Quote:

Pitbull owner whose crazed dog savaged five police officers wins legal appeal because THEY let it out of his house during raid

Did the Appeals Court get this right?

I don't think so.

The man should not have had an animal in the house that had the potential to be such a threat to human life. It doesn't matter that it was the police who opened the door.

Once again we witness the judiciary getting it badly wrong and making a mockery of commonsense.

link

There's a poll.

Quite simply, the dog owner should have had the dog under control. From what I can gather the dog was a known vicious animal, therefore I would have thought the search warrant would have been executed with suitable back-up, with an armed officer present.

that pretty horrific how would the police know it was a mad pitbull???...

I guess they dont have laws in  England about owing such a dangerous animal.


did they say how you stop an animal escaping once you have bashed the front door down????

it would help in future raids to know how to do that I am sure. ::) ::)

maybe arm the cops just in case remember cops do not carry guns over there..

cods wrote on Dec 21^st, 2013 at 8:01am:

that pretty horrific how would the police know it was a mad pitbull???... I guess they dont have laws in  England about owing such a dangerous animal. did they say how you stop an animal escaping once you have bashed the front door down???? it would help in future raids to know how to do that I am sure. ::) ::) maybe arm the cops just in case remember cops do not carry guns over there..

They have had banned breed laws "over there" far longer than they have here, but not everybody complies with the law, just like here. These Officers were not specialist armed response or dog handlers, and I suspect that they were not made aware of the dangerous dog. Australian police are far from perfect, and also operate on occasion whilst not having proper situational awareness.

I think they got it right. WHy should he be convicted of not controlling a dangerous dog? He had the dog under control, it was locked up. It was the cops who let it out. The dog attacked strangers on it's property. Thats what guard dogs do. To expect the dog to not defend itself or it's 'pack' is madness.

John Smith wrote on Dec 21^st, 2013 at 9:13am:

I think they got it right. WHy should he be convicted of not controlling a dangerous dog? He had the dog under control, it was locked up. It was the cops who let it out. The dog attacked strangers on it's property. Thats what guard dogs do. To expect the dog to not defend itself or it's 'pack' is madness.

Why am I not at all surprised that you would take that path señora. They had every right to go onto and enter "his property" to execute a legal search. The matter of his dog is without doubt a breach of the Dangerous Dogs' Act which stipulates that if  a dog is deemed dangerous under the Act whether it's in your house or not the owner is still in breaking the law. Therefore the dog and it's owner should have suffered the consequences. The police erred in judgement; they should have had an armed response unit there and shot the smacking dog the moment it showed aggression!

Incidentally, this dog was being territorial not defending a pack, the owner wasn't present at the time.  Also, I have no doubt that this dog was made aggressive by the scumbag who owned it. I do not blame the dog, I blame the piece of sh_t who owns it!

viewpoint wrote on Dec 21^st, 2013 at 10:25am:

John Smith wrote on Dec 21st, 2013 at 9:13am: I think they got it right. WHy should he be convicted of not controlling a dangerous dog? He had the dog under control, it was locked up. It was the cops who let it out. The dog attacked strangers on it's property. Thats what guard dogs do. To expect the dog to not defend itself or it's 'pack' is madness. Why am I not at all surprised that you would take that path señora. They had every right to go onto and enter "his property" to execute a legal search. The matter of his dog is without doubt a breach of the Dangerous Dogs' Act which stipulates that if  a dog is deemed dangerous under the Act whether it's in your house or not the owner is still in breaking the law. Therefore the dog and it's owner should have suffered the consequences. The police erred in judgement; they should have had an armed response unit there and shot the smacking dog the moment it showed aggression! Incidentally, this dog was being territorial not defending a pack, the owner wasn't present at the time.  Also, I have no doubt that this dog was made aggressive by the scumbag who owned it. I do not blame the dog, I blame the piece of sh_t who owns it!

Yes, they have a right to enter, but they have a responsibility to do so safely.

If they want to examine a vat of toxins in case someone has hidden something illegal in there, do they just dump the contents into the storm water drain?? No, they make sure the contents do not contaminate anything. Its the same with the dog. They have to make sure he does not get out and endanger innocent passers by.

viewpoint wrote on Dec 21^st, 2013 at 10:25am:

The matter of his dog is without doubt a breach of the Dangerous Dogs' Act

fine, then capture the dog and do what you will with it.  ... you don't let it out. If a person is deemed a danger to society do cops just walk into jail and leave to doors open for prisoners to escape?

Your argument is nonsense. These are police officers doing a legal search not smacking dog catchers. What would your view of this be if this dangerous dog just happened to "get out" and savage a child? This dog savaged three police officers, watch the video (which was out a while ago). The owner was a known criminal.

The mistake they made was not sending an armed officer in the first place, or at least an experienced dog handler who would have had protective equipment in case the dog attacked.

The owner should have been jailed and the dog destroyed.....no smacking question!

viewpoint wrote on Dec 21^st, 2013 at 11:00am:

The mistake they made was not sending an armed officer in the first place, or at least an experienced dog handler who would have had protective equipment in case the dog attacked.

Police procedures are so touchy-feely under the UK's socialist government that not even a single taser was taken to 'pacify' this suspect if be became a little, er. 'proactive'.


viewpoint wrote on Dec 21^st, 2013 at 11:00am:

The owner should have been jailed and the dog destroyed.....no smacking question!

The Taliban would have known how to deal with this situation.

Lord Herbert wrote on Dec 21^st, 2013 at 11:10am:

viewpoint wrote on Dec 21st, 2013 at 11:00am: The mistake they made was not sending an armed officer in the first place, or at least an experienced dog handler who would have had protective equipment in case the dog attacked. Police procedures are so touchy-feely under the UK's socialist government that not even a single taser was taken to 'pacify' this suspect if be became a little, er. 'proactive'. viewpoint wrote on Dec 21st, 2013 at 11:00am: The owner should have been jailed and the dog destroyed.....no smacking question! The Taliban would have known how to deal with this situation.

Herbert, it's a Tory government nowadays, but you're not wrong with the touchy-feely attitude. It was bad planning by the Officer in change. But BS from people who have no knowledge of the situation is absolute nonsense.
They have absolutely no experience or knowledge of this type of operation. They would never be in a position of risk, never place themselves in danger, and obviously never think about the consequences of keeping a vicious animal like this. They talk through their wishy-washy arses, and typically never consider the three officers injured by this animal, or the very real possibility of a child or children coming into contact with this dog, or even consider the dire consequences which would undoubtably result.

The dog was just doing it's job - protecting the house from burglars.

A dog can't tell the difference between a burglar & a cop.

viewpoint wrote on Dec 21^st, 2013 at 11:18am:

Herbert, it's a Tory government nowadays,

Please! I'm sensitive to pain.

As a 'Tory' government it's even more leftwing than the Labour Party of the '50s.

These 'Tories' have long since sold their soul to political correctness, European courts deciding the outcome of British courts, the European Parliament that dictates to Britain how many and what migrants it should accept, etc etc.

There's absolutely nothing left in British politics that even remotely resembles the sort of Conservative government that Churchill presided over.

It all went pear-shaped when they turned on Welshman Enoch Powell for daring to suggest that Britain should be preserved for the British, and not become a migrant destination for people whose race and religion would turn the British homeland into a de facto colony for indissoluble aliens.

viewpoint wrote on Dec 21^st, 2013 at 11:00am:

Your argument is nonsense. These are police officers doing a legal search not smacking dog catchers

police officers duties vary and include all sorts of duties, dealing with an aggressive dog is one of them.
viewpoint wrote on Dec 21^st, 2013 at 11:00am:

What would your view of this be if this dangerous dog just happened to "get out" and savage a child?

shoot the dog and the owner


viewpoint wrote on Dec 21^st, 2013 at 11:00am:

This dog savaged three police officers,

If your dumb enough to jump into the lions den, don't complain when the lion bites you.  He savaged them because they let him out.


viewpoint wrote on Dec 21^st, 2013 at 11:00am:

The mistake they made was not sending an armed officer in the first place, or at least an experienced dog handler who would have had protective equipment in case the dog attacked

Hooray, finally he gets it. Welcome to the real world. Thats about what i said originally. They should have dealt with the dog, even if it meant shooting it, rather than let if out and then charge the owner because his dog got out.

John Smith wrote on Dec 21^st, 2013 at 2:02pm:

viewpoint wrote on Dec 21st, 2013 at 11:00am: Your argument is nonsense. These are police officers doing a legal search not smacking dog catchers police officers duties vary and include all sorts of duties, dealing with an aggressive dog is one of them. I was in the Police Force for twenty two years so I am well aware of their duties, and unless the Officer sees a direct threat to a member of the public, the responsibility for dangerous dogs belongs to the local council.....genius! viewpoint wrote on Dec 21st, 2013 at 11:00am: What would your view of this be if this dangerous dog just happened to "get out" and savage a child? shoot the dog and the owner Do you mean you would do the shooting? Because then you would have to be arrested, so you would be the criminal.....Einstein! viewpoint wrote on Dec 21st, 2013 at 11:00am: This dog savaged three police officers, If your dumb enough to jump into the lions den, don't complain when the lion bites you.  He savaged them because they let him out. Do you mean if you are doing your duty and are attacked by a banned vicious dog, you are encouraging the attack? I know you would not be in that situation because you are not a Police Officer and by the sounds of it, would never get to be one. viewpoint wrote on Dec 21st, 2013 at 11:00am: The mistake they made was not sending an armed officer in the first place, or at least an experienced dog handler who would have had protective equipment in case the dog attacked Hooray, finally he gets it. Welcome to the real world. Thats about what i said originally. They should have dealt with the dog, even if it meant shooting it, rather than let if out and then charge the owner because his dog got out.

No, you said they let the dog out so the jury was right in letting the owner off, despite five officers being injured, three quite seriously.

FYI.....I was a dog handler/Home Office Instructor for seventeen of those years........

This is an adult's arm after a pit bull has finished with it, imagine a child being attacked:
http://www.trauma.org/images/image_library/11178666085Pitbull_Bite_3.JPG

viewpoint wrote on Dec 21^st, 2013 at 3:33pm:

I was in the Police Force for twenty two years so I am well aware of their duties, and unless the Officer sees a direct threat to a member of the public, the responsibility for dangerous dogs belongs to the local council.....genius!

well goof for you ... how often did you let savage dogs out on the street?


viewpoint wrote on Dec 21^st, 2013 at 3:33pm:

Do you mean you would do the shooting? Because then you would have to be arrested, so you would be the criminal.....Einstein!

you asked what my view would be. I gave it. I'm not defending this man or his dog. I am arguing th stupidity of police in letting out the dog, and then charging the bloke because the dog was out ... get real.


viewpoint wrote on Dec 21^st, 2013 at 3:33pm:

Do you mean if you are doing your duty and are attacked by a banned vicious dog, you are encouraging the attack?

Is it your duty to let a dangerous dog freee to attack?

Bobby. wrote on Dec 21^st, 2013 at 12:33pm:

The dog was just doing it's job - protecting the house from burglars. A dog can't tell the difference between a burglar & a cop.

for the police to crash his door down I would say this guy was wanted...and maybe not just by the police..whatever! it is a dangerous animal..when cornered no telling what they will do... it would probably jump a very high fence...

it fought five unarmed.officers...

I wont say the guy was responsible for what happened to them.. but NO HE SHOULD NOT HAVE HAD A DANGEROUS DOG>. and he should have had a BEWARE OF THE DOG SIGN..even if its a poodle but a biting poodle people have a right to know..

viewpoint wrote on Dec 21^st, 2013 at 3:33pm:

I know you would not be in that situation because you are not a Police Officer and by the sounds of it, would never get to be one.

back when you started as a cop,the requirements for joining police was easy ... yr 10 drop out with no criminal history. I can see that you were the result of such selective recruitment processes


viewpoint wrote on Dec 21^st, 2013 at 3:33pm:

No, you said they let the dog out so the jury was right in letting the owner off, despite five officers being injured, three quite seriously

on the charge of not controlling a dangerous dog ... yes, the jury got it right.....  on any other valid charges I don't care if they throw the book at him

cods wrote on Dec 21^st, 2013 at 4:16pm:

Bobby. wrote on Dec 21st, 2013 at 12:33pm: The dog was just doing it's job - protecting the house from burglars. A dog can't tell the difference between a burglar & a cop. for the police to crash his door down I would say this guy was wanted...and maybe not just by the police..whatever! it is a dangerous animal..when cornered no telling what they will do... it would probably jump a very high fence... it fought five unarmed.officers... I wont say the guy was responsible for what happened to them.. but NO HE SHOULD NOT HAVE HAD A DANGEROUS DOG>. and he should have had a BEWARE OF THE DOG SIGN..even if its a poodle but a biting poodle people have a right to know..

thats a different story ... this story is that the charge of not controlling a dangerous dog was thrown out. and rightfully so. He had it controlled, it was locked up ... until the cops let it out.

John Smith wrote on Dec 21^st, 2013 at 4:18pm:

viewpoint wrote on Dec 21st, 2013 at 3:33pm: I know you would not be in that situation because you are not a Police Officer and by the sounds of it, would never get to be one. back when you started as a cop,the requirements for joining police was easy ... yr 10 drop out with no criminal history. I can see that you were the result of such selective recruitment processes You wouldn't have any idea what my qualifications are or what level of education I have. You also haven't got a clue what selection processes the police candidates go through, so don't pretend to know. viewpoint wrote on Dec 21st, 2013 at 3:33pm: No, you said they let the dog out so the jury was right in letting the owner off, despite five officers being injured, three quite seriously on the charge of not controlling a dangerous dog ... yes, the jury got it right.....  on any other valid charges I don't care if they throw the book at him

Again, you voice an opinion which is totally illogical and ignorant, he shouldn't have had a dangerous dog, especially one which was there specifically to keep the police out...................the jury got it totally wrong!

viewpoint wrote on Dec 21^st, 2013 at 4:33pm:

John Smith wrote on Dec 21st, 2013 at 4:18pm: viewpoint wrote on Dec 21st, 2013 at 3:33pm: I know you would not be in that situation because you are not a Police Officer and by the sounds of it, would never get to be one. back when you started as a cop,the requirements for joining police was easy ... yr 10 drop out with no criminal history. I can see that you were the result of such selective recruitment processes You wouldn't have any idea what my qualifications are or what level of education I have. You also haven't got a clue what selection processes the police candidates go through, so don't pretend to know. viewpoint wrote on Dec 21st, 2013 at 3:33pm: No, you said they let the dog out so the jury was right in letting the owner off, despite five officers being injured, three quite seriously on the charge of not controlling a dangerous dog ... yes, the jury got it right.....  on any other valid charges I don't care if they throw the book at him Again, you voice an opinion which is totally illogical and ignorant, he shouldn't have had a dangerous dog, especially one which was there specifically to keep the police out...................the jury got it totally wrong!

