So again, can we ban the humans instead of the dogs please? Since its their fault that xl bully's are so aggressive
About bleeding time too: Scotland's health secretary Michael Matheson has resigned ahead of a report into an £11,000 bill that was racked up on his parliamentary iPad. Mr Matheson said he was standing down because he did not want the row over the bill to become a distraction. The iPad charges, initially paid out of the public purse, were incurred during a family trip to Morocco in late 2022. When details of the bill were first made public, he said the device had only been used for parliamentary work. But he subsequently admitted that his sons had used the iPad as a data hotspot so they could watch football. He has since paid back the bill in full and apologised. His resignation comes ahead of the publication of an investigation into the incident by the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body - which has been examining whether Mr Matheson made an improper expenses claim. In his resignation letter to First Minister Humza Yousaf, Mr Matheson said he had still not received the corporate body's report. He added: "However, it is in the best interest of myself and the government for me to now step down to ensure this does not become a distraction to taking forward the government's agenda." When news of the iPad bill first emerged in November, Mr Yousaf initially described it as a "legitimate" expense. After Mr Matheson admitted his sons had been involved, the first minister resisted calls to sack him and denied he had been misled by the health secretary. Michael Matheson: Scotland's health secretary quits over iPad row
Ridiculous thing to say and I roll my eyes every time someone comes out with the "don't ban dogs, ban bad owners!" nonsense too. Let's say we ban people from owning dogs if their dog tears someone apart. What comfort is it to the family of a child torn apart by an XL Bully that the person who owned such a dangerous breed of animal is now banned from owning a Labrador, poodle or chihuahua? You're talking about punishment after the fact - I'm talking about preventing these tragedies from ever occurring in the first place.
Anyway . . . it's been confirmed that the dogs that killed 68-year-old Esther Martin in Essex were XL bullies. Jaywick dogs that killed Esther Martin confirmed as XL bullies
How does that work? People can already be banned from owning dogs and it happens regularly. The problem is it's always reactive, after the event. It's already too late then, somebody's already been killed or seriously hurt. You can't pre-emptively ban people from owning dogs before an accident happens, how does that work? How do you decide in advance who gets to own a dog and who doesn't if they have no previous history of problems with animals? 'You look a bit chavvy, you can't have a dog'? It doesn't work in practice even though it sounds nice in theory. And before you say compulsory dog ownership licences, that doesn't work either because the types of people who tend to own and mistreat dogs also tend to buy them from illegal breeders deep within their estates anyway and just would continue to do that and bypass the licencing laws. And the police wouldn't have the resources to stop and search people for proof of licence with so many millions of dog owners in the country. All mandatory licences do is add extra cost and hassle for responsible owners and increase the abandonment rate amongst those people struggling with the cost and where getting a licence and complying with the rules would be the final straw that pushes them over the edge. While the dangerous owners will just continue doing what they're doing illegally anyway and ignore all the rules. The easiest and most effective way to deal with these problems sadly is to ban dangerous breeds. That gives the police the power to seize dogs that are of that breed and reduces their value and therefore the incentive for illegal breeders to continue breeding them. Unfortunately this breed has shown time and again that it's aggressive tendancies are too easily activated and the strength of the breed means the consequences when it happens are horrific. And they are a breed that are most attractive to the worst type of owners so it's the most effective way to indirectly target the worst most irresponsible owners in a way that's possible to do within our laws.
This is the thread about whether or not Scotland should leave the Union. I got bored well over a week ago. I made a comment, which I have since repeated, which was a joke. The joke being that we, humans, surely have to take blame for the breeding of these dangerous dogs.
You're right, we have to take the blame and hold ourselves responsible. And the responsible thing to do after breeding those animals into existence is, as horrible as it sounds, sterilising them back out of existence.
I'm not sure that "higher earners pay more tax" is a stick to beat the SNP with, given that a lot of people in the rest of the UK are arguing for a similar approach to be taken by the Westminster government.
I may be reading that wrong but it seems that it actually kicks in at 35k, approximately 4k more than me Joe bloggs. Also, as pointed out higher tax is coming in England. Seems like as said, another's stick to deflect from the monstrosity that is happening and has been happening in England for well over a decade now.
