A new word for the English language... ‘Dogbo’. A canine version of an ASBO is just one of the proposals under consideration by the government to deal with dangerous dogs. Woof justice, indeed.
Also proposed is compulsory microchipping of every dog – at an average cost to owners of £30 – and an obligation on Britain’s six million dog owners to take out third party insurance to compensate anyone from whom Rover takes a chunk.
In other words, a doggy tax disc and compulsory insurance. All of which will make dog ownership similar to owning a car.
And the similarity doesn’t end there. There was also a time when dog owners had to have a licence, though, unfortunately, there was no test involved in getting one.
For both mutts and motors, emissions are becoming an increasingly hot topic. And a dog, like a car, is often used to make a statement about yourself.
The rottweiler is the dog world’s equivalent of a 4x4 adorned with bull bars – unnecessarily big and noisy, bad for the environment and designed to say ‘Don’t mess with me or you’ll come off worst’.
The chihuahua is the Mini – cute, small and almost always bought by women.
The labrador is the Volvo estate – staid, sensible emblem of middle England.
The pit bull is the tricked-up Subaru Impreza – a muscular, aggressive, high-performance yobmobile which looks like it’s itching to spill your pint even when it’s standing still.
The Staffordshire bull terrier is the Vauxhall Corsa, the default choice of the lad with ambitions to one day own a pit bull/Impreza.
All of which flippancy should not disguise the fact that there are too many dogs out there with too many irresponsible owners. And that doesn’t just mean those psychos breeding attack dogs in the back yard of council houses.
It means those owners who still neglect to pick up their beast’s droppings, or who let their mutt’s yapping waken the whole neighbourhood at dawn, or who blithely ignore rules about keeping their pet on a lead in the local park, shouting an ineffectual ‘He won’t hurt you’ as Dogzilla knocks your infant off his feet.
But will ‘tax discs’ and insurance for dogs solve all that? Or will it mean a whole new layer of bureaucracy to which the law-abiding majority will conform, but which the hard core of weapon dog owners will greet with a shrug of the shoulders?
One in ten of all drivers on the roads of Greater Manchester are uninsured. It’s a fair bet that the worst ten per cent of dog owners would likewise opt out of the system.
Jack Straw is right – justice comes first
WHETHER we like it or not, our insatiable desire to know why Jon Venables has been taken back into custody is not in the interests of justice.
Were details of his alleged new offence known, any jury would figure out that the man in the dock was once the child who killed James Bulger. Knowing this, how could they possibly decide his guilt or innocence of the new accusation? And could we stomach the idea that Venables’ defence counsel may then successfully argue this man could not be given a fair trial?
Baroness Butler-Sloss, the judge who granted anonymity to Venables and his fellow killer Robert Thompson, says she fears there are still people out there who would kill Venables if his new identity were known.
There is a cruel irony here which should be occupying more of our thoughts. We are rightly revolted by Venables’ crime, yet we seem too philosophical about the fact that some in our society would cheerfully assemble a lynch mob 17 years after the event.
Get naked and stay out of jail ... just call it art
IT’S the hoary old question: is it art? Tracey Emin’s unmade bed? Martin Creed’s The Lights Going On And Off – an empty gallery with, yes, a light going on and off?
But art has for centuries loved a nude, and Spencer Tunick has got busloads of them. The American artist is seeking hundreds of volunteers willing to disrobe and be photographed at landmark spots around Manchester and Salford.
Me? I think it’s great. But it does make you wonder whether the difference between art and indecent exposure may just be a few A levels and good intentions.
I am reminded of Stephen Gough, who hiked, naked, from Land’s End to John O'Groats in 2003, and has since been jailed repeatedly for appearing nude in public.
I don’t think we can doubt Gough’s sincere desire to go through life as nature intended, and that, like it or not, is his form of self-expression.
It does seem a bit unfair that while Gough gets banged up for much of the last seven years, Tunick gets an Arts Council grant.
Tweet

Showing comments 1 to 20 and replies | View All
Black Flag (10/03/2010 at 10:05)
Definitely the latter. It smells like a combination of the government's desire to control absolutely anything that anybody does and a bit of lobbying by the insurance industry to drum up a captive market, probably involving a slap-up meal for a member of the government.
It's completely pointless. Those who treat their dogs badly will either ignore the dictat, or just allow their dogs to stray, resulting in an increase in dogs roaming. On the other hand, pensioners whose dogs are their only companion, may well find themselves priced out of owning a dog.
As is the case in other areas, compulsory insurance is presented as a solution to a problem, without any explanation of what those proposing it think it will achieve.
Splat!, Utopia (10/03/2010 at 10:15)
Public School Pimms Lout (10/03/2010 at 10:46)
Fair comment, well put!
Andanotherthing, Mcr (10/03/2010 at 11:01)
tiggerluc, somewhere in shaw (10/03/2010 at 11:43)
Jay B, oldham (10/03/2010 at 11:46)
Anne Coates, Jersey Street (10/03/2010 at 11:58)
I will not be paying any insurance for my dog as he poses no danger to anything or anyone. He simply lies on the rug snoring and farting.
When they start efficiently and effectively pursuing car tax and insurance evaders I may show some interest. Until then, they can shove it.
Acid, Chadderton (10/03/2010 at 12:20)
And also the most prolific biter on record.
Karen Walker (10/03/2010 at 12:22)
I have a Staffordhire Bull Terrier who is the softest, most sociable and well behaved dog you could ever wish to come across.
I bet that would not be taken into account when tha insurance premium landed on the doormat, he would be demonised as a "Devil Dog"
Mark,Radcliffe. (10/03/2010 at 12:35)
TCSimmo, Manchester (10/03/2010 at 12:46)
PW, Manchester (10/03/2010 at 13:08)
PW, Manchester (10/03/2010 at 13:24)
I think you've forgotten they say that dogs often take after their owners ;-)
Mrs Jammy, Sitting on the settee (10/03/2010 at 14:11)
Under this new scheme I would have to pay insurance incase my dog bites someone; my dog is nearly 17, hardly has any teeth, is never off the lead when we are out and is scared of cats!!! He certainly is no danger to anyone, but yet I would be tarred with the same brush as those who train their dogs to fight - where is the sense in that?
Gerry Gow's jockstrap (10/03/2010 at 15:10)
I live in a council house & know people who own very dangerous dogs. Yet some of them are wealthy & live in so called posh areas. But you would probally say they had them to protect their property. But that is your opinion.
Anne Coates, Jersey Street (10/03/2010 at 15:50)
Very true. I have mentioned this behaviour to Mr Coates.
Actually I always thought that ownwers behaved like ther dogs. It amounts to the same I suppose - a filthy rug, foul air and hardly any visitors.
andy waytomakeacomment, Greater Manchester (10/03/2010 at 19:59)
Susan Buckley (10/03/2010 at 22:46)
Andanotherthing, Mcr (16/03/2010 at 16:11)
lovinthebanter, Manchester (16/03/2010 at 18:43)
Although I agree the goverment probably do want to control everything somebody does this is controling what they do, they can get a dog or not and if they get one instead of just having to buy food, and toys/bed, this is just another expense not really a control.