I'm not arguing he should or should not have had a dangerous dog ... ON THE CHARGE OF NOT CONTROLLING A DANGEROUS DOG, he rightfully got off.... whether he should or should not have the dog is a different issue.

Charge him with owning a dangerous dog, but not with not controlling a dangerous dog ... especially when it was the stupid cops who let him out to start with.

cods wrote on Dec 21^st, 2013 at 4:16pm:

Bobby. wrote on Dec 21st, 2013 at 12:33pm: The dog was just doing it's job - protecting the house from burglars. A dog can't tell the difference between a burglar & a cop. for the police to crash his door down I would say this guy was wanted...and maybe not just by the police..whatever! it is a dangerous animal..when cornered no telling what they will do... it would probably jump a very high fence... it fought five unarmed.officers... I wont say the guy was responsible for what happened to them.. but NO HE SHOULD NOT HAVE HAD A DANGEROUS DOG>. and he should have had a BEWARE OF THE DOG SIGN..even if its a poodle but a biting poodle people have a right to know..

So you're saying that no one has the right to have a dog to deter burglars?

I thought a man's home was his castle?

Bobby. wrote on Dec 21^st, 2013 at 4:59pm:

So you're saying that no one has the right to have a dog to deter burglars? I thought a man's home was his castle?

100% Correct!

But!

If that scenario goes pear-shaped for ANY reason ~ then the onus is on you to be responsible for the consequences.

Bobby. wrote on Dec 21^st, 2013 at 4:59pm:

cods wrote on Dec 21st, 2013 at 4:16pm: Bobby. wrote on Dec 21st, 2013 at 12:33pm: The dog was just doing it's job - protecting the house from burglars. A dog can't tell the difference between a burglar & a cop. for the police to crash his door down I would say this guy was wanted...and maybe not just by the police..whatever! it is a dangerous animal..when cornered no telling what they will do... it would probably jump a very high fence... it fought five unarmed.officers... I wont say the guy was responsible for what happened to them.. but NO HE SHOULD NOT HAVE HAD A DANGEROUS DOG>. and he should have had a BEWARE OF THE DOG SIGN..even if its a poodle but a biting poodle people have a right to know.. So you're saying that no one has the right to have a dog to deter burglars? I thought a man's home was his castle?

whats the difference in sitting watching TV with a rifle across your lap....just in case???.. ::).

no offence b obby but if we all kept a savage dog...and thats what a pitbull is...just in case we were burgled....

can you imagine what your street would be like to live in????????..

get an alarm...for gods sake...

the trouble is we do not all have the same sense of responsibility...thats why some bad dogs get out and kill children..

thats why some children drown in back yard pools...

we do not plan for the unexpected....thats right bad stuff doesnt happen to us does it?.. ::)

in Britain many posties have been attacked they are strangers just like these coppers...going about their job...the dog doesn t care......and by the look of this guy neither did he..


I bet you wouldnt be so soft if you knocked on a door collecting for redcross.. and a dog came flying out at you...because the owner couldnt hold him..

Lord Herbert wrote on Dec 21^st, 2013 at 7:21pm:

Bobby. wrote on Dec 21st, 2013 at 4:59pm: So you're saying that no one has the right to have a dog to deter burglars? I thought a man's home was his castle? 100% Correct! But! If that scenario goes pear-shaped for ANY reason ~ then the onus is on you to be responsible for the consequences.

when it comes to the LAW if you hurt a burglar he can take you to court and probably win.. ::)

as in this case I hope these coppers take the owner to court as the only way to stop that dog was to shoot it..

cods wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2013 at 6:31am:

whats the difference in sitting watching TV with a rifle across your lap....just in case???.. ::). no offence b obby but if we all kept a savage dog...and thats what a pitbull is...just in case we were burgled.... can you imagine what your street would be like to live in????????.. get an alarm...for gods sake...

Your sentiment is in the right direction, Cod, but in this case I have to support Bobbythetalkingbatshit's contention that people have a right to own the sort of dog that would deter burglars ~ and I would also support a law that said we could own a loaded gun in the home and shoot any break-and-enter artist dead on the spot.

A couple of years ago I had the unnerving experience of standing at my bedroom window watching a thickset thug trying for a whole half hour or so to get into the house to bash or kill me for whatever purpose ~ I don't know ... and all the while the police had said they'd come if he actually started to gain entry ... (What a fine police service we have).




 

cods wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2013 at 6:35am:

when it comes to the LAW if you hurt a burglar he can take you to court and probably win.. ::)

And so, clearly, the answer is not to hurt him but to cancel his ticket permanently and do society a favour.

In UK, and I have no doubt here, you are allowed to use reasonable force to defend yourself and others that does not include using a gun or an uncontrollable, savage, and banned dog. The notion that you can protect your property "your castle" with whatever degree of force you deem necessary is nonsense.

I have experienced police forces being sued by offenders actually convicted and serving time, because the police dog which caught them in the first place didn't retract its smacking teeth! Now how can you possibly consider keeping a dog which attacked and injured five police officers a deterrent or consider it the use of reasonable force to protect your "castle"?

Sorry, again, this is nonsense!

viewpoint wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2013 at 8:21am:

The notion that you can protect your property "your castle" with whatever degree of force you deem necessary is nonsense.

I beg to differ.

Who is to say the person or persons climbing in through your bathroom window has theft on their mind, or the abduction-rape-and-murder of your daughter or wife? And perhaps the murder of your irate self while they're about it?

I've read horrific stories from the US about what 'burglars' have done to elderly women living on their own. Once the robbery is assured to be easy and without resistance, the burglars often then give themselves opportunistic 'bonuses' by way of repeated rape, and torture, and sometimes murder.

If someone chooses to breaks into your house, you then have every right to expect the worst from that person. You are under no obligation to favour the person by assuming he is only after the family's silver cutlery.

The moment a predatory intruder has invaded and breached the security of your home, you then have every moral right to shoot him dead on the spot.

To their great credit, certain States in the US allow for this abrupt termination of society's willful enemies.   


viewpoint wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2013 at 8:21am:

I have experienced police forces being sued by offenders actually convicted and serving time, because the police dog which caught them in the first place didn't retract its smacking teeth! Now how can you possibly consider keeping a dog which attacked and injured five police officers a deterrent or consider it the use of reasonable force to protect your "castle"? Sorry, again, this is nonsense!

Changes to the law are being made all the time to better reflect the sentiments of the public.

cods wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2013 at 6:31am:

Bobby. wrote on Dec 21st, 2013 at 4:59pm: cods wrote on Dec 21st, 2013 at 4:16pm: Bobby. wrote on Dec 21st, 2013 at 12:33pm: The dog was just doing it's job - protecting the house from burglars. A dog can't tell the difference between a burglar & a cop. for the police to crash his door down I would say this guy was wanted...and maybe not just by the police..whatever! it is a dangerous animal..when cornered no telling what they will do... it would probably jump a very high fence... it fought five unarmed.officers... I wont say the guy was responsible for what happened to them.. but NO HE SHOULD NOT HAVE HAD A DANGEROUS DOG>. and he should have had a BEWARE OF THE DOG SIGN..even if its a poodle but a biting poodle people have a right to know.. So you're saying that no one has the right to have a dog to deter burglars? I thought a man's home was his castle? whats the difference in sitting watching TV with a rifle across your lap....just in case???.. ::). no offence b obby but if we all kept a savage dog...and thats what a pitbull is...just in case we were burgled.... can you imagine what your street would be like to live in????????.. get an alarm...for gods sake... the trouble is we do not all have the same sense of responsibility...thats why some bad dogs get out and kill children.. thats why some children drown in back yard pools... we do not plan for the unexpected....thats right bad stuff doesnt happen to us does it?.. ::) in Britain many posties have been attacked they are strangers just like these coppers...going about their job...the dog doesn t care......and by the look of this guy neither did he.. I bet you wouldnt be so soft if you knocked on a door collecting for redcross.. and a dog came flying out at you...because the owner couldnt hold him..

This is what you really need to deter burglars:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shJbuRpyKkA

Lord Herbert wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2013 at 8:51am:

viewpoint wrote on Dec 23rd, 2013 at 8:21am: The notion that you can protect your property "your castle" with whatever degree of force you deem necessary is nonsense. I beg to differ. Who is to say the person or persons climbing in through your bathroom window has theft on their mind, or the abduction-rape-and-murder of your daughter or wife? And perhaps the murder of your irate self while they're about it? I've read horrific stories from the US about what 'burglars' have done to elderly women living on their own. Once the robbery is assured to be easy and without resistance, the burglars often then give themselves opportunistic 'bonuses' by way of repeated rape, and torture, and sometimes murder. If someone chooses to breaks into your house, you then have every right to expect the worst from that person. You are under no obligation to favour the person by assuming he is only after the family's silver cutlery. The moment a predatory intruder has invaded and breached the security of your home, you then have every moral right to shoot him dead on the spot. To their great credit, certain States in the US allow for this abrupt termination of society's willful enemies.    viewpoint wrote on Dec 23rd, 2013 at 8:21am: I have experienced police forces being sued by offenders actually convicted and serving time, because the police dog which caught them in the first place didn't retract its smacking teeth! Now how can you possibly consider keeping a dog which attacked and injured five police officers a deterrent or consider it the use of reasonable force to protect your "castle"? Sorry, again, this is nonsense! Changes to the law are being made all the time to better reflect the sentiments of the public.

You can "beg to differ" till the cows come home, but you have NO legal right to shoot anybody, unless you are a member of the military engaged in a conflict, or you are an Officer of the law suitably trained and are legally protecting other citizens, other Officers, or yourself.

You are comparing the rights of an American to the rights of an Australian or a British citizen. They are totally different!

Nobody has the "right" moral or legal to use more force than is reasonable......FACT of law.

Very nice, Bobby ~ (sorry, I got you mixed up with Bobbythetalkingbatshit on another forum board).

These rapid-fire machine guns have always been notorious for jamming up at critical times during combat situations.

The two assassins of SS-Gruppenführer Reinhard Heydrich in Prague nearly failed because the pistol-machine gun jammed.

The bren gun used to jam a lot.

viewpoint wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2013 at 10:56am:

You can "beg to differ" till the cows come home, but you have NO legal right to shoot anybody,

Oh, I agree entirely.

As yet, and unlike as with certain enlightened States in America, our laws are still in hock to the bedwetters, the Peter Freedmans, and the mindless automatons who are indentured slaves to the UN's Social Marxism in which nobody is really guilty of anything other than being human.


viewpoint wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2013 at 10:56am:

Nobody has the "right" moral or legal to use more force than is reasonable......FACT of law.

In all the excitement you're another one who has failed to read my lips.

Everybody's home is a place of sanctity and respite from the rest of society. It is hallowed ground. It is sacrosanct and inviolable to outside intrusion or interference.

If I had had a gun and that thug had managed to come crashing through into the house ~ I would have shot him to kill. I have absolutely no doubt about that whatsoever.

I would have gone to prison with a totally clear conscience.

And I would have gone to prison in the knowledge that vast numbers of the general public were in agreement with what I did.

I'm sure your "clear conscience" would be such a comfort to your family and friends....... That is always presupposing it wasn't one of them you shot and killed by mistake........

I thought you had more sense than that Herbert......or are your lips merely flapping?

Lord Herbert wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2013 at 11:02am:

Very nice, Bobby ~ (sorry, I got you mixed up with Bobbythetalkingbatshit on another forum board). These rapid-fire machine guns have always been notorious for jamming up at critical times during combat situations. The two assassins of SS-Gruppenführer Reinhard Heydrich in Prague nearly failed because the pistol-machine gun jammed. The bren gun used to jam a lot.

The British were not tidy.
A German Officer would always keep his gun well oiled & clean.  :)

viewpoint wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2013 at 11:28am:

I'm sure your "clear conscience" would be such a comfort to your family and friends...

Correct!

And you forgot to include my neighbours and the public at large.

The petitions to get me an early parole would number in the tens of thousands.  8-)

People are tired of the law making concessions, and exceptions, and exonerations, and mitigations for arseholes who have trapped themselves into addictions with hard drugs... and then rob people to pay for their mistakes.

People think prostitutes are the lowest form of human life. Wrong. They are addicts too, but instead of climbing in through people's windows they perform a service for the lonely and the pathetic.

Bobby. wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2013 at 11:31am:

The British were not tidy. A German Officer would always keep his gun well oiled & clean.  :)

Wrong!

I myself used to use a pull-through to clean my Enfield .303 rifle at the shooting range.

More reading here about the different positions of the magazine on these guns.

(Do NOT try this at home, folks).

Lord Herbert wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2013 at 7:21am:

cods wrote on Dec 23rd, 2013 at 6:31am: whats the difference in sitting watching TV with a rifle across your lap....just in case???.. ::). no offence b obby but if we all kept a savage dog...and thats what a pitbull is...just in case we were burgled.... can you imagine what your street would be like to live in????????.. get an alarm...for gods sake... Your sentiment is in the right direction, Cod, but in this case I have to support Bobbythetalkingbatshit's contention that people have a right to own the sort of dog that would deter burglars ~ and I would also support a law that said we could own a loaded gun in the home and shoot any break-and-enter artist dead on the spot. A couple of years ago I had the unnerving experience of standing at my bedroom window watching a thickset thug trying for a whole half hour or so to get into the house to bash or kill me for whatever purpose ~ I don't know ... and all the while the police had said they'd come if he actually started to gain entry ... (What a fine police service we have).

if you own a dangerous or potential dangerous dog then you MUST display a SIGN a BEWARE OF THE DOG SIGN>.

guns are illegal as we know.. so you wouldnt need to have a sign if you were breaking the LAW by having one handy if someone broke in..but if you shot and wounded someone you would of course end up paying...why... because it isnt your job to take the law into your own hands..

if you allow one transgression.... such as I was protecting my self my family my castle...where does it stop.???

he pinched the parking spot I had lined up so I shot him???...or smashed his car.. ::) ::)..

herb on the one hand you find it hard to understand anyone that ill treats an animal....and on the other you want to inflict all sorts of pain and mayhem like they have in America..where any lunatic is allowed to have a gun... and by golly they use them..not always to protect themselves either..

cods wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2013 at 7:20pm:

... guns are illegal as we know..

There are thousands of registered gun owners in NSW alone who belong to shooting clubs, or private security firms, etc.


cods wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2013 at 7:20pm:

so you wouldnt need to have a sign if you were breaking the LAW by having one handy if someone broke in..but if you shot and wounded someone you would of course end up paying...why... because it isnt your job to take the law into your own hands..

Sorry, wrong again, Cods.

It most definitely would be my job to take the law into my own hands if the police did not arrive in time to take the law into their hands as a thug was using an axe to chop his way into my house.

What the law allows or does not allow is often at odds with reality and commonsense.


cods wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2013 at 7:20pm:

if you allow one transgression.... such as I was protecting myself, my family, and my castle...where does it stop.???

It stops at ...
Quote:

"protecting myself, my family, and my castle"

cods wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2013 at 7:20pm:

he pinched the parking spot I had lined up so I shot him???...or smashed his car.. ::) ::)..

