Malthouse unleashed – new Home Secretary to be asked to authorise extermination of dangerous dogs

A quiet – bordering on the boring – meeting of the Strategic and Operational Policing Committee of the Metropolitan Police Authority suddenly burst into life this afternoon when it was asked to authorise £10.6 million to provide kennelling for another 400 dogs seized under the Dangerous Dogs Act.

I growled that it would be a lot cheaper just to shoot the dogs rather than cage them (which in itself is fairly cruel for large dogs) for six months or more while the legal processes following their seizure grind through the courts.  Much to my surprise, the sentiment attracted unanimous support from other Committee members – even the saintlier-than-thou Jenny Jones AM admitted that she didn’t like attack dogs.

It was agreed that the DCiC*, Deputy Mayor Kit Malthouse AM, Chair of the MPA, who has been making his name tackling the issue of dangerous dogs in London, should write to the new Home Secretary, Theresa May, asking her to agree fast-track culling powers for the Police in relation to the animals.

However, even though everyone knows that the new Con/Lib Coalition** Government walks on water, it was decided to authorise the money just in case the new powers take a bit of time to come through.

*     Dog-Catcher-in-Chief

**  aka “the mongrel” – copyright Mayor Boris Johnson

89 thoughts on “Malthouse unleashed – new Home Secretary to be asked to authorise extermination of dangerous dogs”

  1. No they are not children Quietzapple, but neither are they inanimate objects for us to discard and destroy as we think we see fit. We ‘fight’people in the rest of the world killing whales, tigers, trophy shooting etc and then in our own country talk about our most dear and loyal family ‘friend’ in this way and assume we have the right to act as judge and jury…..or at least the police do…..on the welfare of these wonderful animals.

    Most of the dogs seized are family pets and have never been involved in a dangerous act in their lives, but just happen to ‘look like a breed that has been vilified by this ridiculous, il thought out, ineffective, law.

    But instead of doing the right thing by repealing Section 1 of the DDA 1991, this committee is trying to save the expense caused by the bad legislation in the first place by shooting the evidence of the problem made. I think the idea of using some of this money instead to retrain dogs, is an excellent one, but let’s be honest most of the impounded dogs have never hurt a fly in their lives!

    I have often said that I am very lucky to have been born in the Uk and caucasian. Dogs that are unlucky enough to be born to look the wrong way or fit a set of measurements that, as I said before, a labrador retriever fits to 90% accuracy, are being scarificed to this ridiculous piece of legislation. In a supposedly civilised, compassionate and democratic country this has to stop!


  2. Just because dogs do not have the ability to stand up for themselves you think its perfectly acceptable to put down dogs that have never caused harm to anyone. Would you advice the government to kill dangerous people who murder and viciously attack other human beings?
    I would also like to point out that most dogs are not automatically vicious it is the owners who turn them vicious by treating them cruelly and training them to be vicious, so i would like to know what you are planning on doing with these people that are found guilty of animal cruelty? All you people ever want to do is find more dogs to put on the dangerous dog act and kill animals who are put in kennels to save money its a complete joke! we could save thousands of pounds every year if we didn’t pay you the ridiculous amount of money you earn every year but i doubt that will happen anytime soon!
    This really makes me sick, you think shooting dogs is totally acceptable, just because dogs cant speak up and defend themselves you think its perfectly acceptable to shoot them when they have done nothing wrong!

  3. I reiterate: What about the owners?

    I gather that a Tory Cabinet Mionister has suggested in another context that torture of people might be a bonus.

    I think the proposed remedy for the impounded dogs is merciful.

    A dog kept in a cage for 23 hours a day I thereby tortured, and will behave like a maniac if encouraged to enjoy its freedom when living a normal life with a family I gather.

    Shooting may well be better than incarceration and almost invariable death sentence after some months.

  4. So now we shoot without any evidence of wrong doing or even confirmation of being a banned breed at all do we Quietzapple? No chance whatsoever for the family to defend their dog?

