable to pass on his genes. Well done to the RSPCA and Police for spotting that the dogs claw length indicates that it is rarely walked long enough to wear them down, which shows to me, the level of attention that this dog receives.[/p][/quote]. . woolywords . " Well done to the RSPCA and Police for spotting that the dogs claw length indicates that it is rarely walked long enough to wear them down, " . . . . . . . . . . . where does it say that????? You are even worse than the LT for stating unsubstantiated facts to support your own case. . Easy to prove - just re-read the whole article burner
  • Score: 3

10:59am Thu 27 Feb 14

Rovers til I cry says...

ladysal wrote:
Rovers til I cry wrote:
adamdesk wrote:
hah first comes the postman being bitten and then instead of taking action against the owner the police given them voucher?
I think we tax payers are here to help such criminals.
We just heard news about toddler being mauled to death are police looking forward to case number 2
Couldn't agree more. If the dog was too strong for a child to hold whilst its on a lead, how would a child fend off the dog in an attack. The owner thinks the dog is safe but the mere fact that the dog has bitten someone in the street should indicate it is dangerous. I wouldn't trust this dog around my kids because if it has shown it can be aggressive once it will probably do it again.
Did anyone actually read the article? The owner states categorically that the child shouldn't have taken the dog out on its lead. Yes, maybe the dog needs more training, yes it should be neutuered. Yes, it should also be impossible for the child to get out of the house with the dog. However, if the postman reacted by putting up an arm, then the dog may have jumped up for a number of different reasons. And unfortunately, some dogs jump with their mouth open, which yes, means that their action can be construed as "biting". After all, the postman received "a bite" to its arm according to the police, which says to me that this dog was not actively attacking the postie. If it had been, then I'm sure he / she would have received more than one bite, unless they were a chapmion sprinter. How do I know this? Becuase my 16 year old dog, who has never actively bitten anyone, does it. We know not to put an arm close to her when she is excited, because panting and jumping may cause unwanted results.
Clearly if you think the outcome of this is OK and if you know that your dog could injure someone if they got too close to it, then you have responsibility issues too. You should not assume that members of the public would know how to react around your dog. As a responsible dog owner you should make sure they don't have to!
Yes the child should not have taken the dog,but did, and once outside the child had no control over the dog and it harmed someone. All the rest of the facts are then irrelevant. We should not have to wait until the next time the child takes the dog when he shouldn't and it harms someone else, perhaps another child, before proper actions are taken.
[quote][p][bold]ladysal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rovers til I cry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]adamdesk[/bold] wrote: hah first comes the postman being bitten and then instead of taking action against the owner the police given them voucher? I think we tax payers are here to help such criminals. We just heard news about toddler being mauled to death are police looking forward to case number 2[/p][/quote]Couldn't agree more. If the dog was too strong for a child to hold whilst its on a lead, how would a child fend off the dog in an attack. The owner thinks the dog is safe but the mere fact that the dog has bitten someone in the street should indicate it is dangerous. I wouldn't trust this dog around my kids because if it has shown it can be aggressive once it will probably do it again.[/p][/quote]Did anyone actually read the article? The owner states categorically that the child shouldn't have taken the dog out on its lead. Yes, maybe the dog needs more training, yes it should be neutuered. Yes, it should also be impossible for the child to get out of the house with the dog. However, if the postman reacted by putting up an arm, then the dog may have jumped up for a number of different reasons. And unfortunately, some dogs jump with their mouth open, which yes, means that their action can be construed as "biting". After all, the postman received "a bite" to its arm according to the police, which says to me that this dog was not actively attacking the postie. If it had been, then I'm sure he / she would have received more than one bite, unless they were a chapmion sprinter. How do I know this? Becuase my 16 year old dog, who has never actively bitten anyone, does it. We know not to put an arm close to her when she is excited, because panting and jumping may cause unwanted results.[/p][/quote]Clearly if you think the outcome of this is OK and if you know that your dog could injure someone if they got too close to it, then you have responsibility issues too. You should not assume that members of the public would know how to react around your dog. As a responsible dog owner you should make sure they don't have to! Yes the child should not have taken the dog,but did, and once outside the child had no control over the dog and it harmed someone. All the rest of the facts are then irrelevant. We should not have to wait until the next time the child takes the dog when he shouldn't and it harms someone else, perhaps another child, before proper actions are taken. Rovers til I cry
  • Score: 29

11:18am Thu 27 Feb 14

kingbilly says...

Dogs dont like postmen,thats simple,ok keep them under control,when postmen/women are around,then teach postmen to close gates after them,or fine the postmen for every gate left open,and give the money to the rspca
Dogs dont like postmen,thats simple,ok keep them under control,when postmen/women are around,then teach postmen to close gates after them,or fine the postmen for every gate left open,and give the money to the rspca kingbilly
  • Score: -24

11:51am Thu 27 Feb 14

mmickk says...

In circumstances like this would it not be better to force the dog owner to put a postbox on the property boundary like they have in the USA. The dog would only have attacked because the postie had been on the property. Yet any sensible dog owner would have it put down once they have bitten they will again. And if these people do not get rid it just proves there kids are just a cash cow and do people not learn someone left her to look after a baby!! And as for jack straw what does he know it was him and his cronies that decided this was not a dangerous dog when they banned breeds and updated the act.
In circumstances like this would it not be better to force the dog owner to put a postbox on the property boundary like they have in the USA. The dog would only have attacked because the postie had been on the property. Yet any sensible dog owner would have it put down once they have bitten they will again. And if these people do not get rid it just proves there kids are just a cash cow and do people not learn someone left her to look after a baby!! And as for jack straw what does he know it was him and his cronies that decided this was not a dangerous dog when they banned breeds and updated the act. mmickk
  • Score: -6

11:52am Thu 27 Feb 14

George Khan says...

I think the blody dog should be put out of it’s misery
Before it causes a real blody serious injury
Poor Postman Pat going about his business
Getting bit by a stocky dog that is vicious
Now putters on street won’t get any blody mail
Because of owner who has a dog with a frisky tail
I think the council should house dog owners separately
So that they blody cause no harm to the majority
I think the blody dog should be put out of it’s misery Before it causes a real blody serious injury Poor Postman Pat going about his business Getting bit by a stocky dog that is vicious Now putters on street won’t get any blody mail Because of owner who has a dog with a frisky tail I think the council should house dog owners separately So that they blody cause no harm to the majority George Khan
  • Score: -16

11:56am Thu 27 Feb 14

woolywords says...

burner wrote:
woolywords wrote:
The operative word here is, responsible. The boy isn't, as he's too young nor is the dog, as it's not been trained. Responsibility lays with the owner, who failed to train the dog to be sociable when out of the house.
Neutering the dog won't cure his behaviour and it's a fallacy to believe so. It just ensures that he unable to pass on his genes.
Well done to the RSPCA and Police for spotting that the dogs claw length indicates that it is rarely walked long enough to wear them down, which shows to me, the level of attention that this dog receives.
. . woolywords . " Well done to the RSPCA and Police for spotting that the dogs claw length indicates that it is rarely walked long enough to wear them down, " . . . . . . . . . . . where does it say that????? You are even worse than the LT for stating unsubstantiated facts to support your own case.
.
Easy to prove - just re-read the whole article
Don't you growl at me, or I'll get a voucher to get you nutted, as well. You've already growled at other people on this column and are exhibiting a distinctly anti social, attacking posture. Now si-t!
Look carefully at the photo of the dog, you can clearly see the length of it's front claws. These would normally be a lot shorter than this and suggests to me that this dog doesn't get enough regular exercise.
Would you also note the cheek shape of this dog, which is a lot more prominent than you find on a Jack Russell, suggesting to me that this is a mixed breed of dubious reputations, so really has no place in an home where it's not going to be properly trained.
As a responsible dog owner, you have to notice these sorts of things..
[quote][p][bold]burner[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]woolywords[/bold] wrote: The operative word here is, responsible. The boy isn't, as he's too young nor is the dog, as it's not been trained. Responsibility lays with the owner, who failed to train the dog to be sociable when out of the house. Neutering the dog won't cure his behaviour and it's a fallacy to believe so. It just ensures that he unable to pass on his genes. Well done to the RSPCA and Police for spotting that the dogs claw length indicates that it is rarely walked long enough to wear them down, which shows to me, the level of attention that this dog receives.[/p][/quote]. . woolywords . " Well done to the RSPCA and Police for spotting that the dogs claw length indicates that it is rarely walked long enough to wear them down, " . . . . . . . . . . . where does it say that????? You are even worse than the LT for stating unsubstantiated facts to support your own case. . Easy to prove - just re-read the whole article[/p][/quote]Don't you growl at me, or I'll get a voucher to get you nutted, as well. You've already growled at other people on this column and are exhibiting a distinctly anti social, attacking posture. Now si-t! Look carefully at the photo of the dog, you can clearly see the length of it's front claws. These would normally be a lot shorter than this and suggests to me that this dog doesn't get enough regular exercise. Would you also note the cheek shape of this dog, which is a lot more prominent than you find on a Jack Russell, suggesting to me that this is a mixed breed of dubious reputations, so really has no place in an home where it's not going to be properly trained. As a responsible dog owner, you have to notice these sorts of things.. woolywords
  • Score: 10

12:03pm Thu 27 Feb 14

ladysal says...

