this post was submitted on 15 Sep 2023
135 points (91.9% liked)

United Kingdom

4135 readers
145 users here now

General community for news/discussion in the UK.

Less serious posts should go in [email protected] or [email protected]
More serious politics should go in [email protected].

Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 30 points 1 year ago (39 children)

Literally the only thing I can agree with sunak on. Good.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago (3 children)

It's just a distraction from the UK's anemic growth. Obviously he has done nothing that worked for the economy, and the conservatives have no ideas. The UK GDP has basically not grown since 2007.

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?locations=GB&start=2007

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not everything is a distraction tactic

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

This is. Conservatives were elected to help the economy in 2010 and have managed less than 2% growth since then. I have no idea why they weren't thrown out on their asses after Brexit, but maybe the British public love pain and misery?

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Do you think someone from Central Office went out and sneakily set dogs on people to savage them and set the news agenda? Or is it just possible these the spate of attacks and subsequent uproar, with pressure that Something Must Be Done occurred without political machinations?

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (38 replies)
[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Curious to know what they intend to do with the Bully XLs currently owned legally.

[–] [email protected] 52 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Same as when they last banned a breed. They must all be registered, muzzled, and neutered. If not, fines/seizure and possible imprisonment of the owner.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago (5 children)

A perfectly reasonable way to sunset the breed.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago (6 children)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago
[–] Luvs2Spuj 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (8 children)

Under dangerous dogs?

I assume you mean due to their health issues. Cant disagree. But I think it would be a Heck of a lot more complex to define breeds that suffer.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

Finally. Took them long enough.

[–] chaosppe 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Seems like we need to implement dog licences instead. It takes skill to own a well trained dog. Then just make sure people who are miscreants are banned from owning them.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (7 children)

You know that dog licenses were just a tax on dog owners. There was no ‘fit and proper person’ test or requirement for training.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Of course, the people who abuse their dogs to the point of become dangerous will just move on the next breed.

Playing whack-a-mole isn't ever effective policy. Before this breed it was pitbulls, after this breed it'll just be something else.

Dog attacks won't stop unless we ban all dogs, stop people who abuse animals to the point of of being dangerous from owning dogs, or stop people from wanting to abuse animals to the point of being dangerous.

That said, this isn't a harmful policy, just an ineffective one. If you want to own a dog, for good or ill, there are plenty of other breeds out there.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (6 children)

The difference is that other breeds aren't quite as dangerous, and so won't kill or maim as many people.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Why not just keep banning them?

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Read this as some new version of American bulldogs. Glad to know it's not the same breed.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I hadn't heard the term either until recently, and had to look it up. An American bully is a cross between pit bulls and bulldogs. A bully XL is the largest variant.

The breed is not an officially-recognized one, so definitions are a bit fuzzy.

load more comments
view more: next ›