Total Pageviews

Monday 12 September 2011

This is officially NOT a dangerous dog, OK?

Friday 16th September - thank you everyone for all your help and support. I have posted an update, please click here

My 80 year old mother was out walking her 14 year old greyhound on a lead in a local park in Rainham, Essex at about 3.30pm on Thursday 8th September when it was attacked by a large fighting dog, a Staffordshire Bull Terrier or similar, running loose with its owners in pursuit. It knocked her flying, and attacked her greyhound. Mum is now in Queen's Hospital, Romford with a broken hip, broken wrist, and bad bruising and lacerations from the bite injuries she suffered. She had surgery on Friday to have a plate inserted to repair her hip (it was quite a complex fracture).  No surgery was needed for her broken wrist, but both arms are in casts at the moment, the left because of the fracture and the right because of severe bruising and lacerations to her other arm from dog bites.

Her greyhound has survived fairly major surgery to stitch up his bite wounds, and I brought him home on Saturday evening, but he is not eating and so is returning to the vets today. He lost some teeth in the attack too and we are hopeful that a sore mouth is the reason he is not eating and not internal injuries he has suffered.

I have put some pictures of the bite injuries to my mum's hands at the bottom of this page.  They are at the bottom of the page for a reason; please don't scroll down to the bottom if you are squeamish. And please bear in mind that in the overall scheme of things these are the superficial injuries; these will heal but the fractures are what are likely to cause long-term problems for her.

And my real problem with all of this?  The owner of the dangerous dog didn't want the police called, but she needn't have worried - THE POLICE ARE REFUSING TO TAKE ANY FURTHER ACTION IN THIS CASE BECAUSE, IN THEIR OPINION, "IT WAS AN ACCIDENT"!!! 

So how have these modern-day Poirot's managed to come to this conclusion?  Simple - my mum was obviously in no fit state to make a statement at the time, since she was laying on the ground with a broken hip, broken wrist, severe bruising, bleeding profusely, and being dealt with by ambulance staff.  So they did what every sensible investigating officer would do, and simply took the attacking dog's owner's word that what actually happened was that her dog was under control on a lead at the time, and that the two dogs got into a fight as they passed each other; my mum was injured when she tried to intervene. This is of course complete nonsense; the dog charged across the park to attack my mum's dog. (Please remember we are talking about a neutered 14 year old (that's 90+ years old in dog years) dog here, purportedly shaping up to a large, young fighting dog.  Apparently the owner even claimed it was my mum's own dog which bit her).   Mum says there were a couple of six-ish year old children with the owner, and they were chasing the dog with the owner further behind, so she thinks the owner may have let the children walk the dog and they lost control of it.  Obviously there is no way of knowing if that is true or not, but it would certainly seem to fit the circumstances better - I would have trouble holding a big fighting dog which decided it wanted to attack another dog, and a six year old child would have no chance whatsoever.  But I always thought that the police were obliged to at least listen to both sides of a story before making a decision; as much as I hate to cast aspersions, the owner of a dangerous dog which has just attacked someone may well have reasons why they feel it expedient to give a police officer a version of events which suits them rather than, er, the truth.

I spent an hour and a half in Romford police station on Friday afternoon while I was waiting for mum to come out of surgery trying to talk to someone, but the duty Inspector was "too busy" to talk to me, so I have now had to resort to filing a formal complaint about their handling of the incident (to which, surprise surprise, I have had no response yet).  The officer attending (a Community Support Officer, no less) made a report based on the other dog owner's version of events; the duty Sergeant accepted "no further action required" on the basis of that report; and because the Sergeant has made that decision the Inspector is not interested either - a real Catch 22 situation. In the meantime nobody from the police has so far had the courtesy to even ask my mum for her version of events, and nobody has even visited the other dog owner to assess whether the dog is a prohibited fighting breed (it is very unlikely a CSO would be qualified to assess that, as these dogs all look very similar).

On a personal level I really don't need to be fighting the police at the same time as my mum is in hospital and I am also having to care for her dog. However, it is lucky that my mum was a fit and healthy 80 year old: a more frail woman or a child out walking their dog in the park could have been killed, and the next time this dog attacks in this way they may well be, so something needs to be done. I happened to be chatting to someone at the vets yesterday who turned out to be a dog warden, and he told me that these sort of attacks are getting more common and that the police's abdication of duties in these sort of circumstances is sadly not at all unusual.

The Dangerous Dogs Act simply states that an offence is committed if a dog is:
- Dangerously out of control
- In a public place

My ancient mother and her ancient dog have both suffered severe injuries in an attack.  In a public park.  I am sorry, I obviously don't have the intellectual capacity to become a police officer, but I would really appreciate someone explaining to me what I am missing here.

Even if the other owner's version of events were true and her dog was indeed on a lead throughout the incident I think that the injuries which my mum and her dog sustained would be prima facie evidence that her dog was dangerously out of control anyway, as she couldn't stop it from attacking my mum and her dog.  The police obviously think otherwise.