Rovers til I cry wrote:
ladysal wrote:
Rovers til I cry wrote:
adamdesk wrote:
hah first comes the postman being bitten and then instead of taking action against the owner the police given them voucher?
I think we tax payers are here to help such criminals.
We just heard news about toddler being mauled to death are police looking forward to case number 2
Couldn't agree more. If the dog was too strong for a child to hold whilst its on a lead, how would a child fend off the dog in an attack. The owner thinks the dog is safe but the mere fact that the dog has bitten someone in the street should indicate it is dangerous. I wouldn't trust this dog around my kids because if it has shown it can be aggressive once it will probably do it again.
Did anyone actually read the article? The owner states categorically that the child shouldn't have taken the dog out on its lead. Yes, maybe the dog needs more training, yes it should be neutuered. Yes, it should also be impossible for the child to get out of the house with the dog. However, if the postman reacted by putting up an arm, then the dog may have jumped up for a number of different reasons. And unfortunately, some dogs jump with their mouth open, which yes, means that their action can be construed as "biting". After all, the postman received "a bite" to its arm according to the police, which says to me that this dog was not actively attacking the postie. If it had been, then I'm sure he / she would have received more than one bite, unless they were a chapmion sprinter. How do I know this? Becuase my 16 year old dog, who has never actively bitten anyone, does it. We know not to put an arm close to her when she is excited, because panting and jumping may cause unwanted results.
Clearly if you think the outcome of this is OK and if you know that your dog could injure someone if they got too close to it, then you have responsibility issues too. You should not assume that members of the public would know how to react around your dog. As a responsible dog owner you should make sure they don't have to!
Yes the child should not have taken the dog,but did, and once outside the child had no control over the dog and it harmed someone. All the rest of the facts are then irrelevant. We should not have to wait until the next time the child takes the dog when he shouldn't and it harms someone else, perhaps another child, before proper actions are taken.
No, I don't think its ok, and in 16 years, my dog has done it just once. Becuase when we realised that this could be an issue, we took steps to stop it happening again.
Where did I say that I would assume that members of the public should know how to behave around my dog or any dog? What I was trying to say, and which you have missed, was that the dog may not have been intentionally biting, although the result was the same, because they have teeth..... What it doesn't do, is show that the dog was intentionally aggressive.
Also, where did I say it was ok: quite clearly it isn't. However, it doesn't on the information provided, seem to be the same situation as the recent cases of people being mauled to death by dogs who were completely out of control.
I'm guessing you don't have dogs and probably don't particularly like them. You will find that there are very few dogs that can be handled safely by any five year old. Do we therefore ban dogs from households with children under say ten because the kids can't handle it?
This was an accident that should never have happened. The dog didn't "maul" anyone and sometimes, you do have to look at more than just what the dog did. Yes, it drew blood. The hamster I had as a kid did that more than once to me. Should hamsters be banned because they bite? I very much doubt the kid will get a second chance to disobey its parent.
I'M SHOUTING NOW, BECASUE I THINK THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT BIT:
There are degrees of culpability and you cannot possibly put this on the same point in the scale as the death of those two poor babies. Those dogs were determined to eat those children. This dog made a mistake (yes, dogs can muck things up just as well as humans). God forbid we all get punished for those.
[quote][p][bold]Rovers til I cry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ladysal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rovers til I cry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]adamdesk[/bold] wrote: hah first comes the postman being bitten and then instead of taking action against the owner the police given them voucher? I think we tax payers are here to help such criminals. We just heard news about toddler being mauled to death are police looking forward to case number 2[/p][/quote]Couldn't agree more. If the dog was too strong for a child to hold whilst its on a lead, how would a child fend off the dog in an attack. The owner thinks the dog is safe but the mere fact that the dog has bitten someone in the street should indicate it is dangerous. I wouldn't trust this dog around my kids because if it has shown it can be aggressive once it will probably do it again.[/p][/quote]Did anyone actually read the article? The owner states categorically that the child shouldn't have taken the dog out on its lead. Yes, maybe the dog needs more training, yes it should be neutuered. Yes, it should also be impossible for the child to get out of the house with the dog. However, if the postman reacted by putting up an arm, then the dog may have jumped up for a number of different reasons. And unfortunately, some dogs jump with their mouth open, which yes, means that their action can be construed as "biting". After all, the postman received "a bite" to its arm according to the police, which says to me that this dog was not actively attacking the postie. If it had been, then I'm sure he / she would have received more than one bite, unless they were a chapmion sprinter. How do I know this? Becuase my 16 year old dog, who has never actively bitten anyone, does it. We know not to put an arm close to her when she is excited, because panting and jumping may cause unwanted results.[/p][/quote]Clearly if you think the outcome of this is OK and if you know that your dog could injure someone if they got too close to it, then you have responsibility issues too. You should not assume that members of the public would know how to react around your dog. As a responsible dog owner you should make sure they don't have to! Yes the child should not have taken the dog,but did, and once outside the child had no control over the dog and it harmed someone. All the rest of the facts are then irrelevant. We should not have to wait until the next time the child takes the dog when he shouldn't and it harms someone else, perhaps another child, before proper actions are taken.[/p][/quote]No, I don't think its ok, and in 16 years, my dog has done it just once. Becuase when we realised that this could be an issue, we took steps to stop it happening again. Where did I say that I would assume that members of the public should know how to behave around my dog or any dog? What I was trying to say, and which you have missed, was that the dog may not have been intentionally biting, although the result was the same, because they have teeth..... What it doesn't do, is show that the dog was intentionally aggressive. Also, where did I say it was ok: quite clearly it isn't. However, it doesn't on the information provided, seem to be the same situation as the recent cases of people being mauled to death by dogs who were completely out of control. I'm guessing you don't have dogs and probably don't particularly like them. You will find that there are very few dogs that can be handled safely by any five year old. Do we therefore ban dogs from households with children under say ten because the kids can't handle it? This was an accident that should never have happened. The dog didn't "maul" anyone and sometimes, you do have to look at more than just what the dog did. Yes, it drew blood. The hamster I had as a kid did that more than once to me. Should hamsters be banned because they bite? I very much doubt the kid will get a second chance to disobey its parent. I'M SHOUTING NOW, BECASUE I THINK THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT BIT: There are degrees of culpability and you cannot possibly put this on the same point in the scale as the death of those two poor babies. Those dogs were determined to eat those children. This dog made a mistake (yes, dogs can muck things up just as well as humans). God forbid we all get punished for those. ladysal
  • Score: -10

12:23pm Thu 27 Feb 14

burner says...

woolywords, excellent humour. I laughed loads.
.
Nevertheless . . . is it yourself who is the Feds or RSPCA ? 'cos YOU attributed that observation to BOTH of them . DID they say that in this article? . . . . puzzled !
woolywords, excellent humour. I laughed loads. . Nevertheless . . . is it yourself who is the Feds or RSPCA ? 'cos YOU attributed that observation to BOTH of them . DID they say that in this article? . . . . puzzled ! burner
  • Score: -3

12:55pm Thu 27 Feb 14

GracesDad says...

Pass a new law that enforces all dogs to be muzzled when out in public!
Pass a new law that enforces all dogs to be muzzled when out in public! GracesDad
  • Score: 8

1:12pm Thu 27 Feb 14

George Khan says...

