Dodgy Doggy Insurance

[Hazell B]

This is one that's made me sad at British people in general and angry with the way we live now.

It is possible that all dogs in the UK will have to be insured 'third party' in the future, and that they will have to be chipped with an identity number for life, it's reported today.

Where to start .... sod it, THIS IS A POINTLESS TAX ON ME AND MY PETS!

Call me a rebel, but I refuse to insure my dogs against them injuring another person. Why the hell should I? The people with dogs (which are mostly already banned breeds anyway) who bite won't bother. The people they mainly bite won't claim (because their own dog is probably banned, too). The people who get their dog chipped then have it bite will simply say they sold it, or give false details when the chip goes in in the first place. Or they'll cut the chip out if it does bite.

There will be false claims among certain sections of the population and idiots who irritate dogs into nipping so they can claim. It'll a nice earner for some people. It'll also be a nice earner for the insurance companies. And who'll be paying most? Me, a sensible dog owner who has one grumpy other-dog-hater and one terrified-of-strangers dog.

At the moment I keep my dogs either away from the public or on short leads. I warn other dog owners to stay away from Kipper as he attacks other dogs with no warning. Will they bother listening if they know they can claim any vet bills from me? I doubt it. As it stands now, once I've warned them and I keep my dog under control, I'm not liable for their dog's safety or vet bills. That will be reversed under this new possible system. That's just plain wrong in my opinion!

So, whatever the law becomes, you can count me out.
I'm not paying.

[Daniel]

Another pointless British resistance to what is actually quite a good idea.

[Hazell B]

Couple of points, Daniel.
If you dislike the 'pointless' Brits, who don't you go back home? I get to have a go at us, you do not. It' rude when this country has welcomed you.

Secondly, what's good about it? How often do dogs bite you?

[Azumanga Davo]

Another bureaucracy adventure. How fun. Tell them to roll over.

[GridGirl]

I don't own a dog but would it not be far cheaper to put your dog in a mussle (sp?) when it's out in public? I suppose this does stop a dog attacking someone in a home but then dogs that do are generally banned breeds anyway. A part of me lacks sympathy if the illegal dog attacks it's owners.

[Daniel]

Couple of points, Daniel.
If you dislike the 'pointless' Brits, who don't you go back home? I get to have a go at us, you do not. It' rude when this country has welcomed you.

Secondly, what's good about it? How often do dogs bite you?
Firstly Hazell, I don't have Brits, I just hate the backward frame of mind which some of them have.

Secondly how often do dogs bite people or other dogs. My parents have had 2 dogs attacked by other dogs and you yourself admit to having a dog which is liable to attack other dogs.

Thirdly I doubt this will be a miniscule cost.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_licence

Also, dog licences were around in the UK prior to 1987 so this isn't a new thing.

[Dave B]

I'm with Hazell: it's the usual response to burden everybody because of the actions of a few (who probably won't obey the law anyway).

A few people speed, so we all get lumbered with speed bumps and calming instead of the bad motorists being dealt with.

A few people binge drink and smash up town centres, so a tax is proposed to make booze more expensive for everybody - ignoring the fact that the group supposedly being targeted generally has quite a high disposable income.

Now a tiny minority of people can't or won't control their dogs so again it's proposed that everybody has a compulsory tax put on them instead of properly punishing those who genuinely offend.

I'm writing to the Daily Express. :p

[Dave B]

Also, dog licences were around in the UK prior to 1987 so this isn't a new thing.
We used to have a black and white dog. We couldn't afford the licence for a colour one... :p

[Daniel]

We used to have a black and white dog. We couldn't afford the licence for a colour one... :p
:rotflmao:

[Easy Drifter]

Next will be licenses on cats. It is being talked about here.
Nice innocent little puddy tats.
Like my sweet little puma breed. Well not so little.

[Azumanga Davo]

We used to have a black and white dog. We couldn't afford the licence for a colour one... :p

Good grief Dave. Did you feed it PAL?

[Hazell B]

Daniel, what has this got to do with dog licences? Nothing! Anyway, they were dropped when somebody pointed out they weren't being bought by over 90% of owners and the system cost too much to run. In short, it was a waste of tax payer's cash that dog owners ignored anyhow - rather making my point for me!

Muzzling in public is fine. I like the idea. But just like cleaning up dog muck, it won't be policed often and many people will walk thier dog to the car and simply drive off to fields unmuzzled and away from nosey officialdom. Hardly encouraging green walkies and just moving the problem to the countryside.

This won't cover one dog attacking another, Daniel. That's already covered by laws, anyway. The bills for the third party vet would be recovered by the courts as it stands, along with fines for having a dog out of control. On top of that, if some idiot chav's dog grabs a pensioner's poodle and eats it, what difference will this new system make? None. The chav will lie and the pensioner's dog is dead whoever pays ..... zero improvement on what's happening now.

The thing that bothers me about all this is the way it won't be policed. If it did become law that I need my animals insured, I wouldn't mind if several things happened along with me paying out my cash. Firstly, the police would have to carry chip readers. We were promised it years ago, that every police car would have a reader (they cost about ten quid, by the way) and so far I've not met a single copper who's had one or used one. My local police authority don't have them at all.
Secondly the police would have to scan dogs and check them. They don't even appear when you get burgled, so I think we can forget them checking dogs out on the street :mark: Too much paperwork and Stop and Search would suddenly be an even worse hot potato.
Thirdly, who's paying for the whole thing? It's not going to be self-supporting by a long way. Tax payers will be paying. Non-dog owners, many of them. That's not fair. Why should they pay? If they get bitten, I doubt a few quid is much consolation when they're scarred for life - yet a police prosecution is not going to happen as often if insurance can sort it out (just like car crashes now).
Lastly, the dogs who are most liable to do damage won't be insured or chipped as I already said.