Houston? ... I think we have a problem ...   8-)


cods wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2013 at 7:20pm:

herb on the one hand you find it hard to understand anyone that ill treats an animal....and on the other you want to inflict all sorts of pain and mayhem like they have in America..where any lunatic is allowed to have a gun... and by golly they use them..not always to protect themselves either..

Not 'pain', Cods ~ just summary cancellation ~ ie. termination conducted without the customary legal formalities.

A person's private living quarters is sacrosanct.

Lord Herbert wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2013 at 8:01pm:

cods wrote on Dec 23rd, 2013 at 7:20pm: ... guns are illegal as we know.. There are thousands of registered gun owners in NSW alone who belong to shooting clubs, or private security firms, etc. cods wrote on Dec 23rd, 2013 at 7:20pm: so you wouldnt need to have a sign if you were breaking the LAW by having one handy if someone broke in..but if you shot and wounded someone you would of course end up paying...why... because it isnt your job to take the law into your own hands.. Sorry, wrong again, Cods. It most definitely would be my job to take the law into my own hands if the police did not arrive in time to take the law into their hands as a thug was using an axe to chop his way into my house. What the law allows or does not allow is often at odds with reality and commonsense. cods wrote on Dec 23rd, 2013 at 7:20pm: if you allow one transgression.... such as I was protecting myself, my family, and my castle...where does it stop.??? It stops at ... Quote: "protecting myself, my family, and my castle" cods wrote on Dec 23rd, 2013 at 7:20pm: he pinched the parking spot I had lined up so I shot him???...or smashed his car.. ::) ::).. Houston? ... I think we have a problem ...   8-) cods wrote on Dec 23rd, 2013 at 7:20pm: herb on the one hand you find it hard to understand anyone that ill treats an animal....and on the other you want to inflict all sorts of pain and mayhem like they have in America..where any lunatic is allowed to have a gun... and by golly they use them..not always to protect themselves either.. Not 'pain', Cods ~ just summary cancellation ~ ie. termination conducted without the customary legal formalities. A person's private living quarters is sacrosanct.

In your MIND ONLY I am afraid...if you tried it you will be on trial.. you claim you wont mind it will be worth it..but what price a home...??? you kill an intruder and spend your life in a cell..doesnt make a lot of sense to me...a man in AMerica killed his 14 yr old daughter because he thought she was a burglar.... thats what gun happy does to you..shoot first ask questions later..


how would you be if the bloke next door... hated cats digging up his yard... can he shoot them and terminate them just the same way????..

you cannot draw lines and say yep its ok to protect your home from an ADULT.. b ut the same rules do not apply to children or animals.... in the dark... how do you know???...

cods wrote on Dec 26^th, 2013 at 6:33am:

In your MIND ONLY I am afraid...if you tried it you will be on trial.. you claim you wont mind it will be worth it..but what price a home...??? you kill an intruder and spend your life in a cell

I'd be out before 18 months ~ guaranteed. Over the years I've read many stories about 'home murders' ~ including wives shooting husbands dead after many years of abuse.

I'm a total virgin so far as the law is concerned. Not even a traffic citation. Only once did the Paddy Wagon arrive to take me to the railway station after I'd had too much to drink when I was celebrating becoming a teetotaler. And that didn't go into their data files.

I'd have the Parole Board luvvies in the palm of my hand.

1. "I've found Jesus".
2. Deeply remorseful for what I'd done.
3. Clean record ... no 'priors'.
4. Posh English boarding school accent.
5. No tattoos; no beard or moustache; no bald/shaved head; no piercings; all my own teeth; clean finger-nails; don't smoke/don't drink/don't take any sort of drugs/don't gamble/ don't pick my nose waiting in traffic.

6. Kind to animals ~ own three cats.
7. Support Multiculturalism and Muslim immigration.


cods wrote on Dec 26^th, 2013 at 6:33am:

..doesnt make a lot of sense to me...a man in AMerica killed his 14 yr old daughter because he thought she was a burglar.... thats what gun happy does to you..shoot first ask questions later...

Accidents will happen.


cods wrote on Dec 26^th, 2013 at 6:33am:

how would you be if the bloke next door... hated cats digging up his yard... can he shoot them and terminate them just the same way????..

Thanks for the free kick.

I've had an Arab taxi driver around the corner from me kill two of my cats that had strayed onto his property ... and there was nothing I could do about it.

He killed them, and terminated them, and the law sponsored his actions as not being illegal.


cods wrote on Dec 26^th, 2013 at 6:33am:

.. you cannot draw lines and say yep its ok to protect your home from an ADULT.. b ut the same rules do not apply to children or animals.... in the dark... how do you know???...

I'd use a torch ....  ::)

I'd also ask him ...


Quote:

"Are you a burglar?"

And if he answered ...


Quote:

"That's for me to know and you to find out"

...

I'd shoot him and find out.

Lord Herbert wrote on Dec 26^th, 2013 at 10:07am:

cods wrote on Dec 26th, 2013 at 6:33am: In your MIND ONLY I am afraid...if you tried it you will be on trial.. you claim you wont mind it will be worth it..but what price a home...??? you kill an intruder and spend your life in a cell I'd be out before 18 months ~ guaranteed. Over the years I've read many stories about 'home murders' ~ including wives shooting husbands dead after many years of abuse. I'm a total virgin so far as the law is concerned. Not even a traffic citation. Only once did the Paddy Wagon arrive to take me to the railway station after I'd had too much to drink when I was celebrating becoming a teetotaler. And that didn't go into their data files. I'd have the Parole Board luvvies in the palm of my hand. 1. "I've found Jesus". 2. Deeply remorseful for what I'd done. 3. Clean record ... no 'priors'. 4. Posh English boarding school accent. 5. No tattoos; no beard or moustache; no bald/shaved head; no piercings; all my own teeth; clean finger-nails; don't smoke/don't drink/don't take any sort of drugs/don't gamble/ don't pick my nose waiting in traffic. 6. Kind to animals ~ own three cats. 7. Support Multiculturalism and Muslim immigration. cods wrote on Dec 26th, 2013 at 6:33am: ..doesnt make a lot of sense to me...a man in AMerica killed his 14 yr old daughter because he thought she was a burglar.... thats what gun happy does to you..shoot first ask questions later... Accidents will happen. cods wrote on Dec 26th, 2013 at 6:33am: how would you be if the bloke next door... hated cats digging up his yard... can he shoot them and terminate them just the same way????.. Thanks for the free kick. I've had an Arab taxi driver around the corner from me kill two of my cats that had strayed onto his property ... and there was nothing I could do about it. He killed them, and terminated them, and the law sponsored his actions as not being illegal. cods wrote on Dec 26th, 2013 at 6:33am: .. you cannot draw lines and say yep its ok to protect your home from an ADULT.. b ut the same rules do not apply to children or animals.... in the dark... how do you know???... I'd use a torch ....  ::) I'd also ask him ... Quote: "Are you a burglar?" And if he answered ... [quote]"That's for me to know and you to find out"

...

I'd shoot him and find out.
[/quote]



well we can argue all day....I dont like guns and never will...and as history has proved over and over they are not the answer to any of our problems....

when we work that out then we may find peace of sorts..

have you noticed we are the only animal that needs a gun in his hands to feel powerful?

yet when your cats rub themselves all over you you are putty in they hands... its just a thought.. ;) ;)

link

Incredible ....

well herb I am buggered if I know where you find this type of news...no dont tell me..I want to believe that is a pack of lies.. even for a despot...that would have to be more than bad.. where are the so called human rights brigade??.. they may not change anything but atg least the mongrel would know the world is watching.

ye gods I feel sick..we are talking about human beings...people who are supposed to be better than an animal that tears another apart.. >:( >:( >:(

cods wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 7:31am:

well herb I am buggered if I know where you find this type of news...no dont tell me..I want to believe that is a pack of lies.. even for a despot...that would have to be more than bad.. where are the so called human rights brigade??.. they may not change anything but atg least the mongrel would know the world is watching. ye gods I feel sick..we are talking about human beings...people who are supposed to be better than an animal that tears another apart.. >:( >:( >:(

A tyrant like this sadist who has a nuclear weapons delivery system should not be allowed to continue living.

If it was up to me, I would have a nuclear bomb dropped from a great height onto the leadership of North Korea when they are all gathered together for one of those march-past ceremonies.

Lots of collateral damage as happened in Nagasaki and Hiroshima ~ but the lesser of two evils.

I'd agree with you both, however when your conscense kicks in, you think about all the innocent NK people who are starving and living in appalling conditions. Do they deserve to be killed to rid the world of a nutcase? Why not target him and his henchmen?

viewpoint wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 8:20am:

I'd agree with you both, however when your conscense kicks in, you think about all the innocent NK people who are starving and living in appalling conditions. Do they deserve to be killed to rid the world of a nutcase? Why not target him and his henchmen?

Because that can't be done. It would be impossible to cherry-pick just the leaders.

At a march-past ceremony the leadership is gathered together ... AND 10's of 1000's of military personnel are mustered within the radius of a Hiroshima bomb.

And then the South Koreans could enter the country and make it part of their capitalist democracy.

For the West to leave a lunatic in charge of nuclear weapons is insane.

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 10:20am:

viewpoint wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 8:20am: I'd agree with you both, however when your conscense kicks in, you think about all the innocent NK people who are starving and living in appalling conditions. Do they deserve to be killed to rid the world of a nutcase? Why not target him and his henchmen? Because that can't be done. It would be impossible to cherry-pick just the leaders. At a march-past ceremony the leadership is gathered together ... AND 10's of 1000's of military personnel are mustered within the radius of a Hiroshima bomb. And then the South Koreans could enter the country and make it part of their capitalist democracy. For the West to leave a lunatic in charge of nuclear weapons is insane.

sorry herb but with your actions being virtually as bad as Kim jongs... I dont know what to think.. >:(

dropping a bomb on anyone is despicable..but a nuclear bomb is worse ... as you admit he has nuclear weapons..and you think dropping a bomb on that lot would solve humanities problems.. ::)

I could not agree less.

cods wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 5:42pm:

sorry herb but with your actions being virtually as bad as Kim jongs... I dont know what to think.. >:( dropping a bomb on anyone is despicable..but a nuclear bomb is worse ... as you admit he has nuclear weapons..and you think dropping a bomb on that lot would solve humanities problems.. ::) I could not agree less.

Well, okay, we'll just sit around doing nothing while this lunatic and his army of robotic nutters get stronger and more dangerous.

If they eventually attack South Korea I hope you agree with me that no Australian soldiers should be sent over there to risk their lives fighting the North Koreans.

I don't think I can criticise another countries policies.   ;)

Anyone sporting a haircut like this DESERVES to be nuked.

I'm sure even cods agrees with me.  8-)

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e150/ruffdiamond/January%202013/haircut_zps11a59144.png

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 7:13pm:

cods wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 5:42pm: sorry herb but with your actions being virtually as bad as Kim jongs... I dont know what to think.. >:( dropping a bomb on anyone is despicable..but a nuclear bomb is worse ... as you admit he has nuclear weapons..and you think dropping a bomb on that lot would solve humanities problems.. ::) I could not agree less. Well, okay, we'll just sit around doing nothing while this lunatic and his army of robotic nutters get stronger and more dangerous. If they eventually attack South Korea I hope you agree with me that no Australian soldiers should be sent over there to risk their lives fighting the North Koreans.

We would need a better reason than just human rights attrocities for the Coalition of the Willing to attack North Korea. Perhaps if oil or gas was secretly  discovered there or the Texas Oilmen or Sheikhs needed a pipeline to run across the country - then there would be justification to drop bombs, capture Kim Jong junior and hang him.

cods wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 7:31am:

ye gods I feel sick..we are talking about human beings...people who are supposed to be better than an animal that tears another apart

also the most vicious, murderous and bloody species that ever existed.  ;) ;)

why do people where blinkers when they talk about human beings?

mantra wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 8:53pm:

We would need a better reason than just human rights attrocities for the Coalition of the Willing to attack North Korea. Perhaps if oil or gas was secretly  discovered there or the Texas Oilmen or Sheikhs needed a pipeline to run across the country - then there would be justification to drop bombs, capture Kim Jong junior and hang him.

If the Coalition of the Willing was going to spend gazillions on removing a dictatorship that regularly rewarded the families of suicide bombers a fixed $25,000 ... And then remove any al-Qaeda training camps within its borders ... why on earth wouldn't the Americans be thinking in terms of recouping their expenses through profits from Iraqi oil?

But if it's a 'fact' that America 'stole' the Iraqi oil business all for itself, then why is it that China has a bigger investment in Iraqi oil than even the US ~ and this by agreement with the US-installed democratic government of Iraq that has been free to sideline the US as secondary to China?


Quote:

BAGHDAD — Since the American-led invasion of 2003, Iraq has become one of the world’s top oil producers, and China is now its biggest customer. China already buys nearly half the oil that Iraq produces, nearly 1.5 million barrels a day, and is angling for an even bigger share, bidding for a stake now owned by Exxon Mobil in one of Iraq’s largest oil fields. “The Chinese are the biggest beneficiary of this post-Saddam oil boom in Iraq,” said Denise Natali, a Middle East expert at the National Defense University in Washington. “They need energy, and they want to get into the market.” Before the invasion, Iraq’s oil industry was sputtering, largely walled off from world markets by international sanctions against the government of Saddam Hussein, so his overthrow always carried the promise of renewed access to the country’s immense reserves. Chinese state-owned companies seized the opportunity, pouring more than $2 billion a year and hundreds of workers into Iraq, and just as important, showing a willingness to play by the new Iraqi government’s rules and to accept lower profits to win contracts.

Would an 'evil' USA allow for such free market activities in Iraq if its intention had always been to dominate and rule Iraq like a replacement dictatorship? Of course not.


link

"Paging Mantra to the desk please ... "

"Paging Lady Mantra ... "

"You can run but you can't hide .... "

"Lady Mantra ... Paging Lady Mantra ... "

8-)

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 7:13pm:

cods wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 5:42pm: sorry herb but with your actions being virtually as bad as Kim jongs... I dont know what to think.. >:( dropping a bomb on anyone is despicable..but a nuclear bomb is worse ... as you admit he has nuclear weapons..and you think dropping a bomb on that lot would solve humanities problems.. ::) I could not agree less. Well, okay, we'll just sit around doing nothing while this lunatic and his army of robotic nutters get stronger and more dangerous. If they eventually attack South Korea I hope you agree with me that no Australian soldiers should be sent over there to risk their lives fighting the North Koreans.

not disputing your intentions just your means herb thats all... one crime does not make up for another crime..and to drop bombs is not right.. is it??...

I said I felt sick reading that link and I still do it shocks me to the core..but what can we do about such barbarianism?? if he gets nuked someone worse will take his place..

I have noticed a softening of CHina is recent times.. they are now allowing two children per family..and there seems to be more wealth amongst them..so who knows maybe Nth Korea will see the light as well..in the mean time nothing will bring back these people they are gone and I trust to god no one else faces that kind of torture..