Oh Dad of Grace, I blody agree
Why do these dog owners get blody puzzled?
When all dangerous dogs should be muzzled
That means the streets will be danger-free
And Postman Pat will be able to walk up and down
Any street or lane and despatch a delivery
There too many kuttas, I mean dogs in this town
It seems like a badge of the lower working classes
To have a dangerous mutt that can roam around
Oh Dad of Grace, I blody agree Why do these dog owners get blody puzzled? When all dangerous dogs should be muzzled That means the streets will be danger-free And Postman Pat will be able to walk up and down Any street or lane and despatch a delivery There too many kuttas, I mean dogs in this town It seems like a badge of the lower working classes To have a dangerous mutt that can roam around George Khan
  • Score: -10

1:42pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Rovers til I cry says...

ladysal wrote:
Rovers til I cry wrote:
ladysal wrote:
Rovers til I cry wrote:
adamdesk wrote:
hah first comes the postman being bitten and then instead of taking action against the owner the police given them voucher?
I think we tax payers are here to help such criminals.
We just heard news about toddler being mauled to death are police looking forward to case number 2
Couldn't agree more. If the dog was too strong for a child to hold whilst its on a lead, how would a child fend off the dog in an attack. The owner thinks the dog is safe but the mere fact that the dog has bitten someone in the street should indicate it is dangerous. I wouldn't trust this dog around my kids because if it has shown it can be aggressive once it will probably do it again.
Did anyone actually read the article? The owner states categorically that the child shouldn't have taken the dog out on its lead. Yes, maybe the dog needs more training, yes it should be neutuered. Yes, it should also be impossible for the child to get out of the house with the dog. However, if the postman reacted by putting up an arm, then the dog may have jumped up for a number of different reasons. And unfortunately, some dogs jump with their mouth open, which yes, means that their action can be construed as "biting". After all, the postman received "a bite" to its arm according to the police, which says to me that this dog was not actively attacking the postie. If it had been, then I'm sure he / she would have received more than one bite, unless they were a chapmion sprinter. How do I know this? Becuase my 16 year old dog, who has never actively bitten anyone, does it. We know not to put an arm close to her when she is excited, because panting and jumping may cause unwanted results.
Clearly if you think the outcome of this is OK and if you know that your dog could injure someone if they got too close to it, then you have responsibility issues too. You should not assume that members of the public would know how to react around your dog. As a responsible dog owner you should make sure they don't have to!
Yes the child should not have taken the dog,but did, and once outside the child had no control over the dog and it harmed someone. All the rest of the facts are then irrelevant. We should not have to wait until the next time the child takes the dog when he shouldn't and it harms someone else, perhaps another child, before proper actions are taken.
No, I don't think its ok, and in 16 years, my dog has done it just once. Becuase when we realised that this could be an issue, we took steps to stop it happening again.
Where did I say that I would assume that members of the public should know how to behave around my dog or any dog? What I was trying to say, and which you have missed, was that the dog may not have been intentionally biting, although the result was the same, because they have teeth..... What it doesn't do, is show that the dog was intentionally aggressive.
Also, where did I say it was ok: quite clearly it isn't. However, it doesn't on the information provided, seem to be the same situation as the recent cases of people being mauled to death by dogs who were completely out of control.
I'm guessing you don't have dogs and probably don't particularly like them. You will find that there are very few dogs that can be handled safely by any five year old. Do we therefore ban dogs from households with children under say ten because the kids can't handle it?
This was an accident that should never have happened. The dog didn't "maul" anyone and sometimes, you do have to look at more than just what the dog did. Yes, it drew blood. The hamster I had as a kid did that more than once to me. Should hamsters be banned because they bite? I very much doubt the kid will get a second chance to disobey its parent.
I'M SHOUTING NOW, BECASUE I THINK THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT BIT:
There are degrees of culpability and you cannot possibly put this on the same point in the scale as the death of those two poor babies. Those dogs were determined to eat those children. This dog made a mistake (yes, dogs can muck things up just as well as humans). God forbid we all get punished for those.
Come on, re-read what you have written (twice). I could see your point of view until you got to the Hamsters bit ? I may be wrong but I don't think I have ever read a report of a hamster savaging anyone. Granted we may not actually know all of the facts here , but what we can read above is that, the owner was busy elsewhere and had not made sure that her child could not take a dog, which was too strong for him to control, outside. Once out side the dog for what ever reason bit / injured someone . The fact that it has bitten / injured someone (even if this is the first time), would in my mind make it a more dangerous dog than one that has not bitten/ injured someone. Of course this may end up being an isolated incident and I'm sure in view of the actions reportedly taken , we all hope it is, however what if there is a second time and it's outcome is much worse. How many more instances are needed on any level before dog owners are made seriously responsible for the control of their animals and understand the way dogs behave before they are allowed to own one. As you say this incident is not comparable with the other sad instances of the recent past ( there are many others too), but I'm sure if you read some reports of serious dog attacks, you will find many instances of owners saying " I dont understand it , he was always very gentle". You don't need to be a dog owner to know that dogs can change without warning, so in my opinion (which is all I am giving) It's not about whether I like or dislike dogs, its whether a dog that injures someone with its teeth should be classed as dangerous or not. I am for the former, and for the same reason that dogs can change without warning I also don't think it is right for a child to be left in control of a dog , either in a house or outside. The dog didn't make a mistake as it was being a dog, the owner made a mistake and often once is all it takes.
[quote][p][bold]ladysal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rovers til I cry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ladysal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rovers til I cry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]adamdesk[/bold] wrote: hah first comes the postman being bitten and then instead of taking action against the owner the police given them voucher? I think we tax payers are here to help such criminals. We just heard news about toddler being mauled to death are police looking forward to case number 2[/p][/quote]Couldn't agree more. If the dog was too strong for a child to hold whilst its on a lead, how would a child fend off the dog in an attack. The owner thinks the dog is safe but the mere fact that the dog has bitten someone in the street should indicate it is dangerous. I wouldn't trust this dog around my kids because if it has shown it can be aggressive once it will probably do it again.[/p][/quote]Did anyone actually read the article? The owner states categorically that the child shouldn't have taken the dog out on its lead. Yes, maybe the dog needs more training, yes it should be neutuered. Yes, it should also be impossible for the child to get out of the house with the dog. However, if the postman reacted by putting up an arm, then the dog may have jumped up for a number of different reasons. And unfortunately, some dogs jump with their mouth open, which yes, means that their action can be construed as "biting". After all, the postman received "a bite" to its arm according to the police, which says to me that this dog was not actively attacking the postie. If it had been, then I'm sure he / she would have received more than one bite, unless they were a chapmion sprinter. How do I know this? Becuase my 16 year old dog, who has never actively bitten anyone, does it. We know not to put an arm close to her when she is excited, because panting and jumping may cause unwanted results.[/p][/quote]Clearly if you think the outcome of this is OK and if you know that your dog could injure someone if they got too close to it, then you have responsibility issues too. You should not assume that members of the public would know how to react around your dog. As a responsible dog owner you should make sure they don't have to! Yes the child should not have taken the dog,but did, and once outside the child had no control over the dog and it harmed someone. All the rest of the facts are then irrelevant. We should not have to wait until the next time the child takes the dog when he shouldn't and it harms someone else, perhaps another child, before proper actions are taken.[/p][/quote]No, I don't think its ok, and in 16 years, my dog has done it just once. Becuase when we realised that this could be an issue, we took steps to stop it happening again. Where did I say that I would assume that members of the public should know how to behave around my dog or any dog? What I was trying to say, and which you have missed, was that the dog may not have been intentionally biting, although the result was the same, because they have teeth..... What it doesn't do, is show that the dog was intentionally aggressive. Also, where did I say it was ok: quite clearly it isn't. However, it doesn't on the information provided, seem to be the same situation as the recent cases of people being mauled to death by dogs who were completely out of control. I'm guessing you don't have dogs and probably don't particularly like them. You will find that there are very few dogs that can be handled safely by any five year old. Do we therefore ban dogs from households with children under say ten because the kids can't handle it? This was an accident that should never have happened. The dog didn't "maul" anyone and sometimes, you do have to look at more than just what the dog did. Yes, it drew blood. The hamster I had as a kid did that more than once to me. Should hamsters be banned because they bite? I very much doubt the kid will get a second chance to disobey its parent. I'M SHOUTING NOW, BECASUE I THINK THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT BIT: There are degrees of culpability and you cannot possibly put this on the same point in the scale as the death of those two poor babies. Those dogs were determined to eat those children. This dog made a mistake (yes, dogs can muck things up just as well as humans). God forbid we all get punished for those.[/p][/quote]Come on, re-read what you have written (twice). I could see your point of view until you got to the Hamsters bit ? I may be wrong but I don't think I have ever read a report of a hamster savaging anyone. Granted we may not actually know all of the facts here , but what we can read above is that, the owner was busy elsewhere and had not made sure that her child could not take a dog, which was too strong for him to control, outside. Once out side the dog for what ever reason bit / injured someone . The fact that it has bitten / injured someone (even if this is the first time), would in my mind make it a more dangerous dog than one that has not bitten/ injured someone. Of course this may end up being an isolated incident and I'm sure in view of the actions reportedly taken , we all hope it is, however what if there is a second time and it's outcome is much worse. How many more instances are needed on any level before dog owners are made seriously responsible for the control of their animals and understand the way dogs behave before they are allowed to own one. As you say this incident is not comparable with the other sad instances of the recent past ( there are many others too), but I'm sure if you read some reports of serious dog attacks, you will find many instances of owners saying " I dont understand it , he was always very gentle". You don't need to be a dog owner to know that dogs can change without warning, so in my opinion (which is all I am giving) It's not about whether I like or dislike dogs, its whether a dog that injures someone with its teeth should be classed as dangerous or not. I am for the former, and for the same reason that dogs can change without warning I also don't think it is right for a child to be left in control of a dog , either in a house or outside. The dog didn't make a mistake as it was being a dog, the owner made a mistake and often once is all it takes. Rovers til I cry
  • Score: 11

2:52pm Thu 27 Feb 14

ladysal says...