    You are quite correct that it IS unjust to incarcerate these poor dogs but what needs changing is the law. Your preferred solution is simply an escalation of an ineffective, ill thought out piece of legislation in the first place.

    Two wrongs do not make a right. Please think what you are saying here, and if indeed you once were a dog owner as you say think how you would have felt if this had been your family pet, because, mark my words let this happen to one breed and others will be next!

    This really is the thin end of the wedge in a supposedly civilised 21st century country. The inference is that we become a police state with the police being judge and jury….or really a sort of dictatorship.

    My father was a pilot in WW2 and my son is in the Fleet Air Arm now. They fought and fight for a democracy and innocent until proved guilty…not this dictatorial, big brother state you are proposing. My father would turn in his grave at this unjust, cruel piece of legislation-I just know he would. He was a compassionate person, honest, logical and caring. It’s a shame there are not so many like him nowadays!! This law was an ill thought out, hasty piece of nonsense. It needs to be completely rethought and repeal of Section 1 is the place to start.

    For those reading this agree who agree with me, please think about signing this petition to do just that

  5. The First thing Parliament should do is pass legislation to control the ownership and uses of dogs.

    Various of my relos were in the RAF, they didn’t vote for the disgraceful Thatcher-Major Governments and none remaining places dogs above people thankfully.

    If the Con – National Liberal Government doesn’t give priority to a dog licence incorporating insurance and checks as I suggested above then shooting is a better option that the present arrangement.

    There is nothing logical about releasing attack dogs, or those of like breeds which may be innocent.

    Those who like to compare such dogs with people are doubly deluded: their arguments are thereby self defeating.

  6. when will you people accept and deal with the real issue, it is not the dogs that are causing the problem but the thugs and idiots that buy these dogs and train them to fight and be vicious because they think it is clever and fun and makes them look big and strong, these dogs are fantastic, loyal and wonderfully natured when bought up by responsible owners but are being branded and persecuted as dangerous vicious dogs because of a few cruel and irresponsible owners, any dog in the wrong hands can be turned into a killing machine regardless of breed, and now you want to ‘shoot’ those poor animals that in a lot of situations are in these kennels just because they are of a particular ‘type’, as a society we are becoming more and more barbaric and unreasonable, it is about time the real issue was dealt with and that is the cruelty that is inflicted upon some these dogs by these disgusting people in the name of fun, they are the ones who should be shot not the dogs who have been made to suffer cruelty and pain for the majority of their lives and certainly not the dogs who have done absolutely nothing wrong and are with responsible, loving owners but have been siezed because they are of a particular type, start dealing with the real issue, the irresponsible owners and stop blaming the dogs

  7. I don’t understand your point Quietzapple. I don’t put dogs above children-I have worked with children most of my life and have 3 of my own.

    Who we vote for is somewhat irrelevant to this argument isn’t it? The legislation has remained through the last 3 parliaments and has to be dealt with properly by this one hopefully.

    If we follow our argument then all quaratined dogs should be shot too because they are kenneled for 6 mths. We do not have the right to drag dogs od the street and shoot them without any proper process. A dog has a right to a fair and proper life. Would you please read the article I gave a link to many posts ago which looks at the deaths from dog attacks logically. Actually look at the evidence. None of them are from status dogs. This law does nothing to protect children from dog attacks and status dogs are a different and newer problem of society. It is not status dogs but family pets being locked up for months. Read!/group.php?gid=307642082133&ref=ts

    Unfortunately, the ‘real villains’ are not the ones suffering but real families with well adjusted and harmless pets are. The soft target as usual gets hit and the hardened criminal goes unpunished. Let’s be honest, if a thug’s dog is ceased he just buys another one…such a person who can use a dog as a weapon in the first place is hardly attached to his animal.

    Please take time to read some of the heart breaking but true stories on here too!/pages/DDA-Watch/366883744658?ref=ts

    I do not put dogs before children but neither do i have the right to treat dogs as inanimate dispensable items.