And in the meantime, of course, the police are no doubt squandering hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money on consultants and focus groups trying to work out why the typical law-abiding taxpaying citizen has no respect for the police any more.  If they would like to come to talk to me I would be more than happy to explain it to them for nothing.

Actually I suppose that as a taxpayer I should think that this new police initiative is great: it will save immense amounts of police time.  "No officer, of course I didn't mug the old lady who is lying unconscious on the pavement over there.  I was just walking past her as she tripped over a raised paving slab. No need to waste your time interviewing her when she comes round, you must have better things to do with your time.  Now off you go to issue some parking tickets".

Mum's main concern at the moment is that she can't get out to look after her injured dog.  She is also very upset that this dangerous dog is still free to roam the streets, and she shares my concerns about what might happen the next time it attacks.

In terms of herself, her real worry is about her long-term independence.  She has always been fiercely independent, and despite being 80 has always kept herself fit and healthy (she is a vegan, and she walks seven or eight miles most days).  She is really concerned that she will no longer be able to walk, as that is the thing she really loves to do.  She is on very strong painkillers at the moment although obviously she is still in pain, but is really frustrated that she currently can't do anything for herself as both arms are in casts and she can hardly move the fingers of her right hand at the moment because of the bite injuries.  I am sure I don't need to explain the indignities a woman of her generation feels at being washed etc. by male staff.  Fortunately she has always kept herself fit and healthy and is a fighter, and I am hopeful she will get over this, but I think it is unlikely that many eighty year old women would; you hear of so many of them succumbing after suffering broken hips in fairly innocuous falls without all the additional trauma of these other injuries which have been inflicted on her.

I would really appreciate anyone reading this leaving comments below if they agree with me on this (or even if they don't for that matter), and of course if you know anyone who might be in a position to bring some pressure to bear to resolve this I would really appreciate this being passed on to them.  To leave a comment please either choose "anonymous" or "name/URL" to put your name to it.  Alternatively please feel free to email me if you prefer: keith@jazzupdate.co.uk.  I have no intention of letting this rest, but really have no idea where to take it at the moment, but a show of support will hopefully help me argue just how wrong this is.

ps I write this as an animal lover and the owner of two dogs.  There is no anti-dog agenda here, but this animal will end up killing or maiming someone (even ignoring the suffering it will no doubt inflict on other dogs), and something needs to be done about it.

Thank you for taking the time to read this.







>

10 comments:

  1. Your MP and local newspapers/radio are surely the people to go to. It is a disgrace. Any witnesses?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dear Keith,

    So sorry to hear about this horrible incident.
    Here is some information I have found from Defra:

    " The maximum penalty for allowing a dog you own or are in charge of to be dangerously out of control is two years' imprisonment, or a fine, or both."

    "Defra also offers advice and guidance to pet owners and also develops and enforces legislation to protect pets against cruelty".

    " For more information about the laws on dangerous dogs, go to
    www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/welfare/domestic/dogs.htm
    or contact Defra on 08459 33 55 77
    email: helpline@defra.gsi.gov.uk

    It isn't clear what role Defra has in legislating for dog attacks but I intend to write to them and find out.

    I feel that, although it is the dog that attacks the responsibility for the attack and the dog must lie squarely with the owner, or the person in charge of the dog.
    if a dog has been bred to be a powerful, protective, working dog it should not ever be allowed to be a pet, or kept in a family with small children, or as many pets are, kept cooped up in a house when everyone is out at work. This kind of mismanagement of a dog can often lead to its becoming distressed and aggressive.
    In fact, when a dog is mismanaged , stressed and frustrated to the degree that it bites someone, there is a case to made for cruelty to the dog as well as cruelty to the victim of its attack.
    Often a dog that has been tortured by mismanagement is put down because of the aggressive behaviour which is the outcome of that mismanagement.
    The 'solution' of 'murdering the dog', is sad evidence of an ignorant society's attitude towards 'pets' and its responsibility towards them.

    The kinds of legislation needed here must be about "An Owner's Responsibility and Competence"


    "

    ReplyDelete
  3. Can you not bring a private prosecution against the do owners for them not controlling a dangerous animal? Hope you can persuade the police to reconsider.
    Meanwhile we wish that your mother recovers quickly.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dear Keith
    What a terrible thing to happen. I hope your mum makes a speedy and full recovery. You are very right to fight this injustice, even if you have to do it on your own. Its disgraceful that the police won't do anything about it, but sadly not uncommon now. You should definitely contact the local paper and her MP and also look into a private prosecution and at the very least suing the dog owner. Keep up the pressure and maybe the police might change their mind. What a world we live in now, where we can't rely on them to protect us any more. Where we have to try and shame them in to acting.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Keith,
    I sent a comment to you about 2 hours ago but it has not appeared on your site so I'll try again.