Rovers til I cry wrote:
ladysal wrote:
Rovers til I cry wrote:
ladysal wrote:
Rovers til I cry wrote:
adamdesk wrote:
hah first comes the postman being bitten and then instead of taking action against the owner the police given them voucher?
I think we tax payers are here to help such criminals.
We just heard news about toddler being mauled to death are police looking forward to case number 2
Couldn't agree more. If the dog was too strong for a child to hold whilst its on a lead, how would a child fend off the dog in an attack. The owner thinks the dog is safe but the mere fact that the dog has bitten someone in the street should indicate it is dangerous. I wouldn't trust this dog around my kids because if it has shown it can be aggressive once it will probably do it again.
Did anyone actually read the article? The owner states categorically that the child shouldn't have taken the dog out on its lead. Yes, maybe the dog needs more training, yes it should be neutuered. Yes, it should also be impossible for the child to get out of the house with the dog. However, if the postman reacted by putting up an arm, then the dog may have jumped up for a number of different reasons. And unfortunately, some dogs jump with their mouth open, which yes, means that their action can be construed as "biting". After all, the postman received "a bite" to its arm according to the police, which says to me that this dog was not actively attacking the postie. If it had been, then I'm sure he / she would have received more than one bite, unless they were a chapmion sprinter. How do I know this? Becuase my 16 year old dog, who has never actively bitten anyone, does it. We know not to put an arm close to her when she is excited, because panting and jumping may cause unwanted results.
Clearly if you think the outcome of this is OK and if you know that your dog could injure someone if they got too close to it, then you have responsibility issues too. You should not assume that members of the public would know how to react around your dog. As a responsible dog owner you should make sure they don't have to!
Yes the child should not have taken the dog,but did, and once outside the child had no control over the dog and it harmed someone. All the rest of the facts are then irrelevant. We should not have to wait until the next time the child takes the dog when he shouldn't and it harms someone else, perhaps another child, before proper actions are taken.
No, I don't think its ok, and in 16 years, my dog has done it just once. Becuase when we realised that this could be an issue, we took steps to stop it happening again.
Where did I say that I would assume that members of the public should know how to behave around my dog or any dog? What I was trying to say, and which you have missed, was that the dog may not have been intentionally biting, although the result was the same, because they have teeth..... What it doesn't do, is show that the dog was intentionally aggressive.
Also, where did I say it was ok: quite clearly it isn't. However, it doesn't on the information provided, seem to be the same situation as the recent cases of people being mauled to death by dogs who were completely out of control.
I'm guessing you don't have dogs and probably don't particularly like them. You will find that there are very few dogs that can be handled safely by any five year old. Do we therefore ban dogs from households with children under say ten because the kids can't handle it?
This was an accident that should never have happened. The dog didn't "maul" anyone and sometimes, you do have to look at more than just what the dog did. Yes, it drew blood. The hamster I had as a kid did that more than once to me. Should hamsters be banned because they bite? I very much doubt the kid will get a second chance to disobey its parent.
I'M SHOUTING NOW, BECASUE I THINK THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT BIT:
There are degrees of culpability and you cannot possibly put this on the same point in the scale as the death of those two poor babies. Those dogs were determined to eat those children. This dog made a mistake (yes, dogs can muck things up just as well as humans). God forbid we all get punished for those.
Come on, re-read what you have written (twice). I could see your point of view until you got to the Hamsters bit ? I may be wrong but I don't think I have ever read a report of a hamster savaging anyone. Granted we may not actually know all of the facts here , but what we can read above is that, the owner was busy elsewhere and had not made sure that her child could not take a dog, which was too strong for him to control, outside. Once out side the dog for what ever reason bit / injured someone . The fact that it has bitten / injured someone (even if this is the first time), would in my mind make it a more dangerous dog than one that has not bitten/ injured someone. Of course this may end up being an isolated incident and I'm sure in view of the actions reportedly taken , we all hope it is, however what if there is a second time and it's outcome is much worse. How many more instances are needed on any level before dog owners are made seriously responsible for the control of their animals and understand the way dogs behave before they are allowed to own one. As you say this incident is not comparable with the other sad instances of the recent past ( there are many others too), but I'm sure if you read some reports of serious dog attacks, you will find many instances of owners saying " I dont understand it , he was always very gentle". You don't need to be a dog owner to know that dogs can change without warning, so in my opinion (which is all I am giving) It's not about whether I like or dislike dogs, its whether a dog that injures someone with its teeth should be classed as dangerous or not. I am for the former, and for the same reason that dogs can change without warning I also don't think it is right for a child to be left in control of a dog , either in a house or outside. The dog didn't make a mistake as it was being a dog, the owner made a mistake and often once is all it takes.
We can argue about this all day and all night. I honestly don't think that dog "bit" anyone, for reasons I explained in my first post. From what is written in this article, in my opinion, you can equate what it did with a small child jumping up to hug its mother and giving her a black eye - yes, that happens too! Unfortunately, because it involves a dog, everyone starts screaming dangerous and shouldn't be allowed around children / other people.
[quote][p][bold]Rovers til I cry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ladysal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rovers til I cry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ladysal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rovers til I cry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]adamdesk[/bold] wrote: hah first comes the postman being bitten and then instead of taking action against the owner the police given them voucher? I think we tax payers are here to help such criminals. We just heard news about toddler being mauled to death are police looking forward to case number 2[/p][/quote]Couldn't agree more. If the dog was too strong for a child to hold whilst its on a lead, how would a child fend off the dog in an attack. The owner thinks the dog is safe but the mere fact that the dog has bitten someone in the street should indicate it is dangerous. I wouldn't trust this dog around my kids because if it has shown it can be aggressive once it will probably do it again.[/p][/quote]Did anyone actually read the article? The owner states categorically that the child shouldn't have taken the dog out on its lead. Yes, maybe the dog needs more training, yes it should be neutuered. Yes, it should also be impossible for the child to get out of the house with the dog. However, if the postman reacted by putting up an arm, then the dog may have jumped up for a number of different reasons. And unfortunately, some dogs jump with their mouth open, which yes, means that their action can be construed as "biting". After all, the postman received "a bite" to its arm according to the police, which says to me that this dog was not actively attacking the postie. If it had been, then I'm sure he / she would have received more than one bite, unless they were a chapmion sprinter. How do I know this? Becuase my 16 year old dog, who has never actively bitten anyone, does it. We know not to put an arm close to her when she is excited, because panting and jumping may cause unwanted results.[/p][/quote]Clearly if you think the outcome of this is OK and if you know that your dog could injure someone if they got too close to it, then you have responsibility issues too. You should not assume that members of the public would know how to react around your dog. As a responsible dog owner you should make sure they don't have to! Yes the child should not have taken the dog,but did, and once outside the child had no control over the dog and it harmed someone. All the rest of the facts are then irrelevant. We should not have to wait until the next time the child takes the dog when he shouldn't and it harms someone else, perhaps another child, before proper actions are taken.[/p][/quote]No, I don't think its ok, and in 16 years, my dog has done it just once. Becuase when we realised that this could be an issue, we took steps to stop it happening again. Where did I say that I would assume that members of the public should know how to behave around my dog or any dog? What I was trying to say, and which you have missed, was that the dog may not have been intentionally biting, although the result was the same, because they have teeth..... What it doesn't do, is show that the dog was intentionally aggressive. Also, where did I say it was ok: quite clearly it isn't. However, it doesn't on the information provided, seem to be the same situation as the recent cases of people being mauled to death by dogs who were completely out of control. I'm guessing you don't have dogs and probably don't particularly like them. You will find that there are very few dogs that can be handled safely by any five year old. Do we therefore ban dogs from households with children under say ten because the kids can't handle it? This was an accident that should never have happened. The dog didn't "maul" anyone and sometimes, you do have to look at more than just what the dog did. Yes, it drew blood. The hamster I had as a kid did that more than once to me. Should hamsters be banned because they bite? I very much doubt the kid will get a second chance to disobey its parent. I'M SHOUTING NOW, BECASUE I THINK THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT BIT: There are degrees of culpability and you cannot possibly put this on the same point in the scale as the death of those two poor babies. Those dogs were determined to eat those children. This dog made a mistake (yes, dogs can muck things up just as well as humans). God forbid we all get punished for those.[/p][/quote]Come on, re-read what you have written (twice). I could see your point of view until you got to the Hamsters bit ? I may be wrong but I don't think I have ever read a report of a hamster savaging anyone. Granted we may not actually know all of the facts here , but what we can read above is that, the owner was busy elsewhere and had not made sure that her child could not take a dog, which was too strong for him to control, outside. Once out side the dog for what ever reason bit / injured someone . The fact that it has bitten / injured someone (even if this is the first time), would in my mind make it a more dangerous dog than one that has not bitten/ injured someone. Of course this may end up being an isolated incident and I'm sure in view of the actions reportedly taken , we all hope it is, however what if there is a second time and it's outcome is much worse. How many more instances are needed on any level before dog owners are made seriously responsible for the control of their animals and understand the way dogs behave before they are allowed to own one. As you say this incident is not comparable with the other sad instances of the recent past ( there are many others too), but I'm sure if you read some reports of serious dog attacks, you will find many instances of owners saying " I dont understand it , he was always very gentle". You don't need to be a dog owner to know that dogs can change without warning, so in my opinion (which is all I am giving) It's not about whether I like or dislike dogs, its whether a dog that injures someone with its teeth should be classed as dangerous or not. I am for the former, and for the same reason that dogs can change without warning I also don't think it is right for a child to be left in control of a dog , either in a house or outside. The dog didn't make a mistake as it was being a dog, the owner made a mistake and often once is all it takes.[/p][/quote]We can argue about this all day and all night. I honestly don't think that dog "bit" anyone, for reasons I explained in my first post. From what is written in this article, in my opinion, you can equate what it did with a small child jumping up to hug its mother and giving her a black eye - yes, that happens too! Unfortunately, because it involves a dog, everyone starts screaming dangerous and shouldn't be allowed around children / other people. ladysal
  • Score: -8