For the record, my dogs are chipped already and I think it should be law. I also think all dogs ahould be neutered by 16 weeks of age and ONLY licenced breeders should be allowed to breed dogs. Police should carry scanners in their cars and USE them. Under 16's shouldn't be allowed to walk dogs over a set weight without an adult, too. A small child along my street, a girl of about seven, often walks a British Bullldog past my house for example. It's a nice dog, but can she handle it if it runs off under a car? No.

They tried this same sort of thing for horses and it's cost the tax payer millions yet very few horses are legal even now, several years in. If horse owners (who you think of as sensible and well off!) don't bother, who thinks dog owners would be any better? The horse version was about ten pounds for the animal's life and still few of us bought into the idea. I had 20% of my horses legal and when that 20% died I wasn't asked for the paperwork, so could have sold it all to other owners anyway :rolleyes: Crap system, badly run. The only reason any of my horses are now legal is that she came with the paperwork, I wouldn't have bothered if not.

Anyone know how much the MIB will cost for all this? That's the body who pay out for un-insured claims, by the way. As many dogs won't be insured, won't the government have to provide payments in those cases, just like they do on car crashes? I don't understand it, but do know it costs the car insurance system a fortune each year. Same will apply for dogs.

[Hazell B]

Something else has just occured to me.
Can the government force insurers to insure all dog owners? Surley the insurance companies could refuse to insure a person who's had claims a few times, therefore stopping that person owning a dog legally? That's a human rights issue, isn't it? If there's no test or whatever to own a dog in the first place, there can't be a legal way to stop somebody who's trying to obey the law from having a dog (if you see what I mean) so insurance would have to be available by law.

Shot themselves in the foot, whoever thought of this crap, eh?
It can't work!

[Easy Drifter]

Hazell: The beaurocrats and politicians have to do something to justify their existance.
It doesn't matter if it makes sense or how much it is going to cost.
They are seen to be doing something and thereby prove they are useful, at least in their way of thinking. :rolleyes:

[ShiftingGears]

Wow! Useless and awful idea.

[Dave B]

The thing that bothers me about all this is the way it won't be policed.
That's the real problem with this idea. Think about who this law is aimed at: the tiny minority of idiots who believe a violent dog is a badge of honour and don't give two hoots for its wellbeing so long as they look hard when they're walking it.

Can you see them bothering to insure and chip their dog, and can you honestly see our wonderful boys in blue bothering to check? Even if the courts took away their animal, they'd just acquire another. It's like the hardcore of problem drivers - we take away their licence so they just drive without one.

There is a problem, a small one, but this broad brush isn't the answer.

[Daniel]

That's the real problem with this idea. Think about who this law is aimed at: the tiny minority of idiots who believe a violent dog is a badge of honour and don't give two hoots for its wellbeing so long as they look hard when they're walking it.

Can you see them bothering to insure and chip their dog, and can you honestly see our wonderful boys in blue bothering to check? Even if the courts took away their animal, they'd just acquire another. It's like the hardcore of problem drivers - we take away their licence so they just drive without one.

There is a problem, a small one, but this broad brush isn't the answer.
I disagree. No law is ever a 100% deterrant, just look at the death penalty in other parts of the world for murder and drug trafficking, people still do it. Anything that makes it more difficult to own one of these dogs whilst also offering some insurance at the same time is a good idea.

Shall we get rid of driving licences because some people drive without them?

[jim mcglinchey]

What about this. A scale of 1 - 20, as per car categories, with offenesive weapon type and mad ******* type dogs at 20 and fashion accessory dogs at 1-2. That would be a bit more palatable to dog owners, surely?

[Eki]

Hazell, you must get Naburn a colour license.

[Azumanga Davo]

Maybe they should concentrate on bad breeders, since that is quite a hotpot issue over there.

[Daniel]

Maybe they should concentrate on bad breeders, since that is quite a hotpot issue over there.
and they do. But it's difficult to find puppy farms. The sorts of people buying pitbulls are not going to report puppy farms

[BeansBeansBeans]

It'll cause a load of hassle and have little benefit beyond making a small amount of people lots of money.

[Mark]

My car has third party insurance. Does that mean it's ok to run into people?

[Hazell B]

Anything that makes it more difficult to own one of these dogs whilst also offering some insurance at the same time is a good idea.

Shall we get rid of driving licences because some people drive without them?

How does it make it more difficult to own 'one of these dogs'? They won't bother paying and if they do it's hardly going to be expensive. Stopping all breeding without a licence and chipping all dogs is the only way to make it harder. If you can't produce a valid chip, your dog is taken away there and then (like cars should be, but that's another can of worms). Of course lots of dogs will be chipped illegally, using a few select numbers, but it would stop large numbers of illegal dogs in the short term. Chipping is also handy if the dog is killed or injured in a car crash while loose on the streets.

They illegal dogs don't have to be put down, once taken away. They can be chipped and given out in shelters like strays are now.

[Daniel]

How does it make it more difficult to own 'one of these dogs'? They won't bother paying and if they do it's hardly going to be expensive. Stopping all breeding without a licence and chipping all dogs is the only way to make it harder. If you can't produce a valid chip, your dog is taken away there and then (like cars should be, but that's another can of worms). Of course lots of dogs will be chipped illegally, using a few select numbers, but it would stop large numbers of illegal dogs in the short term. Chipping is also handy if the dog is killed or injured in a car crash while loose on the streets.

They illegal dogs don't have to be put down, once taken away. They can be chipped and given out in shelters like strays are now.
That's exactly my point. If they're forced to register the dogs and chip them, then no chip, no dog.