    It seems to me that you have sufficient photographic evidence that violence has been committed. You would have to show that the violence was not the result of an accident. If you can do this (and reference to Defra should help prove that the dog was not under control) then a crime has been committed and the police are obligated to take statements from both sides. If they refuse to record your mum's statement of events then they are judging that a crime has not been committed which is outside their function of implementing the law as opposed to interpreting the law. You could then report the local police to the Essex Policy Authority but if you explain this to them (or have it pointed out by your local councilor or MP) you are likely to avoid this step.
    Once the police have taken statements from both sides they can take the case to court as a criminal case. You can take the case to court yourself as a civil case. Depends on the amount of time you are willing to give to this matter and what you would like to see as the outcome.
    Hope you mum recovers fully from this ordeal.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Alisa Bosschaert Evans13 September 2011 at 13:34

    This is appalling. I'm fed up with these dogs being out of control. I would pass a law where all people who own a dangerous breed of dog would need a yearly licence - about £1,000 - that would put an end to idiots owning these types of dogs without due care. I know 'dangerous' is the key word - but I think we all the breeds that cause this type of damage. The Police need to start using their brains.

    Don't let this drop.

    Alisa Bosschaert Evans

    ReplyDelete
  7. Dear Keith, just to say I am really sorry to hear about your Mother and her elderly dog. Please do keep up the pressure on the police and do contact the radio stations/local paper. I am sure you do not feel like fighting in the least when your prime consideration is that your Mum and her dog get well again. My best wishes for their recovery. I have no idea if I would be able to help in any way but will send you my contact details to you just in case. Kind regards, Sally

    ReplyDelete
  8. I am so very sorry to hear about your mums terrible experience - This is clearly the fault of the owner but your problem is lack of an independent witness - If there was clear evidence that the injuries were sustained purely as a result of an unprovoked attack by the other dog on your mum then the police would have immediately had the dog seized - they would not have gone on the word of the other dog owners -sadly the pictures show wounds but they do not clearly look like a dog bite ie a row of teeth marks that could be matched to the other dogs jaw pattern and not your mums dog. If the dog charged at your mums dog and they got into a fight and in an attempt to separate them she got bit and was pulled to the ground - this is not reason enough to have the dog destroyed no matter how traumatic as she was not technically attacked and by intervening put herself in harms way. Without witnesses it is sadly your mums word against theirs and that is the law. Pit Bull Terriers come under the dangerous dog breed regulations and must be neutered, chipped and should be muzzled when walked - again - if the owners have not done this the dog can be seized but a dna test has to be carried out to determine the exact breed.

    As the owner of a very loving and child friendly Staff (not keen on the presumptive use of the word fighting dog - and to be clear Staffs for good reason do not come under the classification of dangerous dogs), I know that his enthusiasm and strength mean he is never allowed off the lead in public. His love of strangers means he would certainly charge up to them and knock them down in an attempt to play and give them a big lick. To a frail old lady or a small child this could indeed result in cuts or broken bones. He may also become aggressive towards any other dog that he felt was threatening me or my daughter. Taking all of this into consideration, the fact that this other dog was with small children and therefore a family pet - I think the blame lays squarely with the owners of the dog for not having it under control so a more appropriate action would be to sue them for damages. I also think part of the trauma you are suffering is yet again due to the lack of time and consideration you have been given by the police - had they taken the time to explain why they had arrived at their conclusion, had they then provided you with an alternative course of action against the family concerned - you may not feel so aggrieved - A similar attitude was blamed for the initial outbreak of violence in Tottenham! I am sure LBC would be interested as would the local paper.

    But please be aware Staffordshire Bull Terriers and Pit Bull Terriers are not to be confused.


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

    ReplyDelete
  9. Keith,

    I am very sorry to hear about this. I echo other comments to get your mother's MP on the case, and the press if that would be helpful.

    All the best.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Thank you everyone for all of your help and support. I have now posted a more detailed update.

    Anonymous, thank you for your balanced post in defence of the breed. I have personal experience of Staffs, and agree that, with humans at least, they can indeed be incredibly affectionate and great fun.

    HOWEVER, I do not consider referring to them as "fighting dogs" to be a pejorative term, simply because that is EXACTLY what they were bred to be. Indeed, even the article you linked to says: "Early Bull and Terriers were not bred for the companion animals of today, but for the characteristic known as gameness, with the pitting of dogs against bear or bull and exotic animals testing this attribute along with the strength and skill of the dog. These early "proto-staffords" provided the ancestral foundation stock for the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, the Bull Terrier, the American Pit Bull Terrier and American Staffordshire Terrier. This common ancestor was known as the "Bull and Terrier"".

    The attack on mum and her dog certainly demonstrated that "gameness" is still an attribute of these dogs. I would also point out that one of my problems with this enquiry is that nobody with any specialist knowledge has yet positively identified the dog type. I am perfectly well aware of the distinction between the banned breeds and the Staff, but there are also a lot of similarities, in particular that they are incredibly powerful dogs who do not give up on an attack once they have started. Or as your article put it, they demonstrate "indomitable courage ... and tenacity".

    As for "If the dog charged at your mums dog and they got into a fight and in an attempt to separate them she got bit and was pulled to the ground - this is not reason enough to have the dog destroyed no matter how traumatic" - sorry, we will definitely have to agree to disagree on that one, and leave the Court to decide.

    ReplyDelete