3:49pm Thu 27 Feb 14

woolywords says...

@burner,
I was being sarcastic, as neither had spotted the patently obvious.
Long claws on a dog can cause difficulty in walking properly, may damage anything (including furniture) or anyone, that they come into contact with and are liable to split or break thus becoming infected.
Hopefully, this will be noticed at the Vets in his pre-op exam and remedied.
@burner, I was being sarcastic, as neither had spotted the patently obvious. Long claws on a dog can cause difficulty in walking properly, may damage anything (including furniture) or anyone, that they come into contact with and are liable to split or break thus becoming infected. Hopefully, this will be noticed at the Vets in his pre-op exam and remedied. woolywords
  • Score: 4

4:27pm Thu 27 Feb 14

burner says...

I know it was sarcasm . . it was a witty reply !
I know it was sarcasm . . it was a witty reply ! burner
  • Score: 0

4:37pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Bluenose_in_exile says...

WHY do people feel they have to have these crappy dogs ?
Its always the scumbags who you see out on the streets with them.
Pond Life !
WHY do people feel they have to have these crappy dogs ? Its always the scumbags who you see out on the streets with them. Pond Life ! Bluenose_in_exile
  • Score: 10

5:03pm Thu 27 Feb 14

site supervisor says...

Did it bit or nip...I am sure the postman would have rung the police and they would have had the dog put to sleep if bit.

DOG FOULING the one I don't get poo bag cheap as chips...and some pick it up and then hang the bags on tree bushy ect...
Did it bit or nip...I am sure the postman would have rung the police and they would have had the dog put to sleep if bit. DOG FOULING the one I don't get poo bag cheap as chips...and some pick it up and then hang the bags on tree bushy ect... site supervisor
  • Score: 0

5:11pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Darreners make sense says...

mmickk wrote:
In circumstances like this would it not be better to force the dog owner to put a postbox on the property boundary like they have in the USA. The dog would only have attacked because the postie had been on the property. Yet any sensible dog owner would have it put down once they have bitten they will again. And if these people do not get rid it just proves there kids are just a cash cow and do people not learn someone left her to look after a baby!! And as for jack straw what does he know it was him and his cronies that decided this was not a dangerous dog when they banned breeds and updated the act.
And how do couriers deliver parcels then. Throw it over the gate because the post box is too small?
[quote][p][bold]mmickk[/bold] wrote: In circumstances like this would it not be better to force the dog owner to put a postbox on the property boundary like they have in the USA. The dog would only have attacked because the postie had been on the property. Yet any sensible dog owner would have it put down once they have bitten they will again. And if these people do not get rid it just proves there kids are just a cash cow and do people not learn someone left her to look after a baby!! And as for jack straw what does he know it was him and his cronies that decided this was not a dangerous dog when they banned breeds and updated the act.[/p][/quote]And how do couriers deliver parcels then. Throw it over the gate because the post box is too small? Darreners make sense
  • Score: 2

5:19pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Darreners make sense says...

As a courier of small parcels, most of the time dogs are better than any door bell or door knocker. As long as they are secure.
I do get concerned with putting things through the letter boxes with dogs snatching at the letter boxes, it could be my fingers one day. Quite right they should stop delivering until they can be sure the dog is secured prior to delivery. I would consider stopping deliveries at any address where I think the dogs could be a safety concern. I would rather the customer not get their delivery than suffer a dog bite of any kind.
The responsibility is on the owner not the postman/courier or delivery person.
Certain breeds, banned or not should be subject to compulsory training with their owners included. Maybe bring back the dog licence, only available to owners who have done a dog training/handling course to know how to look after dogs properly.
As a courier of small parcels, most of the time dogs are better than any door bell or door knocker. As long as they are secure. I do get concerned with putting things through the letter boxes with dogs snatching at the letter boxes, it could be my fingers one day. Quite right they should stop delivering until they can be sure the dog is secured prior to delivery. I would consider stopping deliveries at any address where I think the dogs could be a safety concern. I would rather the customer not get their delivery than suffer a dog bite of any kind. The responsibility is on the owner not the postman/courier or delivery person. Certain breeds, banned or not should be subject to compulsory training with their owners included. Maybe bring back the dog licence, only available to owners who have done a dog training/handling course to know how to look after dogs properly. Darreners make sense
  • Score: 11

5:30pm Thu 27 Feb 14

mrcool says...

Another chav with another chav type dog. I agree with the post office. Also, note the owner states he was looking after a baby on the day it happened.....with this type of dog in the house? These people never learn. Lucky we are not reading about another poor child losing his/her life, just so that little mr chav can look "hard".
Another chav with another chav type dog. I agree with the post office. Also, note the owner states he was looking after a baby on the day it happened.....with this type of dog in the house? These people never learn. Lucky we are not reading about another poor child losing his/her life, just so that little mr chav can look "hard". mrcool
  • Score: 5

5:40pm Thu 27 Feb 14

kingbilly says...

GracesDad wrote:
Pass a new law that enforces all dogs to be muzzled when out in public!
does that apply to suerez as well,or what ever name they call the dirty ,scouser
[quote][p][bold]GracesDad[/bold] wrote: Pass a new law that enforces all dogs to be muzzled when out in public![/p][/quote]does that apply to suerez as well,or what ever name they call the dirty ,scouser kingbilly
  • Score: 0

5:40pm Thu 27 Feb 14

kingbilly says...

GracesDad wrote:
Pass a new law that enforces all dogs to be muzzled when out in public!
does that apply to suerez as well,or what ever name they call the dirty ,scouser
[quote][p][bold]GracesDad[/bold] wrote: Pass a new law that enforces all dogs to be muzzled when out in public![/p][/quote]does that apply to suerez as well,or what ever name they call the dirty ,scouser kingbilly
  • Score: 1

5:43pm Thu 27 Feb 14

phil kernot says...