    When governments are asking what has happened to society and made it so violent, what sort of example is this? Is this not legislated violence? A dog is a living creature with feelings and a right to life.
    We remonstrate with other countries about whaling and killing Pandas and tigers etc and then act this way towards our dogs?

    The best way forward would be compulsory microchipping or ear tatooing for all dogs together with compulsory routine scanning at every vets. Cheap for owners and cheap to enforce and all dogs can then be traced….no microchip and the dog is seized and rehomed. No more dumping ‘on the sly’ or stealing and reselling. No chip, no sale. All purchasers would have to be responsible for checking the chip was registered to the vendor…as with car sales. This is something the RSPCA could enforce with their millions and cheap microchipping clinics could be set up easily at RSPCA and PDSA and maybe rescue centres.

    The dog licence was scrapped because the cost of selling a licence for 37.5p was more than the cost of the licence.

  8. Ah, tory dog owners.

    The state should afford consideration to those affected by dog owners, not seek solely to make a profit from each and every one.

    I refer folks to my first comment.

  9. I know that those who shoot foxes because they are vermin ie many are a menace to human interests. don’t invariably cross question the foxes re their habits before shooting them.

    Many have strong sentimental attachments to foxes, in general and particular.

  10. Quietzapple may I suggest that if the DDA had never come about we would not have worry about the number of dogs being kept in the appalling conditions by the police. These dogs many of which it turns out are not band breeds just cross breeds that happen to look similar to pits and have never shown any agression towards anyone. Many are taken away from a loving family this causes distress to the family and to the dog. These families are not allowed to visit their dog or have any say in how they are treated while in the kennels. When these dogs a prooved not to be a band breed they are often returned to they owner in an extremely poor condition they are under weight, their nutering operations are infected.

    Yes it is true that they suffer in the kennels but if this DDA was finished with then they wouldn’t be there in the first place.

    What needs to happen here is those dogs who have shown agressive and dangerous tendancies should be kept muzzled when out walking and around children if this is not followed through then the dog should be removed from their owners regardless of breed .

    One particular breed should not be singled out as bad when all dogs regardless of breed have the potential to be a danger. It is not just the thugs that can cause a dog to become dangerous some well meaning owners manage it as well. There needs to be more education for people before getting a dog.

    To Lord Toby Harris,

    My question to you is how do you manage to rectifiy this situation in a way that appease’s all parties involved?

    I suggest giving the dogs back that do not show any signs of aggression but before doing this perhaps their owners should go on a cousre to learn more about the particular breeds they owner once they pass this course they get a licence to be able to keep this particular breed. Also any one wishing to own a breed that has been on this rediculous Act should take the course as well anyone not conforming to this gets the dogs taken away until the course is complete if not then the dog is rehomed with someone with a correct licence and the the owner fined for owning the dog with out a licence.

    Would like to here your views on this point.


  11. The idea of permitting dangerous attack dogs to be walked in public with muzzles on is ludicrous: muzzles can be removed. As ever the owners & handlers require a licence for the dog/dogs they own or have control of.

  12. Muzzles can be affective. If ever I thought my dog became a threat to anyone she would be muzzled and walked in the quietest of areas and watched carefully. The muzzles are only a suggestion to how these dog may be handled, a preventative measure. I DO NOT SUGGEST IT FOR JUST DDA DOGS BUT ALL WHO SHOW THESE TENDENCIES an intensive training course to run along side it if this does not work then think about putting it down. To suggest that because a dog is of a certain breed it is dangerous that is ludicrous. Some dogs may pose a threat to other dogs but not to people if the two yorkshire terriers that ripped a gash in the side of our whippet had been kept undercontrol then it would not have happened. I know the woman and she cares very much for her dogs but they were out of control. Still I do not brand ALL yorkies as dangerous. My sister was attacked by four border collies while walking with her son in the pram and one bit her on the knee but it could have been my nephews face. These dogs were always let out and I know a few people that were hurt by them. Still I do not brand ALL border collies as dangerous. Its all about preventative measures. If they had been kept in the garden behind a large fence no one would have got hurt.