I still ask what have the UN said?   anything anything at all...... ::)

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 8:19am:

"Paging Mantra to the desk please ... " "Paging Lady Mantra ... " "You can run but you can't hide .... " "Lady Mantra ... Paging Lady Mantra ... " 8-)

the left equate everything to oil.. dontcha know that...of course ask them to go without OIL>. and see what happens..

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;

it will be Abbott fault.

cods wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 8:25am:

not disputing your intentions just your means herb thats all... one crime does not make up for another crime..and to drop bombs is not right.. is it??...

Were all those Australian soldiers who went off to war with guns in order to commit the 'crime' of murder against other human beans just as guilty as Hitler's soldiers or the Nipponese army?

The only reason you're not speaking Japanese today and working as slave-labour for Mitsubishi is because the Good Guys killed enough of the Bad Guys to make them quit.


cods wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 8:25am:

I said I felt sick reading that link and I still do it shocks me to the core..but what can we do about such barbarianism??

... umm ... drop a bomb on them?  ::)  :P


cods wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 8:25am:

... in the mean time nothing will bring back these people they are gone and I trust to god no one else faces that kind of torture..

The real horror is the realisation that with a huge number of just ordinary everyday people like ourselves every kind of excess would soon be practiced if there was no law to answer to.

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 7:24am:

If the Coalition of the Willing was going to spend gazillions on removing a dictatorship that regularly rewarded the families of suicide bombers a fixed $25,000 ... And then remove any al-Qaeda training camps within its borders ... why on earth wouldn't the Americans be thinking in terms of recouping their expenses through profits from Iraqi oil?

Yes the poor citizens of the US are in debt to the tune of $trillions for the cost of the Iraqi and Afghanistan wars, but that's irrelevant because the big boys in town - Haliburton, the arms manufacturers and the oil companies made billions in profits and continue to do so.

At the time we invaded Iraq - Saddam was signing up to the petroeuro, which would have seen the US dollar lose its status as the world's premier reserve currency. This alone would have severely restricted trading and seen the oil giants' profits decline considerably.


Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 7:24am:

But if it's a 'fact' that America 'stole' the Iraqi oil business all for itself, then why is it that China has a bigger investment in Iraqi oil than even the US ~ and this by agreement with the US-installed democratic government of Iraq that has been free to sideline the US as secondary to China?

China is the largest holder of US government debt - so it's quite obvious that China would demand a large slice of the pie.

How do the Iraqi's benefit from their oil being controlled by the US and China? Certainly not in their current shocking standard of living. Iraq was once an advanced and cultured nation, but it's been bombed into submission and poverty.

Just remember the US were mates with Saddam at one time.


Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 8:19am:

"Paging Mantra to the desk please ... " "Paging Lady Mantra ... " "You can run but you can't hide .... " "Lady Mantra ... Paging Lady Mantra ... " 8-)

I haven't run away. I could argue the politics of the Iraqi war until the cows come home, but typing is difficult because Ruffy is lying over my wrists and on my keyboard.

cods wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 8:27am:

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 5th, 2014 at 8:19am: "Paging Mantra to the desk please ... " "Paging Lady Mantra ... " "You can run but you can't hide .... " "Lady Mantra ... Paging Lady Mantra ... " 8-) the left equate everything to oil.. dontcha know that...of course ask them to go without OIL>. and see what happens.. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ; it will be Abbott fault.

The demand for energy to feed this massive global population has become so great it's unsustainable and it makes sense that we continue to endeavour to find energy alternatives and supplements aside from oil. It is a costly commodity to access in every way. We only have to look at the oil spills, wars and pollution the use of this product creates.

Can we r ape this planet indefinitely Cods? It is becoming depleted as demand exceeds supply. Unfortunately many from the right believe in pillaging every resource they can lay their hands on regardless of the heavy cost to life and the environment along the way. It's there - just take it. Who cares about the future or the collateral damage?

mantra wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 10:30am:

China is the largest holder of US government debt - so it's quite obvious that China would demand a large slice of the pie.

But wouldn't it have been far more prudent for the US government to have monopolized the Iraqi oil industry while reimbursing China from its profits?

And if the US knew that its invasion of Iraq would put it into debt with China to the extent that it has ~ isn't it therefore somewhat fatuous for people to still insist that the US went into Iraq for its oil?

Half the oil production is now going to China, and the US is still left with massive debt.

How is this scenario compatible with the .. er .. mantra that the US was only interested in Iraqi oil? 

If the US oil barons were allowed by the US government to make a killing on Iraqi oil at no expense to themselves with regard to helping to finance the US war effort, then why would the government have also let them walk off with the profits while leaving the US administration up to its armpits in debt?

It doesn't make sense.


mantra wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 10:30am:

How do the Iraqi's benefit from their oil being controlled by the US and China? Certainly not in their current shocking standard of living. Iraq was once an advanced and cultured nation, but it's been bombed into submission and poverty.

Oh pleeeease! Iraq has been a garbage bin of pandemic poverty for yonkers ~ long before the US involvement. And Abu Graib was a genuine torture hell-hole before the Americans arrived to drape ladies panties over the heads of Saddam's soldiers by way of torture.


mantra wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 10:30am:

Just remember the US were mates with Saddam at one time.

Means absolutely nothing. If the US used Saddam to halt the spread of the Russians, then this didn't make him a 'friend' - only a Useful Idiot. The moment Saddam's usefulness had expired, the US made him redundant to their purposes.


mantra wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 10:30am:

I could argue the politics of the Iraqi war until the cows come home ...

Oh no! That's such a cheap shot! You KNOW I was given a bovine replacement aortic valve last February.

"until the cows come home ... "

I'd rUdder you didn't say things like that.


mantra wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 10:30am:

but typing is difficult because Ruffy is lying over my wrists and on my keyboard.

A sprawler? My Sooty doesn't do that any more. Lucky you.  :)

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 11:19am:

But wouldn't it have been far more prudent for the US government to have monopolized the Iraqi oil industry while reimbursing China from its profits?

Yes it would have been more prudent, but the US has its own oil boom currently and over the past few years appear to have lost interest in Iraqi oil. Of course this doesn't make much sense economically, but when have the US ever been good economic managers? The US administration jumps in feet first when the big boys put pressure on them and then later decide that maybe it wasn't such a good move. The people pay for the errors of their leaders and not just in the US.


Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 11:19am:

And if the US knew that its invasion of Iraq would put it into debt with China to the extent that it has ~ isn't it therefore somewhat fatuous for people to still insist that the US went into Iraq for its oil? Half the oil production is now going to China, and the US is still left with massive debt.

Their huge debt wasn't accumulated just because of the Iraq invasion. The gambling prior to the GFC  took a heavy toll on their economy. Trillions were borrowed between 2000 and 2007 for investment in dodgy hedge funds and risky sub-prime mortgages. The US had to dramatically increase borrowing again to prop up their banks and other essential industries when the GFC hit.


Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 11:19am:

If the US oil barons were allowed by the US government to make a killing on Iraqi oil at no expense to themselves with regard to helping to finance the US war effort, then why would the government have also let them walk off with the profits while leaving the US administration up to its armpits in debt? It doesn't make sense.

The Bush administration was closely associated with the oil barons and the Saudis - the Bush family also being part of the conglomerate. Dick Cheney was a major player in Halliburton. This is only a fragment of the many reasons Iraq was invaded. The justification presented to us was a lie and this was confirmed later.

If the administration had given a stuff about the country or the people - they would have introduced some regulation and transparency into their spending and borrowing.


Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 11:19am:

Means absolutely nothing. If the US used Saddam to halt the spread of the Russians, then this didn't make him a 'friend' - only a Useful Idiot. The moment Saddam's usefulness had expired, the US made him redundant to their purposes.

So - what were their purposes? Surely you don't believe the fable that it was to bring democracy into Iraq?

No WMD were ever found. We killed more people with our invasion than Saddam ever did.

The US have replaced one tyrant for another.

The US disregard the mess they leave behind while they're striving for some unobtainable ideology always justifying it on a false premise.

Bob Woodwards book Bush at War should be required reading.  There were many drivers for the war, inserting a democracy was not the totality of the reason but it was a big one, nor should the oil be discounted, that as well was a big driver.

Also manipulation by the Saudis (particularly the Saud ambassador), a religious aspect by Bush himself, Rumsfelds influence, he wanted a war to prove his light army concept and he along with Cheney were PNAC advocates. 

Piggy backing onto 9/11 and the WMD UN tripwire, the sense of unfinished business from Gulf Smackdown the First, there was a lack of knowledge about the region and an expectation they would be greeted with roses, install a friendly democracy and get out.  That was never realistic but they didn't understand that.

Many drivers all related and all running concurrently and with different emphasis at different stages of the wars evolution. 

But if anyone tells you it was just about oil, you can guarantee you are looking at an idiot or at least someone without capacity for complex thought. 

mantra wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 12:20pm:

So - what were their purposes? Surely you don't believe the fable that it was to bring democracy into Iraq?

Nobody ever claimed this was the reason for invading Iraq.

And nor was the oil ~ no matter who is saying that now. Why did Iraq mk1 Operation Desert Storm end when it had the troops on the ground and the logistics all set for a push up into Iraq from the Kuwaiti border?

That would suggest they were still waiting on confirmation about WMD.
Scroll down to Richard Butler at UNSCROM. Read what he was telling anybody who would listen to him ~ including the US administration.

link


mantra wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 12:20pm:

No WMD were ever found.

It has been widely suspected that the weapons were trucked over the border in petrol tankers.


mantra wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 12:20pm:

We killed more people with our invasion than Saddam ever did.

Saddam gratuitously started a war with Iraq to bring them into the Arab fold. 8 years and over a million lives.

On the other hand, the Coalition of the Willing lost twice the men they would have done if they hadn't been ordered to protect the civilian public by fighting house-to-house without a preliminary bombardment of areas known to be infested with insurgents.

After Saddam was defeated, the CoW ground troops then began to discover police torture chambers up and down the country, and unmarked mass-graves.

And how many civilian deaths have there been now from sectarian bombings? America's fault? Hardly. It's Muslims Behaving Badly whenever there isn't a tyrant to threaten them with torture chambers and unmarked mass graves.


mantra wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 12:20pm:

The US have replaced one tyrant for another.

The US has installed the makings of a democracy. It's taking its baby steps now for only the first time in its history.


mantra wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 12:20pm:

The US disregard the mess they leave behind while they're striving for some unobtainable ideology always justifying it on a false premise.

The US continues to pour zillions into the country.

Having said the above, I no longer trust the US to make good decisions of any kind.

'YANKEE GO HOME!' just about says it for me now.

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 10:12am:

cods wrote on Jan 5th, 2014 at 8:25am: not disputing your intentions just your means herb thats all... one crime does not make up for another crime..and to drop bombs is not right.. is it??... Were all those Australian soldiers who went off to war with guns in order to commit the 'crime' of murder against other human beans just as guilty as Hitler's soldiers or the Nipponese army? The only reason you're not speaking Japanese today and working as slave-labour for Mitsubishi is because the Good Guys killed enough of the Bad Guys to make them quit. cods wrote on Jan 5th, 2014 at 8:25am: I said I felt sick reading that link and I still do it shocks me to the core..but what can we do about such barbarianism?? ... umm ... drop a bomb on them?  ::)  :P cods wrote on Jan 5th, 2014 at 8:25am: ... in the mean time nothing will bring back these people they are gone and I trust to god no one else faces that kind of torture.. The real horror is the realisation that with a huge number of just ordinary everyday people like ourselves every kind of excess would soon be practiced if there was no law to answer to.

I can only be bothered with one answer to that rant..

SOLDIERS DO NOT COMMIT MURDER...HOW DARE YOU...

would it be better to sit back in your armchair whilst the enemy came knocking at your door?????

WAR is WAR unpleasant..very.... but at least everyone knows they are at WAR...the other guy is usually armed to the teeth as well..

getting rid of a despot via a nuclear BOMB...is not exactly WAR.. not a fair one in my book..

why not just GAS everyone like Hussein did..at least that way you have a city still standing. >:( >:(

mantra wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 10:52am:

cods wrote on Jan 5th, 2014 at 8:27am: Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 5th, 2014 at 8:19am: "Paging Mantra to the desk please ... " "Paging Lady Mantra ... " "You can run but you can't hide .... " "Lady Mantra ... Paging Lady Mantra ... " 8-) the left equate everything to oil.. dontcha know that...of course ask them to go without OIL>. and see what happens.. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ; it will be Abbott fault. The demand for energy to feed this massive global population has become so great it's unsustainable and it makes sense that we continue to endeavour to find energy alternatives and supplements aside from oil. It is a costly commodity to access in every way. We only have to look at the oil spills, wars and pollution the use of this product creates. Can we r ape this planet indefinitely Cods? It is becoming depleted as demand exceeds supply. Unfortunately many from the right believe in pillaging every resource they can lay their hands on regardless of the heavy cost to life and the environment along the way. It's there - just take it. Who cares about the future or the collateral damage?

so only lefties thnink about the planet.. ho hum.. you didnt answer the question I notice..

do you go without using fossil fuel???... and the answer is NO YOU DONT..sorry mantra but we can all stand on soap boxes and preach..but do bugger all to change anything....

you are using a computer at this very moment.. and it all uses fossil fuel its hardly saving the PLANET you seem so worried about..god only knows how much was used to make the thing in the first place.. ::)

when I see lefties living in caves without electricity or cars or computers...let me know.. wont you I will come and see for myself..pigeons are a good way of communication  in case you have forgotten..

you are so far up yourselves... I am sure you only blame libs for any wars or devastation..

lefties all walk around with their halos in tact.. praying for the libs souls... >:( >:(

pompous lot... you actually believe your waffle... HILARIOUS>

The Savage dogs thread ...

Can we start to get back on topic, please.

One more reply to my Iraq post from Lady Mantra and we'll call that a wrap.

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 1:42pm:

mantra wrote on Jan 5th, 2014 at 12:20pm: So - what were their purposes? Surely you don't believe the fable that it was to bring democracy into Iraq? Nobody ever claimed this was the reason for invading Iraq.

Yes they did. When they didn't uncover weapons of mass destruction - the new propaganda line spruiked by Bush and Howard was that their mission was to bring democracy to Iraq.


Quote:

And nor was the oil ~ no matter who is saying that now. Why did Iraq mk1 Operation Desert Storm end when it had the troops on the ground and the logistics all set for a push up into Iraq from the Kuwaiti border? That would suggest they were still waiting on confirmation about WMD.

Then why didn't they wait? There was never any confirmation.


Quote:

Scroll down to Richard Butler at UNSCROM. Read what he was telling anybody who would listen to him ~ including the US administration. [url=http://en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Richard_Butler_%28diplomat%29]link[/url]

Butler's comments were only supposition, but we were told we had to bomb Iraq because there were definitely WMD. No WMD were recovered anywhere. The WMD theory was an excuse to control Iraq and when that didn't materialise, they spruiked the democracy propaganda.


mantra wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 12:20pm:

No WMD were ever found.