What. A good idea that means that the owner gets grief off the whole st ,, brilliant who thought this up means maybe people will think about getting a big hard dog that thay can't control will think. Ist about the breed. , Good result. Lol .. :)
What. A good idea that means that the owner gets grief off the whole st ,, brilliant who thought this up means maybe people will think about getting a big hard dog that thay can't control will think. Ist about the breed. , Good result. Lol .. :) phil kernot
  • Score: 7

5:45pm Thu 27 Feb 14

kingbilly says...

kingbilly wrote:
GracesDad wrote:
Pass a new law that enforces all dogs to be muzzled when out in public!
does that apply to suerez as well,or what ever name they call the dirty ,scouser
maybe have his nuts chopped off
[quote][p][bold]kingbilly[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GracesDad[/bold] wrote: Pass a new law that enforces all dogs to be muzzled when out in public![/p][/quote]does that apply to suerez as well,or what ever name they call the dirty ,scouser[/p][/quote]maybe have his nuts chopped off kingbilly
  • Score: 0

6:06pm Thu 27 Feb 14

chegwin says...

Bluenose_in_exile wrote:
WHY do people feel they have to have these crappy dogs ?
Its always the scumbags who you see out on the streets with them.
Pond Life !
Seen plenty of dogs like these in feniscowles, which is supposed to be a decent area dam pond life everywhere and beechwood estate too!!
[quote][p][bold]Bluenose_in_exile[/bold] wrote: WHY do people feel they have to have these crappy dogs ? Its always the scumbags who you see out on the streets with them. Pond Life ![/p][/quote]Seen plenty of dogs like these in feniscowles, which is supposed to be a decent area dam pond life everywhere and beechwood estate too!! chegwin
  • Score: 7

6:11pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Just an observer says...

Good call by Post office.
Any dog that tastes blood will,want more & more irrelevant of breed.
Therefore any dog that bites any person, should be put down so not to do it again. Any body threatened by any dog can,take any evasive action to prevent such an attack, as this for your own protection.
Good call by Post office. Any dog that tastes blood will,want more & more irrelevant of breed. Therefore any dog that bites any person, should be put down so not to do it again. Any body threatened by any dog can,take any evasive action to prevent such an attack, as this for your own protection. Just an observer
  • Score: 4

6:59pm Thu 27 Feb 14

ghost of sceptic says...

GracesDad wrote:
Pass a new law that enforces all dogs to be muzzled when out in public!
I think Chavs, Councillors, Politicians, Hate preachers and Leftys should be muzzled. Poor Dogs.
[quote][p][bold]GracesDad[/bold] wrote: Pass a new law that enforces all dogs to be muzzled when out in public![/p][/quote]I think Chavs, Councillors, Politicians, Hate preachers and Leftys should be muzzled. Poor Dogs. ghost of sceptic
  • Score: 5

7:43pm Thu 27 Feb 14

elmo maniac says...

George Khan wrote:
Oh Dad of Grace, I blody agree
Why do these dog owners get blody puzzled?
When all dangerous dogs should be muzzled
That means the streets will be danger-free
And Postman Pat will be able to walk up and down
Any street or lane and despatch a delivery
There too many kuttas, I mean dogs in this town
It seems like a badge of the lower working classes
To have a dangerous mutt that can roam around
Many of these breeds are wonderful dogs. 1% of dogs in uk are probably dangerous so dont put them in the same category. Streets will never be danger free as there are more dangerous people out there than dogs. I.e. people being stabbed , attacked, ran over...
[quote][p][bold]George Khan[/bold] wrote: Oh Dad of Grace, I blody agree Why do these dog owners get blody puzzled? When all dangerous dogs should be muzzled That means the streets will be danger-free And Postman Pat will be able to walk up and down Any street or lane and despatch a delivery There too many kuttas, I mean dogs in this town It seems like a badge of the lower working classes To have a dangerous mutt that can roam around[/p][/quote]Many of these breeds are wonderful dogs. 1% of dogs in uk are probably dangerous so dont put them in the same category. Streets will never be danger free as there are more dangerous people out there than dogs. I.e. people being stabbed , attacked, ran over... elmo maniac
  • Score: 1

7:48pm Thu 27 Feb 14

hairy mary says...

Will I get a voucher and training if I bite a postie
Will I get a voucher and training if I bite a postie hairy mary
  • Score: 1

8:01pm Thu 27 Feb 14

hairy mary says...

A dog was going to bite me a long time ago I just stared it out after about half an hour we fell in love
A dog was going to bite me a long time ago I just stared it out after about half an hour we fell in love hairy mary
  • Score: -6

9:04pm Thu 27 Feb 14

You're Having a Laugh says...

Well, well well................
....................
....................
....................
...

Whilst I appreciate that it might be inconvenient for some members of the public not to receive their mail. It is also extremely inconvenient for employees of Royal Mail to suffer trauma, attend hospital, and end up taking time off work after being attacked by dogs, whilst trying to earn a living. Some other people and children in recent weeks have not been so lucky!!!

When the residents of Whitebirk estate have finished complaining that they are not receiving their mail, I would like to point out this is the 2nd postman who has been attacked in the last 10 days. The men were attacked on Worcester Road and Gloucester Road. For those of you who don't know the area, these streets run side by side.

These incidents are just not acceptable and it is about time these negligent people are brought to task. The lady who said she had nipped upstairs to tend to a baby........Really? A number of people witnessed your comments at the time.

The sooner you dog owners on Whitebirk (and around the country) get your act together, the quicker you will get your post, parcels, newspapers and junk mail.

I am sure every courier, newspaper and leaflet distributers in the country will agree. Otherwise I dread to think what we might be reading in the Telegraph in another couple of weeks???
Well, well well................ .................... .................... .................... ... Whilst I appreciate that it might be inconvenient for some members of the public not to receive their mail. It is also extremely inconvenient for employees of Royal Mail to suffer trauma, attend hospital, and end up taking time off work after being attacked by dogs, whilst trying to earn a living. Some other people and children in recent weeks have not been so lucky!!! When the residents of Whitebirk estate have finished complaining that they are not receiving their mail, I would like to point out this is the 2nd postman who has been attacked in the last 10 days. The men were attacked on Worcester Road and Gloucester Road. For those of you who don't know the area, these streets run side by side. These incidents are just not acceptable and it is about time these negligent people are brought to task. The lady who said she had nipped upstairs to tend to a baby........Really? A number of people witnessed your comments at the time. The sooner you dog owners on Whitebirk (and around the country) get your act together, the quicker you will get your post, parcels, newspapers and junk mail. I am sure every courier, newspaper and leaflet distributers in the country will agree. Otherwise I dread to think what we might be reading in the Telegraph in another couple of weeks??? You're Having a Laugh
  • Score: 16

9:10pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Darreners make sense says...

You're Having a Laugh wrote:
Well, well well................

....................

....................

....................

...

Whilst I appreciate that it might be inconvenient for some members of the public not to receive their mail. It is also extremely inconvenient for employees of Royal Mail to suffer trauma, attend hospital, and end up taking time off work after being attacked by dogs, whilst trying to earn a living. Some other people and children in recent weeks have not been so lucky!!!

When the residents of Whitebirk estate have finished complaining that they are not receiving their mail, I would like to point out this is the 2nd postman who has been attacked in the last 10 days. The men were attacked on Worcester Road and Gloucester Road. For those of you who don't know the area, these streets run side by side.

These incidents are just not acceptable and it is about time these negligent people are brought to task. The lady who said she had nipped upstairs to tend to a baby........Really? A number of people witnessed your comments at the time.

The sooner you dog owners on Whitebirk (and around the country) get your act together, the quicker you will get your post, parcels, newspapers and junk mail.

I am sure every courier, newspaper and leaflet distributers in the country will agree. Otherwise I dread to think what we might be reading in the Telegraph in another couple of weeks???
Absolutely bang on
[quote][p][bold]You're Having a Laugh[/bold] wrote: Well, well well................ .................... .................... .................... ... Whilst I appreciate that it might be inconvenient for some members of the public not to receive their mail. It is also extremely inconvenient for employees of Royal Mail to suffer trauma, attend hospital, and end up taking time off work after being attacked by dogs, whilst trying to earn a living. Some other people and children in recent weeks have not been so lucky!!! When the residents of Whitebirk estate have finished complaining that they are not receiving their mail, I would like to point out this is the 2nd postman who has been attacked in the last 10 days. The men were attacked on Worcester Road and Gloucester Road. For those of you who don't know the area, these streets run side by side. These incidents are just not acceptable and it is about time these negligent people are brought to task. The lady who said she had nipped upstairs to tend to a baby........Really? A number of people witnessed your comments at the time. The sooner you dog owners on Whitebirk (and around the country) get your act together, the quicker you will get your post, parcels, newspapers and junk mail. I am sure every courier, newspaper and leaflet distributers in the country will agree. Otherwise I dread to think what we might be reading in the Telegraph in another couple of weeks???[/p][/quote]Absolutely bang on Darreners make sense
  • Score: 7

9:10pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Darreners make sense says...