    I know my bullmastiff x rotty is not keen on men I always let people know of this before they come to meet her but she has never shown any agression towards men just backs away until she is sure they are not a threat. You’d be suprised at the people that just come up and pet her without asking first or the amount of kids that rush at us because they want to see our husky shouting look its a snow dog. Where are parents to educate the kids that some dogs may not like to be stroked by people and that they should ALL WAYS ask first.

  13. The police used to actively prevent people openly carrying sporting guns in inappropriate public places.

    Dog weapons should receive the same sort of ban, that simple.

    Our society, and we don’t need any more human victims.

  14. And what happens when they have extermiated all these so called dangerous breeds. The Thugs may turn to the next breeds that may suit their needs the rottweilers, bullmastiffs, german shepards, boxers, staffs or any number of breeds may suit. What happens then kill all these breeds as well. People may own guns under licence, way can the same be done for these dogs.

  15. How dare you sit wasting taxpeyers money making decisions that will cause untold suffering to dog owners without consulting the public?
    Perhaps if the police spent more time and effort rounding up and clearing the streets of the yobs that control them – there would be no need for these draconian laws. But like the moron who is in favour of shooting dogs – they are too damn lazy and dogs are an easy target. Shame on all of you.
    I would break any law that condems a dog just becasue of how it looks.
    How can you tell us not to discriminate because of someone’s colour when you are doing similar?

    Yes shoot all the dogs – save the money for the government to waste on other trivia.
    Meanwhile the real criminals (humans) carryon with their crimes knowing the police cannot catch them and even if they do the cps rarely bother to prosecute – it’s too hard – dogs are so much easier to deal with – you just shoot them.
    But when you run out of dogs to kill – you WILL have to answer to the public as to why our streets are not safe from the yobs that rule them.
    I was brought up to respect the law and the police – no longer.

  16. Good video Jennifer. So glad Brandy and Karma were amongst the survivors and sorry they had to go through 18 mths detention for doing absolutely nothing.

  17. Glad these dogs have freedom their only crime to look something they are not we must try and save the others

  18. quietzapple “The police used to actively prevent people openly carrying sporting guns in inappropriate public places.

    Dog weapons should receive the same sort of ban, that simple.

    Our society, and we don’t need any more human victims.”

    A dog only becomes a weapon when wielded by a human. Such as a knife is not dangerous until a human uses it to stab some one I have knives in my kitchen and never used them to hurt anybody. I have a big powerful 9 stone dog but never used her to hurt any one she is very loving and as I type she is lying in bed with me snoring her head off not very dangerous. Now lets say this same dog had gone to some else lets say a thug that wanted a status dog then they would have treated her differently they may have beaten her till she retaliated they may have encouraged any aggressive tendancies in stead of training her properly.

    See where I’m heading not the dog the owner, all efforts should be made by promoting good ownership not banning breeds because some idiot wants a weapon. Dogs are very loyal and want to please thier owners so much they do anything they let us dress them up, they jump through hoops, they climb ladders, they fetch and carry for us, they fight to the death for us, they attack on command for us. Just like children, a puppy does not know right from wrong it is up to owners to teach that dog and unfortunatly many owners teach their dogs the wrongs not the rights whether intentional or not.

    See this link.


    Please could you all sign the above petition, the MPs are aware of it, Theresa May is aware of it, I have another petition number 10, but it hasn’t reopened yet due to the election campaigns. Not sure why seeing that the election is now over, but the date given was 3rd June, in the meantime please sign the above and lets try to repeal the DDA 1991. Thank you everyone

  20. i wouldn’t bother trying to educate quietzapple, clearly nothing is going to get through!