It has been widely suspected that the weapons were trucked over the border in petrol tankers.[/quote]

More supposition. So we bombed the guts out of Iraq on a theory.


mantra wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 12:20pm:

We killed more people with our invasion than Saddam ever did.

Saddam gratuitously started a war with Iraq to bring them into the Arab fold. 8 years and over a million lives.[/quote]

Yet he was only charged with something like the death of 128 - small fry compared to the many deaths of soldiers and civilians Bush and Howard were responsible for.


Quote:

On the other hand, the Coalition of the Willing lost twice the men they would have done if they hadn't been ordered to protect the civilian public by fighting house-to-house without a preliminary bombardment of areas known to be infested with insurgents.

How did they protect the civilians? Bombs misfired and were also dropped indiscriminately on the advice of half baked intelligence. Thousands of innocent people were mutilated or killed.


Quote:

After Saddam was defeated, the CoW ground troops then began to discover police torture chambers up and down the country, and unmarked mass-graves.

So we were told?


Quote:

And how many civilian deaths have there been now from sectarian bombings? America's fault? Hardly. It's Muslims Behaving Badly whenever there isn't a tyrant to threaten them with torture chambers and unmarked mass graves.

Perhaps they are trying to protect their homelands? After 9/11 we certainly went to great lengths by bombing Afghanistan to bits and slaughtering thousands of civilians in order to find the great Osama who apparently wasn't even in the country.


Quote:

The US continues to pour zillions into the country. Having said the above, I no longer trust the US to make good decisions of any kind. 'YANKEE GO HOME!' just about says it for me now.

And we agree on this Herbert.  :)

cods wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 6:15am:

mantra wrote on Jan 5th, 2014 at 10:52am: cods wrote on Jan 5th, 2014 at 8:27am: the left equate everything to oil.. dontcha know that...of course ask them to go without OIL>. and see what happens.. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ; it will be Abbott fault. The demand for energy to feed this massive global population has become so great it's unsustainable and it makes sense that we continue to endeavour to find energy alternatives and supplements aside from oil. It is a costly commodity to access in every way. We only have to look at the oil spills, wars and pollution the use of this product creates. Can we r ape this planet indefinitely Cods? It is becoming depleted as demand exceeds supply. Unfortunately many from the right believe in pillaging every resource they can lay their hands on regardless of the heavy cost to life and the environment along the way. It's there - just take it. Who cares about the future or the collateral damage? so only lefties thnink about the planet.. ho hum.. you didnt answer the question I notice.. do you go without using fossil fuel???... and the answer is NO YOU DONT..sorry mantra but we can all stand on soap boxes and preach..but do bugger all to change anything.... you are using a computer at this very moment.. and it all uses fossil fuel its hardly saving the PLANET you seem so worried about..god only knows how much was used to make the thing in the first place.. ::) when I see lefties living in caves without electricity or cars or computers...let me know.. wont you I will come and see for myself..pigeons are a good way of communication  in case you have forgotten.. you are so far up yourselves... I am sure you only blame libs for any wars or devastation.. lefties all walk around with their halos in tact.. praying for the libs souls... >:( >:( pompous lot... you actually believe your waffle... HILARIOUS>

You are very rude Cods so it's no surprise some people give you a hard time here. Your statement that we need to live in caves to prove that we don't need fossil fuels is unrealistic. We live in a modern world so it's about time we started implementing modern programs to develop our energy.

The Greens have always promoted alternative energy sources, but most innovations are trashed by the RW's who don't believe in global warming, solar energy, windfarms or any other sustainable alternative or supplement to oil and coal. Oil, coal and gas are finite resources only and we're tearing up nearly every inch of this planet to access them as well as leaving behind a toxic mess after every endeavour.

The global population is enormous at nearly 9 billion and we have to search for smarter and less destructive ways of sustaining it.

mantra wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 12:46pm:

cods wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 6:15am: mantra wrote on Jan 5th, 2014 at 10:52am: cods wrote on Jan 5th, 2014 at 8:27am: the left equate everything to oil.. dontcha know that...of course ask them to go without OIL>. and see what happens.. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ; it will be Abbott fault. The demand for energy to feed this massive global population has become so great it's unsustainable and it makes sense that we continue to endeavour to find energy alternatives and supplements aside from oil. It is a costly commodity to access in every way. We only have to look at the oil spills, wars and pollution the use of this product creates. Can we r ape this planet indefinitely Cods? It is becoming depleted as demand exceeds supply. Unfortunately many from the right believe in pillaging every resource they can lay their hands on regardless of the heavy cost to life and the environment along the way. It's there - just take it. Who cares about the future or the collateral damage? so only lefties thnink about the planet.. ho hum.. you didnt answer the question I notice.. do you go without using fossil fuel???... and the answer is NO YOU DONT..sorry mantra but we can all stand on soap boxes and preach..but do bugger all to change anything.... you are using a computer at this very moment.. and it all uses fossil fuel its hardly saving the PLANET you seem so worried about..god only knows how much was used to make the thing in the first place.. ::) when I see lefties living in caves without electricity or cars or computers...let me know.. wont you I will come and see for myself..pigeons are a good way of communication  in case you have forgotten.. you are so far up yourselves... I am sure you only blame libs for any wars or devastation.. lefties all walk around with their halos in tact.. praying for the libs souls... >:( >:( pompous lot... you actually believe your waffle... HILARIOUS> You are very rude Cods so it's no surprise some people give you a hard time here. Your statement that we need to live in caves to prove that we don't need fossil fuels is unrealistic. We live in a modern world so it's about time we started implementing modern programs to develop our energy. The Greens have always promoted alternative energy sources, but most innovations are trashed by the RW's who don't believe in global warming, solar energy, windfarms or any other sustainable alternative or supplement to oil and coal. Oil, coal and gas are finite resources only and we're tearing up nearly every inch of this planet to access them as well as leaving behind a toxic mess after every endeavour. The global population is enormous at nearly 9 billion and we have to search for smarter and less destructive ways of sustaining it.

sorry didnt mean to sound rude.. but then you greenies are always accusing righties of doing nothing... and you really dont think you carry this burden alone do you???.. the trouble is you think throwing money at it is thats its about...oh Ive done my bit...so to speak..we brought in a CARBON TAX,

,hasnt made one iota of difference..but dont lets talk about that.

I am a great one for believing in doing as I say....not just telling everyone else to do it..

in case you havent noticed mantra the world is changing EVERY DAY>

the last i heard global pop was 6/7billion not 9bill..


its got nothing to do with what we believe... its happening anyway why dont you accept that??..


you want your bloody wind farms youve got them...

I havent seen one righty tying themselves to a fence post to stop the trillions of cement and water needed to build your wind farms..

so you do want to live in caves.. I get it.. if we stop digging coal up tomorrow there will be very little electricity.. to run homes let alone factories and and hospitals..if you had your way you would stop all that overnight... and then what??????????????..

oh thats right you dont want to put a time limit on using your computer or your tv or you car or your lawn mower.or all those electrical appliances in your house.. will you be willing to turn your fridge off for 12 hours a day..

of course not.. but you snear at all those who say.. coal is fine it has been for centuries..something will take its place eventually  its called progress...

but no we are are the sceptics the filthy  trashers of the universe..now that is rude. :(

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 7:04am:

The Savage dogs thread ... Can we start to get back on topic, please. One more reply to my Iraq post from Lady Mantra and we'll call that a wrap.

oh dear I spoilt that.. how did this get onto GW anyway????

it wasnt meeeeeeeeeeeee

cods wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 5:49am:

I can only be bothered with one answer to that rant..

;D That's all I'm allowing you ~ We're going to get back on topic any moment NOW.


cods wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 5:49am:

SOLDIERS DO NOT COMMIT MURDER...HOW DARE YOU...

I used the word 'murder' to copy what someone here was inferring that soldiers do.


cods wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 5:49am:

would it be better to sit back in your armchair whilst the enemy came knocking at your door?????

Would such a polite enema be an enemy at all? Come knocking on the door? "Excuse me sir, would you very much mind signing this petition please, that gives us control of your government?"


Quote:

"Why, no, of course not! They're useless buggers who've never done a damn thing for anybody but themselves anyway."

cods wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 5:49am:

why not just GAS everyone like Hussein did..at least that way you have a city still standing. >:( >:(

I KNEW you had it in you to solve the problem of the destroyed infrastructure after a nuclear bomb ... GAS! Your genius is not generally recognised, cods, but this shall change shortly. There'll be statues to you in Seoul.  :)

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 5:00pm:

cods wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 5:49am: I can only be bothered with one answer to that rant.. ;D That's all I'm allowing you ~ We're going to get back on topic any moment NOW. cods wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 5:49am: SOLDIERS DO NOT COMMIT MURDER...HOW DARE YOU... I used the word 'murder' to copy what someone here was inferring that soldiers do. cods wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 5:49am: would it be better to sit back in your armchair whilst the enemy came knocking at your door????? Would such a polite enema be an enemy at all? Come knocking on the door? "Excuse me sir, would you very much mind signing this petition please, that gives us control of your government?" Quote: "Why, no, of course not! They're useless buggers who've never done a damn thing for anybody but themselves anyway." cods wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 5:49am: why not just GAS everyone like Hussein did..at least that way you have a city still standing. >:( >:( I KNEW you had it in you to solve the problem of the destroyed infrastructure after a nuclear bomb ... GAS! Your genius is not generally recognised, cods, but this shall change shortly. There'll be statues to you in Seoul.  :)

I keep telling you I am a genius  at last RECOGNITION>>

didnt you know thats why the real nasties use GAS??..its a real bugger when you march into a city and its all flat...


anyway back to the topic.. what was it???

mantra wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 12:32pm:

And we agree on this Herbert.  :)

Well Hallelujah, Praise the Lord!  :)

Now I can get back to teaching my cats how to use the toilet bowl AND how to flush their little floaters away.

:)

cods wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 5:59pm:

anyway back to the topic.. what was it???

It's rumoured to be something about 'savage dogs'.  ::)

Rhodesian Ridgebacks ... Not a good choice for a pet. Opportunist snackers ...

link

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 7:09am:

Rhodesian Ridgebacks ... Not a good choice for a pet. Opportunist snackers ... link

I dont know where you find these stories herb but that is so sad.. my son had a ridgeback and a more friendly dog you couldnt want..I can only guess the animal tasted blood and that was it.. its a sad tale but not a horror one like the other one.

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 7:09am:

Rhodesian Ridgebacks ... Not a good choice for a pet. Opportunist snackers ... link

they are actually great dogs .... it's a pity you don't know enough about dogs to be able to form an honest opinion

John Smith wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 6:33pm:

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 7:09am: Rhodesian Ridgebacks ... Not a good choice for a pet. Opportunist snackers ... link they are actually great dogs .... it's a pity you don't know enough about dogs to be able to form an honest opinion

Ridgebacks are indeed good dogs. Most working breeds are genetically sound if the breeders have done their job. It's people who usually make good dogs into bad dogs.

That article was about a cross bred dog. Although I didn't read the whole article just the first line or two, I am assuming the dog was a rescue and therefore it's history wasn't known.

cods wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 5:35pm:

I dont know where you find these stories herb ...

They find ME ...  8-)


cods wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 5:35pm:

... and a more friendly dog you couldnt want.

How many times have we heard that before?

It's like the nice quiet young man who lives in Flat 34 who's always polite and courteous and never makes any kind of trouble.


cods wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 5:35pm:

I can only guess the animal tasted blood and that was it ..

Rhodesian Ridgebacks are known to be a risky breed.


cods wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 5:35pm:

its a sad tale but not a horror one like the other one.

What?

Ferchrissake ... the dog popped her EYE into its mouth and sucked it like I suck pickled onions from a jar while I'm watching TV in the evenings.

It began to snack on its owner. It used its paws to look for the tasty bits ... The delicatessen bits ...

Jeffrey Dahmer  8-)

viewpoint wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 7:10pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 6:33pm: Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 7:09am: Rhodesian Ridgebacks ... Not a good choice for a pet. Opportunist snackers ... link they are actually great dogs .... it's a pity you don't know enough about dogs to be able to form an honest opinion Ridgebacks are indeed good dogs. Most working breeds are genetically sound if the breeders have done their job. It's people who usually make good dogs into bad dogs. That article was about a cross bred dog. Although I didn't read the whole article just the first line or two, I am assuming the dog was a rescue and therefore it's history wasn't known.

actually, the dog tried to wake the woman by licking her, eventually he got a taste of the blood on her eye his natural instincts took over and he just kept eating. Not the dogs fault, blame the dumb drunk woman who cracked her skull.

I hear she no longer has a drinking problem thanks to the dog.

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 7:52pm:

Rhodesian Ridgebacks are known to be a risky breed.

all breed are risky if the owner is himself/herself bred from morons

John Smith wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 7:53pm:

I hear she no longer has a drinking problem thanks to the dog.

Correct.

At last report it's the dog that now has a drinking problem ~ (guilt, remorse, shame ... etc) 

John Smith wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 7:54pm:

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 7:52pm: Rhodesian Ridgebacks are known to be a risky breed. all breed are risky if the owner is himself/herself bred from morons

Correct.

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 8:04pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 7:54pm: Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 7:52pm: Rhodesian Ridgebacks are known to be a risky breed. all breed are risky if the owner is himself/herself bred from morons Correct.

I know ... it's a pity I can't say the same about your comment


Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 7:52pm:

Rhodesian Ridgebacks are known to be a risky breed.

John Smith wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 9:22pm:

I know ... it's a pity I can't say the same about your comment

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 7:52pm:

Rhodesian Ridgebacks are known to be a risky breed.

I mean 'risky breed' in the sense that if they are not properly socialised they will attack and rip the face off anyone who they perceive to be a threat to their territory and 'family pack'.

And ALSO that puppies that show uncompromising aggression if not culled will go into the community to breed more puppies of dangerous temperament.

The breeding of Ridgebacks must be strictly controlled to ensure that only the puppies of good temperament are allowed to survive.

They are a dangerous breed if the owners do not socialise them from an early age through walking them to meet other dogs and people.

Most of my neighbours never bother to take their dogs for a walk from one end of the year to the next. They simply can't be bothered.

And what this results in is a neighbourhood full of savage dogs that bark their nuts off every time they hear the slightest sound or see the slightest movement beyond the residential fence.


Quote:

Dog owner facing jail after his Rhodesian Ridgeback jumped over garden fence and savaged boy's face

Quote:

Most dogs will only attack if they, their family or their property is threatened in any way. They should be socialised from a very early age and trained using positive techniques such as rewarding good behaviour.

Quote:

Responsible breeders have tried to breed the aggression out of certain breeds but irresponsible owners have been known to incorrectly raise their dog and then breed from it to sell the puppies for money, with little regard to monitoring their temperament.

Quote:

If you plan on getting one of these breeds then please make sure you check out the dog's parent's temperament if possible. And check with your household insurance as some companies will not insure certain breeds.

link

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 7:52pm:

cods wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 5:35pm: I dont know where you find these stories herb ... They find ME ...  8-) cods wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 5:35pm: ... and a more friendly dog you couldnt want. How many times have we heard that before? It's like the nice quiet young man who lives in Flat 34 who's always polite and courteous and never makes any kind of trouble. cods wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 5:35pm: I can only guess the animal tasted blood and that was it .. Rhodesian Ridgebacks are known to be a risky breed. cods wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 5:35pm: its a sad tale but not a horror one like the other one. What? Ferchrissake ... the dog popped her EYE into its mouth and sucked it like I suck pickled onions from a jar while I'm watching TV in the evenings. It began to snack on its owner. It used its paws to look for the tasty bits ... The delicatessen bits ... Jeffrey Dahmer  8-)

the DOG is still an animal.... the domestic dog relies on humans to feed and water it...[unlike a cat]...the dog didnt know it was killing its friend...how many dogs have you heard of that save their owner by keeping them warm...over and over again.. a dog eating its owner is rare...I dont care what you say....

I think even a poodle would do that under these circumstance.. they are a hunting dog as well you know..

look at the bad name Rotties have... yet those that have them for pets adore them and never have any trouble...

with your outlook lets ban all dogs..... for me I would ban owners first.... and that particularly goes for bad people who abuse children...sterilise them

cods wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 9:13am:

the dog didnt know it was killing its friend...how many dogs have you heard of that save their owner by keeping them warm...over and over again.. a dog eating its owner is rare...I dont care what you say....

I agree with you. You're making my case for me. There are dog breeds that are loyal to the end, and then there are dog breeds that get a little peckish if an eyeball should happen to suddenly present itself as a potential meal. 


cods wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 9:13am:

I think even a poodle would do that under these circumstance.. they are a hunting dog as well you know..

Surprisingly, poodles are deemed by the experts to be the most intelligent of all the canine breeds.


cods wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 9:13am:

look at the bad name Rotties have... yet those that have them for pets adore them and never have any trouble...

The mothers of anti-social bastards who terrorise their neighbourhood will tell you the same thing ...


cods wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 9:13am:

with your outlook lets ban all dogs..... for me I would ban owners first.... and that particularly goes for bad people who abuse children...sterilise them

Coincidentally I just now had an idiot in front of my place trying to discipline his large black dog using angry streams of the 'f' word while tugging on the leash. 

Idiots like this suburban Neanderthal should never be allowed to own any type of pet.

I'll give him credit for at least getting the dog socialised by taking it for walks ~ even though I doubt very much that he realises he's socialising it by doing this.

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 9:42am:

cods wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 9:13am: the dog didnt know it was killing its friend...how many dogs have you heard of that save their owner by keeping them warm...over and over again.. a dog eating its owner is rare...I dont care what you say.... The dog's history wasn't known. Most loyal well behaved dogs are socialised properly when young, not just taken for a walk on the street every now and then, they are also trained to a certain degree. Certainly swearing at the dog and yanking on the leash is not training. The only reason why a dog does something is to better his situation. How can a dog improve his own situation? He does this by: Increasing nice feelings (positive reward) Decreasing small (or bigger) unpleasant feelings (negative reinforcement and correction, respectively) I agree with you. You're making my case for me. There are dog breeds that are loyal to the end, and then there are dog breeds that get a little peckish if an eyeball should happen to suddenly present itself as a potential meal.  Silly. cods wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 9:13am: I think even a poodle would do that under these circumstance.. they are a hunting dog as well you know.. Surprisingly, poodles are deemed by the experts to be the most intelligent of all the canine breeds. Many breeds are deemed intelligent, but if the owner isn't the dog will not be given the chance to use it's natural instinct in a way which is useful. cods wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 9:13am: look at the bad name Rotties have... yet those that have them for pets adore them and never have any trouble... The mothers of anti-social bastards who terrorise their neighbourhood will tell you the same thing ... Rottweilers are a good breed providing the owner has an idea about the character of molosser type breeds. They are a very intelligent and loyal breed, but because of the mastiff influence can be stubborn. cods wrote on Jan 8th, 2014 at 9:13am: with your outlook lets ban all dogs..... for me I would ban owners first.... and that particularly goes for bad people who abuse children...sterilise them Coincidentally I just now had an idiot in front of my place trying to discipline his large black dog using angry streams of the 'f' word while tugging on the leash.  Idiots like this suburban Neanderthal should never be allowed to own any type of pet. Agree. I'll give him credit for at least getting the dog socialised by taking it for walks ~ even though I doubt very much that he realises he's socialising it by doing this. The only "credit" he deserves is a lifetime ban from keeping a dog. He's encouraging the animal to reject socialisation.

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 9:42am:

Idiots like this suburban Neanderthal should never be allowed to own any type of pet

Used to know a security guard who uses Dobermen on his rounds ... one day whilst checking a car yard, when his dog found some drunk hiding behind a car ... dog growled at him so he tried to intimidate the dog by pretending he knew Karate ... gave the dog a few fake karate chops ... needless to say by the time the cops got there the man was short a finger ... dog had taken it right off.

Did he think the dog might say'ohh, he knows karate, I think I'll let him go'.  ;D ;D ;D

Rhodesian Ridgeback showing its wild side ...


Quote:

Neil Twigg, 41, grabbed a carving knife before stabbing the Rhodesian Ridgeback as it tried to rip the fingers off a woman

link

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 9^th, 2014 at 7:40pm:

Rhodesian Ridgeback showing its wild side ... Quote: Neil Twigg, 41, grabbed a carving knife before stabbing the Rhodesian Ridgeback as it tried to rip the fingers off a woman link

more people have been bitten by chihuahua than ridgebacks

John Smith wrote on Jan 9^th, 2014 at 9:04pm:

more people have been bitten by chihuahua than ridgebacks

That's only because people reach out to pat cheewahwahs but don't do that to Ridgebacks.  :P

You can google any breed name and add dog bite or vicious dog and any breed will come up a number of times. Most breeds will bite if the owner is an idiot.

viewpoint wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 6:48am:

You can google any breed name and add dog bite or vicious dog and any breed will come up a number of times. Most breeds will bite if the owner is an idiot.

Not all dangerous-breed dogs bite ... but all dangerously bitten people are bitten by the Usual Suspect dangerous-breed dogs.

Dogs that bite someone are not by that fact alone a dangerous breed of dog.

It's the severity of the bites that determines which dogs are dangerous and which ones are not.

It's not rocket science.

Insecure people own big dogs.
Stupid insecure people own big dangerous dogs.

Shoot the dogs, sterilise the owners.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 8:40am:

Insecure people own big dogs. Stupid insecure people own big dangerous dogs. Shoot the dogs, sterilise the owners.

stupid insecure people make comments like the one above

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 8:15am:

viewpoint wrote on Jan 10th, 2014 at 6:48am: You can google any breed name and add dog bite or vicious dog and any breed will come up a number of times. Most breeds will bite if the owner is an idiot. Not all dangerous-breed dogs bite ... but all dangerously bitten people are bitten by the Usual Suspect dangerous-breed dogs. Dogs that bite someone are not by that fact alone a dangerous breed of dog. It's the severity of the bites that determines which dogs are dangerous and which ones are not. It's not rocket science.

No it isn't "rocket science" neither is the fact that idiot owners cause certain breeds to be considered dangerous.......get it?

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 8:40am:

Insecure people own big dogs. Stupid insecure people own big dangerous dogs.

Correct.

They are also immature, socially inadequate, like to appear threatening and intimidating, and suffer from SPC.

John Smith wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 9:06am:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jan 10th, 2014 at 8:40am: Insecure people own big dogs. Stupid insecure people own big dangerous dogs. Shoot the dogs, sterilise the owners. stupid insecure people make comments like the one above

Granted, not every owner of a dangerous breed is a dickhead.

viewpoint wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 9:07am:

No it isn't "rocket science" neither is the fact that idiot owners cause certain breeds to be considered dangerous.......get it?

There are just as many 'idiot owners' of the non-dangerous breeds as there are of the dangerous breeds ... and yet the non-dangerous breeds remain categorized as the non-dangerous breeds despite them biting just as much as the dangerous breeds.

So what makes for a dangerous breed?

Their threat to life-and-limb when they go troppo.

Comprende?  :)

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 9:23am:

John Smith wrote on Jan 10th, 2014 at 9:06am: Sprintcyclist wrote on Jan 10th, 2014 at 8:40am: Insecure people own big dogs. Stupid insecure people own big dangerous dogs. Shoot the dogs, sterilise the owners. stupid insecure people make comments like the one above Granted, not every owner of a dangerous breed is a dickhead.

If you want to keep a dog, keep a real dog ..

nothing sh1ts me more than these idiots with toy dogs that dress them up in dresses or put ribbons on them ... but a f#ken doll if you want to play dress ups.

John Smith wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 9:29am:

If you want to keep a dog, keep a real dog .. nothing sh1ts me more than these idiots with toy dogs that dress them up in dresses or put ribbons on them ... but a f#ken doll if you want to play dress ups.

Horses for courses. Depends on what you want a mutt for.

To be honest, if my three cats were to suddenly disappear and I won a raffle to have my front yard fenced in from the street ~ I would buy a Hound from Hell after the experience I had a few years ago when a thug was trying to break into my house while knowing I was here.

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e150/ruffdiamond/January%202013/FierceDog_04-1_zps72e7db9d.jpg

John Smith wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 9:06am:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jan 10th, 2014 at 8:40am: Insecure people own big dogs. Stupid insecure people own big dangerous dogs. Shoot the dogs, sterilise the owners. stupid insecure people make comments like the one above

Intelligent, self-aware, socially responsible, productive, handsome people don't have any dogs.

oh, I don't own a dog !!

You are equating "dangerous" with specific breeds because of media coverage of dog bites. The media do not want to know if a border collie, foxy, or dachshund bites somebody, but if a German Shepherd, Rottweiler, or a Dobermann bites somebody it is big news, and yes obviously if a bigger dog bites it causes more damage. However, the question isn't about which breed of dog bites, it is about why the owner didn't socialise and train the animal when he got it. Why the new owner didn't know the dog was unreliable and had a history of aggression if it was a rescue, and if so why it wasn't either retrained or euthanised before it injured somebody.

Natural instinct in canines has always required that there is a leader (Alpha) which the pack follows, a dog owner should take the place of the Alpha and dictate which direction the dog takes; this is naturally accepted and in fact preferred by dogs. Any breed will eventually go rogue or become destructive if unsupervised, unsocialised, untrained, ill treated, or left to its own devices and becomes bored.

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 9:38am:

John Smith wrote on Jan 10th, 2014 at 9:29am: If you want to keep a dog, keep a real dog .. nothing sh1ts me more than these idiots with toy dogs that dress them up in dresses or put ribbons on them ... but a f#ken doll if you want to play dress ups. Horses for courses. Depends on what you want a mutt for. i should have known you would be the type to dress up your dogs ;D ;D ;D To be honest, if my three cats were to suddenly disappear and I won a raffle to have my front yard fenced in from the street ~ I would buy a Hound from Hell after the experience I had a few years ago when a thug was trying to break into my house while knowing I was here. http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e150/ruffdiamond/January%202013/FierceDog_04-1_zps72e7db9d.jpg

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 9:45am:

John Smith wrote on Jan 10th, 2014 at 9:06am: Sprintcyclist wrote on Jan 10th, 2014 at 8:40am: Insecure people own big dogs. Stupid insecure people own big dangerous dogs. Shoot the dogs, sterilise the owners. stupid insecure people make comments like the one above Intelligent, self-aware, socially responsible, productive, handsome people don't have any dogs. oh, I don't own a dog !!

why thank you ... neither do I ...

although your comment is still crap.

viewpoint wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 9:56am:

You are equating "dangerous" with specific breeds because of media coverage of dog bites. The media do not want to know if a border collie, foxy, or dachshund bites somebody, but if a German Shepherd, Rottweiler, or a Dobermann bites somebody it is big news, and yes obviously if a bigger dog bites it causes more damage. However, the question isn't about which breed of dog bites, it is about why the owner didn't socialise and train the animal when he got it. Why the new owner didn't know the dog was unreliable and had a history of aggression if it was a rescue, and if so why it wasn't either retrained or euthanised before it injured somebody. Natural instinct in canines has always required that there is a leader (Alpha) which the pack follows, a dog owner should take the place of the Alpha and dictate which direction the dog takes; this is naturally accepted and in fact preferred by dogs. Any breed will eventually go rogue or become destructive if unsupervised, unsocialised, untrained, ill treated, or left to its own devices and becomes bored.

the breed responsible for most bites in Australia is actually the cattle dog ... yet you never see that on the news. :D :D

viewpoint wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 9:56am:

You are equating "dangerous" with specific breeds because of media coverage of dog bites. The media do not want to know if a border collie, foxy, or dachshund bites somebody, but if a German Shepherd, Rottweiler, or a Dobermann bites somebody it is big news, and yes obviously if a bigger dog bites it causes more damage.

Keep going, View. Don't stop now. You're slowly nutting-out the fact that some breeds are dangerous, and some are not, and this depends upon whether they're more likely to nip your finger or rip your face off.

It's also a matter of which breeds are more intensely loyal and protective of their 'family'.


viewpoint wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 9:56am:

Any breed will eventually go rogue or become destructive if unsupervised, unsocialised, untrained, ill treated, or left to its own devices and becomes bored.

Exactly.

And these can be divided into the breeds which then become dangerous to humans, and the breeds which don't.

Herbert, I see comprehension isn't one of your strongpoints. I said, and meant, and you know, that owners and poor breeding dictate the temperament of a dog, not the breed. Don't interpret my posts according to your own definition of canine behaviour. I have studied and worked in this field for a number of years, you on the other hand judge breeds with your incorrect perception of their appearance and the way owners, breeders, and sometimes organisations mistreat them. Then you blame any adverse and natural reaction on the animal.

viewpoint wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 1:43pm:

Herbert, I see comprehension isn't one of your strongpoints. I said, and meant, and you know, that owners and poor breeding dictate the temperament of a dog, not the breed.

Well, that's not entirely true.

You seem to be stubbornly holding onto the idea that all dogs are born equal, and that it's only contact with humans that differentiate them thereafter.

Not true.

Part of the reason for 'dangerous breeds' is that they have very powerful pack instincts which drive them to protect and defend a little more aggressively than the more passive breeds.

Trust me, I know about dangerous breeds of dog.

I had to have 14 injections in my stomach at a hospital to ensure against rabies when I got mauled by a guard dog in China, and my brother had to have his X-Alsatian put down because it was too loyal to him only, and not so much the rest of the family.

Perhaps if you tried a little harder to divorce your ego from the subject of this discussion you wouldn't feel so threatened by being found wanting in your opinions.

John Smith wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 10:14am:

the breed responsible for most bites in Australia is actually the cattle dog ... yet you never see that on the news. :D :D

Correct.

And who knows why it is still legal for working dogs to be allowed to be kept by people living in suburban homes.

Working dogs need plenty of space and room to move. They are not designed to be domestic pets.

So you judge all breeds on the actions of a smacking guard dog in China.....and the actions of a cross bred dog your brother had? Oh yes and the articles you search out online about breeds you deem to be dangerous ......sounds a bit like your fairy tale about being a former policeman.....then you suddenly change your mind and admit you were talking crap.......no ego problem here, but you appear to have a credibility problem Herbert.

Incidentally, just because a dog is a certain breed, DOES NOT mean it's from the working bloodlines of the same breed......ie all GSDs are not working bloodlines!

Anyway, you stay with your cats mate......you should be safe there......unless you visit the zoo.....!

viewpoint wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 3:45pm:

Oh yes and the articles you search out online about breeds you deem to be dangerous ......

We've been in the Information Age for quite some time now, and what this means is that there's a lot of credible and academically sound information about such things as dangerous breeds of dog.

So far you haven't responded to even one of the points I've made. Not one.

I don't mind if you and 'John Smith' have closet self-image problems of a sexual nature that require you to own the sort of killer-dogs that help to disguise your secret fears.

That's okay with me.  :)

viewpoint wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 3:45pm:

So you judge all breeds on the actions of a smacking guard dog in China.....and the actions of a cross bred dog your brother had? Oh yes and the articles you search out online about breeds you deem to be dangerous ......sounds a bit like your fairy tale about being a former policeman.....then you suddenly change your mind and admit you were talking crap.......no ego problem here, but you appear to have a credibility problem Herbert. Incidentally, just because a dog is a certain breed, DOES NOT mean it's from the working bloodlines of the same breed......ie all GSDs are not working bloodlines! Anyway, you stay with your cats mate......you should be safe there......unless you visit the zoo.....!

Can you see the irony in your post?

Angry people shouldn't own dogs renowned for aggressiveness. Yes the owners can be held partly responsible for the actions of a savage dog. If they've got a short fuse - the dog usually picks up on it and behaves accordingly.

mantra wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 4:44pm:

viewpoint wrote on Jan 10th, 2014 at 3:45pm: So you judge all breeds on the actions of a smacking guard dog in China.....and the actions of a cross bred dog your brother had? Oh yes and the articles you search out online about breeds you deem to be dangerous ......sounds a bit like your fairy tale about being a former policeman.....then you suddenly change your mind and admit you were talking crap.......no ego problem here, but you appear to have a credibility problem Herbert. Incidentally, just because a dog is a certain breed, DOES NOT mean it's from the working bloodlines of the same breed......ie all GSDs are not working bloodlines! Anyway, you stay with your cats mate......you should be safe there......unless you visit the zoo.....! Can you see the irony in your post? Angry people shouldn't own dogs renowned for aggressiveness. Yes the owners can be held partly responsible for the actions of a savage dog. If they've got a short fuse - the dog usually picks up on it and behaves accordingly.

In views defense (and I'mnot a fan of viewpoint, he normally misses the point altogether ) Mother Theresa herself would eventually get pissed off trying to reason with Herbert.  He has no idea.

mantra wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 4:44pm:

Can you see the irony in your post? Angry people shouldn't own dogs renowned for aggressiveness. Yes the owners can be held partly responsible for the actions of a savage dog. If they've got a short fuse - the dog usually picks up on it and behaves accordingly.

Well said. If VP won't listen to me, maybe he'll listen to you.

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 7:11pm:

mantra wrote on Jan 10th, 2014 at 4:44pm: Can you see the irony in your post? Angry people shouldn't own dogs renowned for aggressiveness. Yes the owners can be held partly responsible for the actions of a savage dog. If they've got a short fuse - the dog usually picks up on it and behaves accordingly. Well said. If VP won't listen to me, maybe he'll listen to you.

who will you listen too?

John Smith wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 7:03pm:

I'm not a fan of viewpoint, he normally misses the point altogether.

Precisely.

8-)

(Have you noticed how the polling has gone from 3 to 4 ~~ to 3 to 11 all of a sudden after weeks of inertia?)

John Smith wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 7:11pm:

who will you listen to?

Lady Mantra.  :)

mantra wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 4:44pm:

viewpoint wrote on Jan 10th, 2014 at 3:45pm: So you judge all breeds on the actions of a smacking guard dog in China.....and the actions of a cross bred dog your brother had? Oh yes and the articles you search out online about breeds you deem to be dangerous ......sounds a bit like your fairy tale about being a former policeman.....then you suddenly change your mind and admit you were talking crap.......no ego problem here, but you appear to have a credibility problem Herbert. Incidentally, just because a dog is a certain breed, DOES NOT mean it's from the working bloodlines of the same breed......ie all GSDs are not working bloodlines! Anyway, you stay with your cats mate......you should be safe there......unless you visit the zoo.....! Can you see the irony in your post? Angry people shouldn't own dogs renowned for aggressiveness. Yes the owners can be held partly responsible for the actions of a savage dog. If they've got a short fuse - the dog usually picks up on it and behaves accordingly.

What is ironic Mantra, is that you should chip in with the intention of making an observation mainly to derogate me, and you basically confirm what I have been saying all along, that breeds are not dangerous in themselves, they are turned that way by people who have no idea what they are doing, and in this case it would appear people who have no idea what they are talking about.

The señora is right Herbert, there is no love lost between the two of us, but I  think he understands and appreciates where I'm coming from in this thread.

Anyway, time to break off my contribution to this subject. I think I'm going up against a brick wall here, therefore I'll allow you to breath a sigh of relief Herbert and maintain your educated opinion on this matter.
;)

viewpoint wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 7:29pm:

I'll allow you to breath a sigh of relief Herbert and maintain your educated opinion on this matter.

The only reason you disagree with me is because you didn't read, mark, and inwardly digest the points I made in support of the fact that some canine breeds are of a more 'robust' temperament than others.

If this were not so, then there wouldn't be the stereotype of the would-be 'tough-guy' young male who needs to inflate his ego by owning one of a known breed of dangerous dog to demonstrate his macho credentials.

John Smith calls these type of dogs ~ 'real dogs'.

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 7:44pm:

viewpoint wrote on Jan 10th, 2014 at 7:29pm: I'll allow you to breath a sigh of relief Herbert and maintain your educated opinion on this matter. The only reason you disagree with me is because you didn't read, mark, and inwardly digest the points I made in support of the fact that some canine breeds are of a more 'robust' temperament than others. If this were not so, then there wouldn't be the stereotype of the would-be 'tough-guy' young male who needs to inflate his ego by owning one of a known breed of dangerous dog to demonstrate his macho credentials. John Smith calls these type of dogs ~ 'real dogs'.

and? I don't think there should be any confusion between your dog and your dolls Herb .... you seem to mix them up

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 7:14pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 10th, 2014 at 7:03pm: I'm not a fan of viewpoint, he normally misses the point altogether. Precisely. 8-) (Have you noticed how the polling has gone from 3 to 4 ~~ to 3 to 11 all of a sudden after weeks of inertia?)

perhaps because the whole thread got sidetracked ... when was the last post about the OP?

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 7:16pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 10th, 2014 at 7:11pm: who will you listen to? Lady Mantra.  :)

only whilst she agrees with you

John Smith wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 9:53pm:

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 10th, 2014 at 7:16pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 10th, 2014 at 7:11pm: who will you listen to? Lady Mantra.  :) only whilst she agrees with you

;D

As long as people remain civil - it's OK to have opposing views.


John Smith wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 9:51pm:

and? I don't think there should be any confusion between your dog and your dolls Herb .... you seem to mix them up

I had always owned "real" dogs until not so long ago. They were loyal, loving and obedient for me - but visitors occasionally were quite scared of them. This is how I wanted them to be at the time, but lately my views have changed.

There are so many breeds mixed into your average dog now that you can't be sure what you're going to end up with. You have no idea if the dog had a good start in life or what the temperament of the parents might be. We hear too many stories about these gentle dogs suddenly turning on someone that you start to think that it's a gamble getting a "real" dog.

I've always bought my dogs from the RSPCA, but today I wouldn't. It's too risky. Even buying a purebred can be problematic unless you sight a long recorded lineage of well behaved and healthy dogs.

John Smith wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 9:51pm:

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 10th, 2014 at 7:44pm: If this were not so, then there wouldn't be the stereotype of the would-be 'tough-guy' young male who needs to inflate his ego by owning one of a known breed of dangerous dog to demonstrate his macho credentials. John Smith calls these type of dogs ~ 'real dogs'. and?

Thank you.

I rest my case.

John Smith wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 9:53pm:

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 10th, 2014 at 7:16pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 10th, 2014 at 7:11pm: who will you listen to? Lady Mantra.  :) only whilst she agrees with you

Whenever Lady Mantra mounts her soap box to hold forth on Leftwing causes, I simply sneak off to the kitchen to make myself a cup of tea until she has finished.

It's all very civilised. No name-calling. No heckling her from the back of the crowd.

:)

mantra wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 11:56pm:

You have no idea if the dog had a good start in life or what the temperament of the parents might be.

"...the temperament of the parents ..." Exactly. Congenital factors alone can influence a dog to be a potential danger to little kids, etc.


mantra wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 11:56pm:

We hear too many stories about these gentle dogs suddenly turning on someone that you start to think that it's a gamble getting a "real" dog.

It happened to me. I had a 'loving relationship' with one of my brother's German Shepherds until one day, out of the blue, while I was sitting quietly with my brother, the dog started to stare at me and growl.

Since that very moment I have never trusted a dog.

I have a dear friend lives in another party of OZ..dog 11 yrs old..
always escaping from yard been bailed from the pound far too many times..she is/was a good dog at home.but an unhappy dog..never trained to walk properly taking her for a walk was a nightmare..as she hated all dogs and pulled like mad.. so hardly went for walks......now she has gone for the last time.. she is not in the pound and they did spend a day or so looking for her....now he wants another dog...friend doesnt as she has two young children thats enough...but its his house so his yard so his decision...........I am mortified...as well as she but what can you do to stop someone who thinks animals train themselves ::) ::)

they even went to the extreme of electric fencing...and collar for the dog.....she said the pound keeper laughed when he saw it...

they live in cyclone country so have to have wire fencing..

I'm in a painful moral dilemma at the moment.

I have a neighbour who is a genuine psychopath, divorced and lives alone.

Every six months or so the dog he has, disappears, never to be seen again. A few weeks later another dog appears in his backyard ~ at first friendly and with a waggly tail, as though it has been a family pet somewhere.

But then it gets ignored, and left alone for most of the day while it barks and pines incessantly. I think the fellow does nightshift, and sleeps during the day.

A few weeks later the dog disappears, to be replaced a few weeks after that by another friendly dog.

This pattern repeats itself, year in year out.

I strongly suspect this bastard either steals these dogs or receives them from dog-nappers, and after a period of de-socialisation he then sells or uses these dogs for dog-fighting.

If the council or any other authority was to come and question him about this, he'd know it was me, and it would then only be a matter of time before I'd have to sell up and move to another suburb.

This is the charmer who threatened to pour petrol over my backyard and set it alight where some of my bushes were overhanging into his backyard.

He's been here about 7 years now. I never talk to him. I believe him to have a genuinely psychotic personality. No heart. No ability to empathise. A sociopathic loner.

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 11^th, 2014 at 6:49am:

John Smith wrote on Jan 10th, 2014 at 9:51pm: Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 10th, 2014 at 7:44pm: If this were not so, then there wouldn't be the stereotype of the would-be 'tough-guy' young male who needs to inflate his ego by owning one of a known breed of dangerous dog to demonstrate his macho credentials. John Smith calls these type of dogs ~ 'real dogs'. and? Thank you. I rest my case.

there was a case?  :o :o

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 11^th, 2014 at 9:23am:

This is the charmer who threatened to pour petrol over my backyard and set it alight where some of my bushes were overhanging into his backyard.

you have such a way with people herb, I'm surprised he felt this way  ;D ;D ;D

mantra wrote on Jan 10^th, 2014 at 11:56pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 10th, 2014 at 9:53pm: Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 10th, 2014 at 7:16pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 10th, 2014 at 7:11pm: who will you listen to? Lady Mantra.  :) only whilst she agrees with you ;D As long as people remain civil - it's OK to have opposing views. John Smith wrote on Jan 10th, 2014 at 9:51pm: and? I don't think there should be any confusion between your dog and your dolls Herb .... you seem to mix them up I had always owned "real" dogs until not so long ago. They were loyal, loving and obedient for me - but visitors occasionally were quite scared of them. This is how I wanted them to be at the time, but lately my views have changed. There are so many breeds mixed into your average dog now that you can't be sure what you're going to end up with. You have no idea if the dog had a good start in life or what the temperament of the parents might be. We hear too many stories about these gentle dogs suddenly turning on someone that you start to think that it's a gamble getting a "real" dog. I've always bought my dogs from the RSPCA, but today I wouldn't. It's too risky. Even buying a purebred can be problematic unless you sight a long recorded lineage of well behaved and healthy dogs.

I have always kept Dobermen ... With a complete pedigree, history of linege etc .although I don't have a dog now, my current line of work makes it difficult. If you ask Herb I'll bet he'll tell you it's a dangerous breed. never in over 15 yrs and several dogs, has one of my dogs ever barked aggresivly at someone let alone tried to bite anyone. Another dog, different story, but a person NEVER ...

the only danger to people was their over reactions.

John Smith wrote on Jan 11^th, 2014 at 12:22pm:

I have always kept Dobermen ... With a complete pedigree, history of linege etc .although I don't have a dog now, my current line of work makes it difficult. If you ask Herb I'll bet he'll tell you it's a dangerous breed.

Ask me? Heck no ~ I've only been quoting the experts all through this thread. Nothing to do with moi.


Quote:

In the middle of a prestigious dog show, Adamson disqualified a well known Doberman contestant for displaying viciousness in the ring. Although it may be a coincidence, around the same time the attitude regarding Doberman temperament began to change.

John Smith wrote on Jan 11^th, 2014 at 12:22pm:

I have always kept Dobermen ... although I don't have a dog now.

Of course you don't.

How long did the Compensation Court ban you from owning a dog?  8-)

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 11^th, 2014 at 12:58pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 11th, 2014 at 12:22pm: I have always kept Dobermen ... With a complete pedigree, history of linege etc .although I don't have a dog now, my current line of work makes it difficult. If you ask Herb I'll bet he'll tell you it's a dangerous breed. Ask me? Heck no ~ I've only been quoting the experts all through this thread. Nothing to do with moi. Quote: In the middle of a prestigious dog show, Adamson disqualified a well known Doberman contestant for displaying viciousness in the ring. Although it may be a coincidence, around the same time the attitude regarding Doberman temperament began to change.

you pull up one comment on the internet about a dog that started to display viciousness, and thats supposed to mean something? I bet I can find a comment along those lines on just about any breed you care to name.   :D :D :D :D

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 11^th, 2014 at 1:01pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 11th, 2014 at 12:22pm: I have always kept Dobermen ... although I don't have a dog now. Of course you don't. How long did the Compensation Court ban you from owning a dog?  8-)

Compensation court? You been snuggling uo to closely with your cats herb .... you seem to have a hairball stuck in place of your brain.

John Smith wrote on Jan 11^th, 2014 at 1:29pm:

you pull up one comment on the internet about a dog that started to display viciousness, and thats supposed to mean something?

Not 'viciousness'.

I've been talking about dangerous dogs ... ones that are capable of killing your neighbour's young child in the backyard if they should get over-excited about something.

Chihuahuas are often snappy and vicious, but I doubt that you'll find one on Google that had to be shot by the police, or was later euthanised by order of a magistrate.


Quote:

Man, 46, dies after he was bitten by his partner's 'highly protective' Staffordshire bull terrier     Unnamed man suffered bit injuries to lower body in Essex flat     Woman, 36, arrested but released without charge after death in Westcliff     'Edgy' pet, believed to belong to his partner, has been destroyed

link

John Smith wrote on Jan 11^th, 2014 at 1:30pm:

Compensation court? You been snuggling uo to closely with your cats herb .... you seem to have a hairball stuck in place of your brain.

Parents of children attacked by dogs ALWAYS sue for compensation through a good lawyer.

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 11^th, 2014 at 1:40pm:

Not 'viciousness'. I've been talking about dangerous dogs

your quote


Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 11^th, 2014 at 12:58pm:

In the middle of a prestigious dog show, Adamson disqualified a well known Doberman contestant for displaying viciousness in the ring

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 11^th, 2014 at 1:43pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 11th, 2014 at 1:30pm: Compensation court? You been snuggling uo to closely with your cats herb .... you seem to have a hairball stuck in place of your brain. Parents of children attacked by dogs ALWAYS sue for compensation through a good lawyer.

you got this from the same source as your vicious doberman comment?

Quote:

Dog owner's ear is bitten off by his Staffordshire Bull Terrier... named Tyson

Quote:

Mr McKinley said his temperament had always been very good ...

Quote:

He said: 'I was on the bed stroking him and suddenly he just went. It was just like turning a light switch.'

Quote:

Tyson sunk his teeth into Mr McKinley's left ear and right arm as he attempted to push the pet away. 'He just came back for more,' he said. 'He was not giving in.

link

All a very familiar pattern.

"The dog wouldn't hurt a fly. Very good with children. Loved by everybody. I don't know what happened. I can't understand it. There was a hole in the fence. It's so sad. The funeral's on Saturday".

Over and over again we hear this familiar lament from owners of dangerous breeds of dog who pretend they had 'no idea' they were the owner of a breed of dog that is universally known to be dangerous.

And of course ~ the whole attraction of owning this sort of dog is precisely because they have a well-recorded statistic for inflicting injury and death upon people.

John Smith wrote on Jan 11^th, 2014 at 3:39pm:

you got this from the same source as your vicious doberman comment?

Doberman's had a reputation for viciousness 30 years ago - long before all the media hype. Unfortunately even without their reputation - they look savage. They seem to be often used as guard dogs for criminals in movies.

I like dogs with happy eyes, who smile easily and wag their tail a lot.

http://hugelike.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/happy-dog-with-teeth.jpg

;D ;D ;D

I read on the 'Net that Dobermans have deliberately had their aggressive inclinations gradually bred out of them over the past few decades by agreement with the professional breeders of these dogs.

This will disappoint John, of course. He'll simply have to get some gladiator-type tattoos on his sword arm to compensate for the loss of 'macho' as he now walks his toy poodles around the block each morning and evening...  :P

I am utterly opposed to the issuing of licences to private citizens for the purposes of backyard breeding and sale of dogs.

Over the years we've had some horror stories about how these cynical backyard 'breeders' (bleeders) care only for the quick dollar, and to hell with spending money on the care and comfort of the pups and bitches while they're waiting to find buyers.


http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e150/ruffdiamond/January%202013/smile_zpse7fb0f31.png

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 13^th, 2014 at 7:08am:

I am utterly opposed to the issuing of licences to private citizens for the purposes of backyard breeding and sale of dogs. Over the years we've had some horror stories about how these cynical backyard 'breeders' (bleeders) care only for the quick dollar, and to hell with spending money on the care and comfort of the pups and bitches while they're waiting to find buyers.

Yes the money usually ends up taking precedence over the welfare of the dogs. I doubt many of these breeders are regulated and they only get caught out when someone dobs them in.

Pet shops shouldn't be allowed to sell pups either. People buy them on impulse or for presents then discard them a few months later when they stop being cute. Shelters are full of them.

Nationally we put down about a million cats and dogs annually - but puppies and kittens are still being produced thoughtlessly and prolifically. It's very sad.

The Savage dog thread ...

This morning on my routine 40 minute walk I came to a house that has new occupants.

I noticed a gray dog about 2 years old in a cringing position close to the wire fence, and propped up against this fence was a big notice saying 'BEWARE OF THE DOG' in hand-lettering.

The dog looked at me with a 'whipped-look' in its eyes, and cringed even more pathetically. It then crawled hard against the fence, and I stuck my hand in and scratched and patted it.

It was a beautiful-natured female, and just sucked up the approval and kind attention I was paying it.

The owners are bogans. Shallow, superficial, immature, juvenile, self-serving cretins.

Dog-ownership should be carefully licenced to good homes with responsible adults.

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 13^th, 2014 at 6:37am:

All a very familiar pattern.

so is the pattern of teenagers and car crashes, lets ban all teenager from driving  :D :D :D :D


mantra wrote on Jan 13^th, 2014 at 6:52am:

They seem to be often used as guard dogs for criminals in movies

they are used as guard dogs by people that want a reliable guard dog .. they are very good for that purpose.


mantra wrote on Jan 13^th, 2014 at 6:52am:

I like dogs with happy eyes, who smile easily and wag their tail a lot.

my boy always used to smile, although he had no tail to wag ...


Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 13^th, 2014 at 7:08am:

This will disappoint John, of course

Not at all, can't you read, I already told you none of my dogs would ever ark at another human being let alone try to bite them ... :D :D :D Keep it up Herb, apprently your wrongly preconceived image of a Doberman has to be more reliable than anything an actual Doberman owner can tell you


Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 13^th, 2014 at 7:08am:

He'll simply have to get some gladiator-type tattoos on his sword arm to compensate for the loss of 'macho' as he now walks his toy poodles around the block each morning and evening...

YOu really are stupid aren't you ... I don't do tattoos, and there are lots of other breeds inbetween Doberman and Toy Poodle,


Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 13^th, 2014 at 7:08am:

I am utterly opposed to the issuing of licences to private citizens for the purposes of backyard breeding and sale of dogs.

On that we agree, although I wasn't aware that one needed a license

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 13^th, 2014 at 8:11am:

The Savage dog thread ... This morning on my routine 40 minute walk I came to a house that has new occupants. I noticed a gray dog about 2 years old in a cringing position close to the wire fence, and propped up against this fence was a big notice saying 'BEWARE OF THE DOG' in hand-lettering. The dog looked at me with a 'whipped-look' in its eyes, and cringed even more pathetically. It then crawled hard against the fence, and I stuck my hand in and scratched and patted it. It was a beautiful-natured female, and just sucked up the approval and kind attention I was paying it. The owners are bogans. Shallow, superficial, immature, juvenile, self-serving cretins. Dog-ownership should be carefully licenced to good homes with responsible adults.

What gave you the impression that the owners aren't good dog owners? the sign, the fence or the dog? ... all things I would suggest anyone with a dog provide.

John Smith wrote on Jan 13^th, 2014 at 8:11am:

so is the pattern of teenagers and car crashes, lets ban all teenager from driving.

The ones who prove to be immature hoons are banned ...


mantra wrote on Jan 13^th, 2014 at 6:52am:

They seem to be often used as guard dogs for criminals in movies

John Smith wrote on Jan 13^th, 2014 at 8:11am:

they are used as guard dogs by people that want a reliable guard dog .. they are very good for that purpose.

No argument from me there, as long as the property has secure fences.


Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 13^th, 2014 at 7:08am:

This will disappoint John, of course

John Smith wrote on Jan 13^th, 2014 at 8:11am:

Not at all, can't you read, I already told you none of my dogs would ever bark at another human being let alone try to bite them ... :D :D :D

But that's what they ALL say after the neighbour's kid has had his face ripped off ...


Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 13^th, 2014 at 7:08am:

He'll simply have to get some gladiator-type tattoos on his sword arm to compensate for the loss of 'macho' as he now walks his toy poodles around the block each morning and evening...

John Smith wrote on Jan 13^th, 2014 at 8:11am:

YOu really are stupid aren't you ... I don't do tattoos, and there are lots of other breeds inbetween Doberman and Toy Poodle,

;D


Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 13^th, 2014 at 7:08am:

I am utterly opposed to the issuing of licences to private citizens for the purposes of backyard breeding and sale of dogs.

John Smith wrote on Jan 13^th, 2014 at 8:11am:

On that we agree, although I wasn't aware that one needed a license

Oh yes.

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 13^th, 2014 at 8:19am:

The ones who prove to be immature hoons are banned ...

Notice you've wrote The ones who prove to be , I have no problem calling an individual dog aggressive if it has been proven ... just don't tell me its the breed.[/quote]

John Smith wrote on Jan 13^th, 2014 at 8:40am:

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 13th, 2014 at 8:19am: The ones who prove to be immature hoons are banned ... Notice you've wrote The ones who prove to be , I have no problem calling an individual dog aggressive if it has been proven ... just don't tell me its the breed.

It is the breed.

The hoons are genetic in origin.

At an early age they are prescribed Rohypnol to reduce their aggression levels.

But then they default on taking their medication and end up wrapped around a tree after trying to take a corner at 100k.

Herb, you are a bona fide idiot ......

Run out of gas, have you?


Quote:

After the death of John-Paul Massey by a pit bull style dog in Liverpool the then Prime Minister Gordon Brown backed the Daily Mirror’s campaign on dangerous dogs which it demands: ‘Outlaw all vicious cross-breeds currently being used to get around the Act, which specifies particular breeds’ (Lyons 2009). 'Dangerous dogs' in the U.K. reports several stories of dog attacks on children highlighting certain breeds (UK and Spain 2010). It is easy to understand why some countries ban breeds. Dublin has banned 11 (O’Boyle 2010). Switzerland has banned fifteen (Lenouvelliste 2010). In the U.K. the American Pit bull Terrier, the Japanese Tosa, the Dogo Argentino and the Filo Brasilero are banned (Directgov 2010).

Some of the smaller, unbanned dogs are more aggressive than the bigger dogs ~ but they're not dangerous.

We're talking about dangerous breeds here ... and it's ALWAYS one of the Usual Suspects.

Capish?

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 13^th, 2014 at 10:49am:

Run out of gas, have you?

no, but if you think teenagers who crash cars have done so because they were fed Rohypnol at an early age ... well, you are obviously to stupid to bother debating anything with.

John Smith wrote on Jan 13^th, 2014 at 8:13am:

What gave you the impression that the owners aren't good dog owners? the sign, the fence or the dog? ... all things I would suggest anyone with a dog provide.

If you've owned dogs for any length of time - you  learn to understand their body language and that of other dogs. Overly submissive and cowered dogs aren't usually born that way.


Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 13^th, 2014 at 10:06am:

It is the breed. The hoons are genetic in origin. At an early age they are prescribed Rohypnol to reduce their aggression levels. But then they default on taking their medication and end up wrapped around a tree after trying to take a corner at 100k.

I think it's the aggressive/violent video games that kids have been addicted to for the last 20 years which reduces their instinct for caution. If they can race a car at high speed in a game, then why not in reality?

http://carsmedia.ign.com/cars/image/article/651/651546/top-10-racing-games-xbox-edition-20050916061655066.jpg


The US trains their marines on video games which comes as no surprise.

http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/six-days-in-fallujah.jpg


This one seems to be a current favourite for Sydney's thugs.

http://thegotgame.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/DigitalUppercuts.jpg

;D ;D ;D

Some timely relief from Lady Mantra!

But you're right.

Violent video games played at an age before moral conscience has developed and crystallised must account for the 'king-hit' lunatics and the others.

It's probably the same with dogs.

Early exposure to violent video games ....  8-)

Lady Mantra ~ John's not talking to me any more in this thread. I knew I'd get lucky some time.  :) :P

mantra wrote on Jan 13^th, 2014 at 11:10am:

If you've owned dogs for any length of time - you  learn to understand their body language and that of other dogs. Overly submissive and cowered dogs aren't usually born that way.

or maybe the dog keeps getting attacked or yelled at by passers by? You or Herb don't have enough information to make that call one way or the other.

A friend of mine saw her dog catch and kill a cat.  I tell you she never looked at her dog in the same way again after seeing it nature red in tooth and claw as it were. 

A glimpse of a  very different dog to that who sits beside the food bowl with a goofy grin on its face waiting for its meal delivered from a tin. 

I have an Italian neighbour at the back of my property whose wife finds it totally impossible to treat their dog with anything other than shouted warnings and directions in a harsh and scolding voice.

Not once have I heard her talk in a friendly and affectionate way to the animal.

Being so bereft of any civilised pretensions or moral conscience, she takes the opportunity to use the dog to extricate herself from feeling she is the last in the pecking order.

Good help any Negro house servants in her Gone With The Wind southern cotton plantation.

People so often show themselves to be utter bastards whenever the opportunity presents itself.

Datalife wrote on Jan 13^th, 2014 at 11:28am:

A friend of mine saw her dog catch and kill a cat.  I tell you she never looked at her dog in the same way again after seeing it nature red in tooth and claw as it were.  A glimpse of a  very different dog to that who sits beside the food bowl with a goofy grin on its face waiting for its meal delivered from a tin.

she should reward that dog .....

John Smith wrote on Jan 13^th, 2014 at 11:49am:

Datalife wrote on Jan 13th, 2014 at 11:28am: A friend of mine saw her dog catch and kill a cat.  I tell you she never looked at her dog in the same way again after seeing it nature red in tooth and claw as it were.  A glimpse of a  very different dog to that who sits beside the food bowl with a goofy grin on its face waiting for its meal delivered from a tin.  she should reward that dog .....

Quote:

Herb, you are a bona fide idiot ......

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 13^th, 2014 at 11:52am:

John Smith wrote on Jan 13th, 2014 at 11:49am: Datalife wrote on Jan 13th, 2014 at 11:28am: A friend of mine saw her dog catch and kill a cat.  I tell you she never looked at her dog in the same way again after seeing it nature red in tooth and claw as it were.  A glimpse of a  very different dog to that who sits beside the food bowl with a goofy grin on its face waiting for its meal delivered from a tin.  she should reward that dog ..... Quote: Herb, you are a bona fide idiot ......

i knew you'd like that Herb ....  ;D ;D ;D