You're Having a Laugh wrote:
Well, well well................

....................

....................

....................

...

Whilst I appreciate that it might be inconvenient for some members of the public not to receive their mail. It is also extremely inconvenient for employees of Royal Mail to suffer trauma, attend hospital, and end up taking time off work after being attacked by dogs, whilst trying to earn a living. Some other people and children in recent weeks have not been so lucky!!!

When the residents of Whitebirk estate have finished complaining that they are not receiving their mail, I would like to point out this is the 2nd postman who has been attacked in the last 10 days. The men were attacked on Worcester Road and Gloucester Road. For those of you who don't know the area, these streets run side by side.

These incidents are just not acceptable and it is about time these negligent people are brought to task. The lady who said she had nipped upstairs to tend to a baby........Really? A number of people witnessed your comments at the time.

The sooner you dog owners on Whitebirk (and around the country) get your act together, the quicker you will get your post, parcels, newspapers and junk mail.

I am sure every courier, newspaper and leaflet distributers in the country will agree. Otherwise I dread to think what we might be reading in the Telegraph in another couple of weeks???
Absolutely bang on
[quote][p][bold]You're Having a Laugh[/bold] wrote: Well, well well................ .................... .................... .................... ... Whilst I appreciate that it might be inconvenient for some members of the public not to receive their mail. It is also extremely inconvenient for employees of Royal Mail to suffer trauma, attend hospital, and end up taking time off work after being attacked by dogs, whilst trying to earn a living. Some other people and children in recent weeks have not been so lucky!!! When the residents of Whitebirk estate have finished complaining that they are not receiving their mail, I would like to point out this is the 2nd postman who has been attacked in the last 10 days. The men were attacked on Worcester Road and Gloucester Road. For those of you who don't know the area, these streets run side by side. These incidents are just not acceptable and it is about time these negligent people are brought to task. The lady who said she had nipped upstairs to tend to a baby........Really? A number of people witnessed your comments at the time. The sooner you dog owners on Whitebirk (and around the country) get your act together, the quicker you will get your post, parcels, newspapers and junk mail. I am sure every courier, newspaper and leaflet distributers in the country will agree. Otherwise I dread to think what we might be reading in the Telegraph in another couple of weeks???[/p][/quote]Absolutely bang on Darreners make sense
  • Score: 5

9:14pm Thu 27 Feb 14

happycyclist says...

Why the hell should working people, who can't get down to the delivery office to collect their mail, have to suffer because of some idiot's dog?
Why the hell should working people, who can't get down to the delivery office to collect their mail, have to suffer because of some idiot's dog? happycyclist
  • Score: 1

9:27pm Thu 27 Feb 14

You're Having a Laugh says...

happycyclist wrote:
Why the hell should working people, who can't get down to the delivery office to collect their mail, have to suffer because of some idiot's dog?
Because my friend it is a safety issue. There are fences and gates missing and dogs can wander and roam at their leisure, free to sprint and attack someone across the street would you deliver letters on that street??????

I certainly wouldn't, and I don't blame any postman or woman who wouldn't either.
[quote][p][bold]happycyclist[/bold] wrote: Why the hell should working people, who can't get down to the delivery office to collect their mail, have to suffer because of some idiot's dog?[/p][/quote]Because my friend it is a safety issue. There are fences and gates missing and dogs can wander and roam at their leisure, free to sprint and attack someone across the street would you deliver letters on that street?????? I certainly wouldn't, and I don't blame any postman or woman who wouldn't either. You're Having a Laugh
  • Score: 13

9:38pm Thu 27 Feb 14

psch says...

Get together and sue the Post Office.

They have accepted payment and should fulfil the contract and they are acting in an irresponsible manner by withdrawing service from those who are not responsible.

If the law doesn't allow punitive damages to be awarded it should be changed
Get together and sue the Post Office. They have accepted payment and should fulfil the contract and they are acting in an irresponsible manner by withdrawing service from those who are not responsible. If the law doesn't allow punitive damages to be awarded it should be changed psch
  • Score: -9

10:04pm Thu 27 Feb 14

You're Having a Laugh says...

I walk to work and back every day through this estate and there are a number of gates and fences missing. I would suggest the housing providers should ensure fences and gates are in place Is that not part of their contract with their tennant? And the tennants duty to look after them? Should the housing provider not make their homes animal free as part of their contract. Surely this would help?

Just a little more food for thought in this debate?
I walk to work and back every day through this estate and there are a number of gates and fences missing. I would suggest the housing providers should ensure fences and gates are in place Is that not part of their contract with their tennant? And the tennants duty to look after them? Should the housing provider not make their homes animal free as part of their contract. Surely this would help? Just a little more food for thought in this debate? You're Having a Laugh
  • Score: -5

10:06pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Darreners make sense says...

psch wrote:
Get together and sue the Post Office.

They have accepted payment and should fulfil the contract and they are acting in an irresponsible manner by withdrawing service from those who are not responsible.

If the law doesn't allow punitive damages to be awarded it should be changed
Hope your conscience doesn't bite back when something serious happens because people like you put someone in harms way for no logical reason.
[quote][p][bold]psch[/bold] wrote: Get together and sue the Post Office. They have accepted payment and should fulfil the contract and they are acting in an irresponsible manner by withdrawing service from those who are not responsible. If the law doesn't allow punitive damages to be awarded it should be changed[/p][/quote]Hope your conscience doesn't bite back when something serious happens because people like you put someone in harms way for no logical reason. Darreners make sense
  • Score: 4

10:57pm Thu 27 Feb 14

Malthus says...

kingbilly wrote:
Dogs dont like postmen,thats simple,ok keep them under control,when postmen/women are around,then teach postmen to close gates after them,or fine the postmen for every gate left open,and give the money to the rspca
What an absolutely stupid trolling comment. I do not normally feed trolls but feel I have to in this instance.
[quote][p][bold]kingbilly[/bold] wrote: Dogs dont like postmen,thats simple,ok keep them under control,when postmen/women are around,then teach postmen to close gates after them,or fine the postmen for every gate left open,and give the money to the rspca[/p][/quote]What an absolutely stupid trolling comment. I do not normally feed trolls but feel I have to in this instance. Malthus
  • Score: 4

11:43pm Thu 27 Feb 14

RSPCA Supporter says...

The Royal Mail are a joke, I have dog and have placed a post box at the side of my door so they don't have to post through my door and risk getting bitten, not that my dogs bite but I'm not taking the risk, some of the non regular postal workers ignore the fact I have a post box and use my door, I've been to the postal delivery office to discuss this problem and been informed by a manager that they are aware I have dogs, apparently they have a book which is used to log addresses with dogs and the postman enters the information for any person new to the area is aware, if one of their workers gets bitten as a result of ignoring my box then they are liable not me as they should be more careful and take note of the addresses with dogs on premises
The Royal Mail are a joke, I have dog and have placed a post box at the side of my door so they don't have to post through my door and risk getting bitten, not that my dogs bite but I'm not taking the risk, some of the non regular postal workers ignore the fact I have a post box and use my door, I've been to the postal delivery office to discuss this problem and been informed by a manager that they are aware I have dogs, apparently they have a book which is used to log addresses with dogs and the postman enters the information for any person new to the area is aware, if one of their workers gets bitten as a result of ignoring my box then they are liable not me as they should be more careful and take note of the addresses with dogs on premises RSPCA Supporter
  • Score: 1

9:38am Fri 28 Feb 14

Postal tony says...

If a dog bites a member of the public, a postie or a child. The only people responsible are the owners. I've heard comments like "I'm sorry its never done that before", "it's ok, it doesn't bite". Well animals can be unpredictable, especially with strangers. The dog may not bite you the owner but it may bite me. I own dogs and would not allow them near strangers. If I have visitors I lock them away.
If I was delivering and saw a dog loose on the street, I would avoid the dog and do everything I could to stay safe.
Well done Royal Mail.
If a dog bites a member of the public, a postie or a child. The only people responsible are the owners. I've heard comments like "I'm sorry its never done that before", "it's ok, it doesn't bite". Well animals can be unpredictable, especially with strangers. The dog may not bite you the owner but it may bite me. I own dogs and would not allow them near strangers. If I have visitors I lock them away. If I was delivering and saw a dog loose on the street, I would avoid the dog and do everything I could to stay safe. Well done Royal Mail. Postal tony
  • Score: 10

10:44am Fri 28 Feb 14

kingbilly says...

Malthus wrote:
kingbilly wrote:
Dogs dont like postmen,thats simple,ok keep them under control,when postmen/women are around,then teach postmen to close gates after them,or fine the postmen for every gate left open,and give the money to the rspca
What an absolutely stupid trolling comment. I do not normally feed trolls but feel I have to in this instance.
so you think its ok for postmen to constantly leave gates open, for dogs to leave the garden,your so sick in the head,sack them instantly,or feed them to the trolls,if your hungry
[quote][p][bold]Malthus[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]kingbilly[/bold] wrote: Dogs dont like postmen,thats simple,ok keep them under control,when postmen/women are around,then teach postmen to close gates after them,or fine the postmen for every gate left open,and give the money to the rspca[/p][/quote]What an absolutely stupid trolling comment. I do not normally feed trolls but feel I have to in this instance.[/p][/quote]so you think its ok for postmen to constantly leave gates open, for dogs to leave the garden,your so sick in the head,sack them instantly,or feed them to the trolls,if your hungry kingbilly
  • Score: -2

10:49am Fri 28 Feb 14

kingbilly says...

You're Having a Laugh wrote:
I walk to work and back every day through this estate and there are a number of gates and fences missing. I would suggest the housing providers should ensure fences and gates are in place Is that not part of their contract with their tennant? And the tennants duty to look after them? Should the housing provider not make their homes animal free as part of their contract. Surely this would help?

Just a little more food for thought in this debate?
And the postmen leave the gates open,whats the point,i would be happy to pick my own letters up,rather than find my dog under a car,after these inconsiderate postmen let them loose
[quote][p][bold]You're Having a Laugh[/bold] wrote: I walk to work and back every day through this estate and there are a number of gates and fences missing. I would suggest the housing providers should ensure fences and gates are in place Is that not part of their contract with their tennant? And the tennants duty to look after them? Should the housing provider not make their homes animal free as part of their contract. Surely this would help? Just a little more food for thought in this debate?[/p][/quote]And the postmen leave the gates open,whats the point,i would be happy to pick my own letters up,rather than find my dog under a car,after these inconsiderate postmen let them loose kingbilly
  • Score: -7

12:30pm Sat 1 Mar 14

j007brooks says...

Postal workers who fail to deliver mail to who it is addressed to should, under current existing laws, be prosecuted and jailed. It is a criminal offence not to deliver the mail.
Postal workers who fail to deliver mail to who it is addressed to should, under current existing laws, be prosecuted and jailed. It is a criminal offence not to deliver the mail. j007brooks
  • Score: 1

2:02pm Sat 1 Mar 14

shirtbox says...

All social housing should have a no dogs allowed policy. End of problems.Practically all children attacked and killed or injured by dogs live in, or were in social housing,what does this tell us?
All social housing should have a no dogs allowed policy. End of problems.Practically all children attacked and killed or injured by dogs live in, or were in social housing,what does this tell us? shirtbox
  • Score: -4

10:36pm Sat 1 Mar 14

You're Having a Laugh says...

kingbilly wrote:
You're Having a Laugh wrote:
I walk to work and back every day through this estate and there are a number of gates and fences missing. I would suggest the housing providers should ensure fences and gates are in place Is that not part of their contract with their tennant? And the tennants duty to look after them? Should the housing provider not make their homes animal free as part of their contract. Surely this would help?

Just a little more food for thought in this debate?
And the postmen leave the gates open,whats the point,i would be happy to pick my own letters up,rather than find my dog under a car,after these inconsiderate postmen let them loose
You're missing the point!!!

There are homes without gates and fences on this particular road, so any animal is free to walk, run or attack people or even end up under a car!

So are you saying you don't want your dog to be run over but you're happy for two postmen to be attacked in 10 days of each other on two streets that lie next to each other?

These two postmen did not let the dogs loose, one was attacked in the owners front garden when the dog who was not secured shot out from the back garden and attacked him and the other was on the opposite side of the road, when the dog dragged a child from his own property across a road to attack him. Not once or twice, but was still trying to attack him when it;s owner arrived.

No mention of leaving a gate open!!!

Stop making excuses both owners are in the wrong and should be made accountable.
[quote][p][bold]kingbilly[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]You're Having a Laugh[/bold] wrote: I walk to work and back every day through this estate and there are a number of gates and fences missing. I would suggest the housing providers should ensure fences and gates are in place Is that not part of their contract with their tennant? And the tennants duty to look after them? Should the housing provider not make their homes animal free as part of their contract. Surely this would help? Just a little more food for thought in this debate?[/p][/quote]And the postmen leave the gates open,whats the point,i would be happy to pick my own letters up,rather than find my dog under a car,after these inconsiderate postmen let them loose[/p][/quote]You're missing the point!!! There are homes without gates and fences on this particular road, so any animal is free to walk, run or attack people or even end up under a car! So are you saying you don't want your dog to be run over but you're happy for two postmen to be attacked in 10 days of each other on two streets that lie next to each other? These two postmen did not let the dogs loose, one was attacked in the owners front garden when the dog who was not secured shot out from the back garden and attacked him and the other was on the opposite side of the road, when the dog dragged a child from his own property across a road to attack him. Not once or twice, but was still trying to attack him when it;s owner arrived. No mention of leaving a gate open!!! Stop making excuses both owners are in the wrong and should be made accountable. You're Having a Laugh
  • Score: 1

1:24am Sun 2 Mar 14

ROVERS1875 says...

Most dogs will protect their 'home turf' and 'family'.. Its the owners who should control the dog when they know a delivery person is coming or likely to visit. I am a dog owner and the only time my dog barks is when someone is outside our house being known ie noisy. Protective instincts kick in. Never take it out of them. Unfortunately posties being bit by dogs has been a common every day joke for decades and was accepted as a hazard of the job. local rags made everything from a bit of a slap to tellling someone to f off headlines.
I am also a delivery driver as such for 14 years in different types of home delivery/engineering and also become uneasy when a dog is barking constantly at me. I know arguments from both sides of the fence, literally.
Most dogs will protect their 'home turf' and 'family'.. Its the owners who should control the dog when they know a delivery person is coming or likely to visit. I am a dog owner and the only time my dog barks is when someone is outside our house being known ie noisy. Protective instincts kick in. Never take it out of them. Unfortunately posties being bit by dogs has been a common every day joke for decades and was accepted as a hazard of the job. local rags made everything from a bit of a slap to tellling someone to f off headlines. I am also a delivery driver as such for 14 years in different types of home delivery/engineering and also become uneasy when a dog is barking constantly at me. I know arguments from both sides of the fence, literally. ROVERS1875
  • Score: 1

1:39am Sun 2 Mar 14

ROVERS1875 says...

You will find alot of dog 'treat' food suppliers that actually sell a big roasted treat bone that resembles a giant calf going under the name of .... i kid you not a 'postmans leg'. Dogs have chased posties since the day the Queens service began operation.
You will find alot of dog 'treat' food suppliers that actually sell a big roasted treat bone that resembles a giant calf going under the name of .... i kid you not a 'postmans leg'. Dogs have chased posties since the day the Queens service began operation. ROVERS1875
  • Score: 0

6:50pm Wed 5 Mar 14

doomchanter says...

shirtbox wrote:
All social housing should have a no dogs allowed policy. End of problems.Practically all children attacked and killed or injured by dogs live in, or were in social housing,what does this tell us?
It tells me that you are a bulls**t artist who comes on forums with statistics that are made up.
If they are not a figment of your imagination then please reveal the source of your data and I will post an apology.
[quote][p][bold]shirtbox[/bold] wrote: All social housing should have a no dogs allowed policy. End of problems.Practically all children attacked and killed or injured by dogs live in, or were in social housing,what does this tell us?[/p][/quote]It tells me that you are a bulls**t artist who comes on forums with statistics that are made up. If they are not a figment of your imagination then please reveal the source of your data and I will post an apology. doomchanter
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

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