    Shooting dogs is extremely cruel and should only ever be done when someone’s life is at stake. Shooting doesn’t guarantee a painless and quick kill, even the best of shooter can miss, especially if the target is alive and moving. Some animals and even people have survived being shot in the head, sometimes shoots have to have a follow up shoot to finish the job.

    It was would go against people’s right to a fair trail to kill their dogs immediately.

    Contrary to popular belief the police does NOT have to seize ‘pit bulls’. under the dangerous dogs (amended) act 1996, a pit bull can legal be left a home during exemption procedures. yet I’ve only heard of this happening twice. a more acceptable bandage solution would be to leave all section 1 dogs at home and only seize pit bulls or any other dog that has acted dangerously.

    However, if you really want to deal with the problem. Scrape the dda altogether and start again, it has too many flaws and it would be much simpler to start again. Take at look at Calgary’s dog legislation, since they introduced it, dog attacks have been reduced by 70%! And that’s without any form of breed specific legislation.

    Breed specific legislation is extremely ineffective and not necessary to reduce dog attacks. There is no scientific evidence that proves one breed to be more dangerous than any other, FACT. The supreme court in Alabama expected evidence that no breed was inherently dangerous and ruled bsl unconstitutional. other courts in the usa have also ruled bsl unconstitutional.

    breed specific legislation is usually a knee-jerk reaction to media reports. the vast majority of attacks never make the news and it is unclear at what requirements the media is using to determine what attacks make the news and which ones don’t. the attacks in the media are a tiny proportion of dog attacks and are not representative of total dog attacks, therefore basing legislation on media reports, as was the dda, is never going to be effective.

    A major problem with dog in the uk is that anyone can get a dog, with out having to prove they are cable of owning one. Dog owners should have to pass a test before they can get a dog. This should also be true for breeders, and each dog should have to pass genetic and temperament testing before they can be breed. All other dogs should be neutered.

    well bred, well trained and socialized pit bulls not only have a place in society but can be an asset to it, and not just by the joy they bring to their owners. In the usa (areas without bsl) pit bulls are commonly used for detections, search and rescue and as therapy dogs. A drug detection dog called popsicle has the highest drug bust on record, he is also a pit bull. Before Washington banned pit bulls and Rottweilers, they’re own police force had 6 pit bulls trained for drug and explosive detection, it is unclear what happened to these dogs once the ban came into effect.

    Cheyenne, Dakota and tahoe are 3 american pit bull terriers that are famous search and resuce dogs they respond to over 200 search missions, including the space shuttle Columbia disaster. They are also trained therapy dogs that bring join to special needs children. Due to their success they and their owner, Kris Crawford, have received numaous awards, including the prestigious presidential volunteer lifetime of service award, a Jefferson award- the nobel prize for public service, just to name a few.

    Not only that millions of people own them as pets. Not every breed is right for every person, dog attacks are usually the result of poor research and poor understanding about dogs. To kill off every single pit bull just because of a minority that have been poorly managed, treated and poorly raised is extremely unfair both to the dogs and to those who own them responsible.

    Studies in a American show that just one hour of dog safety education in years 2 and 3 reduced dog attacks by 80%!

    Education is the solution, not eradication.

  21. i didn’t say just repeal the DDA, i said repeal it and start from starch, as in write a new law, preferably one based on Calgary’s dog legislation as it has already been shown to work.

    i also suggest other things that should be part of a new law, like dog owners having to pass a test to prove they are capable of owning a dog, tougher breeding regulation such as compulsory genetic and temperament testing. i also think that dog safety education should be compulsory in schools.

    the DDA has had nearly 19 years to work and it has failed! dog attacks have increased by 50% and dog fighting has increased by 15 folds! the DDA is useless and keeping it would be like standing in sinking sand when the tide is coming in!

  22. I refer you both to my first remark, and further to the view of the Met that such dogs and incidents have increased. (Toby has written another blog on this topic ….)

  23. The fact that incidents have increased proves the DDA doesn’t work. if it did pit bulls would be exscint in the uk by now. infact the SDU admited they don’t have the money or the resources to target those that breed and sell them. if you can’t target the breeders, you can’t enforce a breed ban, because no matter how many dogs you kill, the person can jsut turn round and get another one.

  24. This suggestion is absolutely disgusting. Having worked with the Police (nationally- not only the Met) for the past 10 years i would have no faith in the average police officer, making a judgement call on the breed of a dog as they often can not establish the correct name and nationality of a person that they encounter, even if the person is trueful and compliant. There is an issue with the owners of vicious dogs- whatever the breed, and it is the breeders and owners that need to be dealt with. I am tax payer and i request that Pendry stands downs fron her position as with her attitude she is not the right person for the job. I would prefer my money kennelling dogs rather that sex offenders, robbers and thugs. You can not kill a dog humanely or othe wise because of the way it looks.

  25. Anyone who supports killing dogs because of their breed should be shot themselves. These interfering busybodies ruin people’s lives – I know, I speak from personal experience.

  26. Lord preserve us from the “Final Solution” of the dangerous dog fanciers, but the law will do.

  27. Things like this make my blood boil. A typical response from a uneducated ignorant person; lets just kill all the innocent dogs that we’ve ripped away from their families just because of their breed!

    This is exactly what is wrong with this country. These people shouldnt be able to pass laws! I shudder to think mine and my pets welfare is down to coldblooded people like this. If its not obvious already THE DANGEROUS DOGS ACT HAS NEVER WORKED! Targeting dogs merely on apperance and breed is unfair and gets us no where. Try looking at the humans who raise them and teach them to be aggressive and attack people. Any knowledgble dog owner will know that any dog – no matter what breed – is shaped by their owner and how they are trained and socilaised. Of course its true that a pitbull will do more damage than a chihuahua but that just means that their owners need to be more responsible and give their dog the right leadership and training. I think its sick that we can justify killing innocent dogs that have done nothing but be born to a certain breed and yet we let murderes and rapists back on our streets after a year or two in a cosy prison cell with all the luxeries… disgusting!


  28. What chance has the UK got if these are the sort of people we have got running our country. Never trust someone who doesnt like animals. BSL is nothing short of murder and maybe this money would be better spent ridding our country of Rapists and Murderers, Paedofiles etc instead of picking on dogs who dont look the way some idiot thinks they should. Racism, Breedism same thing !!

  29. disgracefull attitude go kill the murderers and rapists you will save a great deal off ppls money !!!!!! and get rid off the bsl (bullshit law)deed not breed get the arseole holding the lead !!!! and rehab the poor dogs .

  30. The Dangerous Dogs Act was invented far too quickly without much thought as a jerk recation from the Government to try to be seen to deal with dog issues arising because of incompetent owners. It was never thought through properly. If people who murder others can get away with it, why on earth should and innocent dog like Lennox, be jailed and put on death row? If you cannot see the common sense in this, then it is you who has the problem. Sort out the DDA, put brains in gear and see that no dog has the capacity to be cruel; dogs only react for survival. If something has lead them to react in a manner considered danerous, then I would ask who has caused that reaction? It is certainly not the dog, but a human. Human is the only animal capable of cruelty and boy, do they do it!

  31. The annoying thing about this knee jerk reaction is that the government decided they had more knowledge about dogs than vets, rescue homes , dog trainers etc.
    All have agreed that a dog does only what the OWNER tells them. Pitbulls especially are so eager to please which is why thugs use them to fight. Its the owner that should be focused on rather than a breed of dog. The pitbull isnt even a recognised breed in the UK yet they create a pitbull ‘type’ measuring a dog in court to ascertain if it fits Section one of this pathetic act of parliament. Compulsory microchipping is essential , but dont ban a breed, sorry a ‘type’ just because of its characteristics !

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *