[BBC News] Banned pitbull seized on island

[John Wright]

Wholly wrong Skeddan

 

To work out what dangerous means you have to look at the list of 5 it is included in.

 

If you were right there would have been no need for Dangerous Dogs Act in England as they had this wording anyway

 

To be dangerous a dog under s 19 c has to have done something not just be a dog which someone thinks is dangerous, whose evidence would/could the court rely upon to establish it was a danger

 

It has to have done something

 

gone woof, jumped over a fence and chased cars on the road, frightened childeren, its a catch all, and it has to be serious, well more serious than a. and b. the section is an escalating scale of things done by the dog and allowed by its owner, it is not based on the type of dog. The press release is wrong

 

(a) is not kept under proper control; or

(b) causes a nuisance or annoyance to the inhabitants of the neighbourhood in which it is kept; or

© is dangerous; or

(d) has caused injury, or has given just cause for alarm or annoyance, to any person in a highway or other place to which the public has access; or

(e) has worried livestock.

 

So what is your objective evidence, beyond reasonable doubt that Champ is dangerous, because if you have it you can complain under s19. Being of a type or breed is not objective evidence of danger

[immortalpuppet]

I have watched something on TV where they give a gog some food and then sneak up and try and grab the food to test if the animal is dangerous or not. I think its a shit test, if someone tried sneaking up and nicking my grub i would not be too pleased so i cant imagine how a dog would feel.

[Skeddan]

Wholly wrong Skeddan

'Wholly wrong'? In that case so is the Minister when he said "We have recognised for many years now that all dogs have the potential to be dangerous and we have the means to deal with them".

 

This is a sweeping dismissal - are the principles of statutory construction I noted also 'wholly wrong'?

 

Is your sweeping dismissal actually backed up by what you argue?

 

To work out what dangerous means you have to look at the list of 5 it is included in.

Yes - as I said before. This shows that 'dangerous' is not the same as 'causing injury' or what is covered in the other clauses where a court may order the dog to be destroyed, otherwise provisions for a dog which is dangerous would be redundant.

 

No matter what you might think, the list of 5 is not ejusdem generis.

 

ejusdem generis concerns wording where general words follow specific words in a statute; in such cases the general words are read to embrace only objects similar to those objects of the specific words.

 

According to the Black's Law Dictionary (8th edition, 2004) the principle of Ejusdem Generis is where general words follow an enumeration of persons or things, by words of a particular and specific meaning, such general words are not to be construed in their widest extent, but are to be held as applying only to persons or things of the same general kind or class as those specifically mentioned.

 

These are different clauses, not an enumeration (e.g. “distribute, sell, hire, expose for sale or hire or otherwise circulate for commercial gain”). Moreover the last clause is not 'dangerous', but 'has worried livestock' - which plainly is not a generic encompassing of like instances covered by the previous clauses. Each of the clauses is disjunctive - or, or, or - different instances. Dangerous is not equivalent to 'has caused injury' or any of the other things covered by other clauses.

 

If the Act were worded to only make provisions for a dog which 'has caused injury, given just cause for alarm, worried livestock and otherwise exhibited dangerous behaviour', you could argue ejusdem generis. But is doesn't. Ejusdem generis simply does not come into it.

 

'dangerous' means just that - dangerous in the natural and ordinary sense of the word.

 

If you were right there would have been no need for Dangerous Dogs Act in England as they had this wording anyway

The UK Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 made all sorts of other provisions. In any case, this is no argument to show that the meaning of 'dangerous' in IoM's The Dogs Act 1990 should be taken to be other than its ordinary and natural meaning.

 

To be dangerous a dog under s 19 c has to have done something not just be a dog which someone thinks is dangerous, whose evidence would/could the court rely upon to establish it was a danger

 

It has to have done something

 

gone woof, jumped over a fence and chased cars on the road, frightened childeren, its a catch all,

You give nothing to support this reading other than bare assertion. I don't see the Act says that a dog has to have done something. A dog can be 'dangerous' even though it has not done something.

 

This family now realises that their family pet was dangerous. I can't see how you could claim this animal only became dangerous once it had attacked and maimed.

 

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal...0,7163330.story

 

An unexploded bomb is dangerous - it doesn't have to have done something. S.19 does not restrict the ordinary and natural meaning of 'dangerous' so as to require the animal has to have done something.

 

and it has to be serious, well more serious than a. and b. the section is an escalating scale of things done by the dog

According to you (e) 'worrying livestock' is more serious than (d) 'causing injury'. Are you seriously suggesting that mauling and mutilating a baby is less serious than chasing sheep?

 

The press release is wrong

Go tell the Government they don't understand the legislation. How would you suggest re-drafting the Act to be able to deal with dangerous dogs? Maybe a separate clause to deal with a dog that is dangerous? What's wrong with c)? Maybe a definition to make it clear that 'dangerous' is to be taken as the same as its ordinary and natural meaning - perhaps using the dictionary definition? Perhaps a clause stating that standard rules of statutory interpretation are to be used?

 

So what is your objective evidence, beyond reasonable doubt that Champ is dangerous, because if you have it you can complain under s19. Being of a type or breed is not objective evidence of danger

'beyond reasonable doubt'! - where does the Act state this has to be proven to the court 'beyond reasonable doubt'? A dog is not a human being, and the process is not a criminal trial involving the rules of evidence in criminal procedures. It is at the court's discretion - no doubt balancing between interest of the owner with the interest of the public in dealing with dogs which present a serious threat and danger.

 

Being a type or breed is evidence of being dangerous. Would you say that alligators, lions and grizzly bears are not dangerous? Pitbull Terriers and Pitbull crosses present exceptionally high risk of causing serious injury - astronomically high compared to nearly every other dog. Add to this an assessment by experts that Champ is not good with people 25% of the time.

 

Perhaps the Act leaves too much to the court's discretion, but that's how it is, but I'd think the court would use its discretion wisely. Perhaps the court might look to experts at DAFF and see what they might have to say. If DAFF recommended that the dog poses a real risk of causing serious injury to someone - maiming and killing a child or adult, would you argue that the court could not do anything as Champ 'has not done anything'? Do you really think the court would accept the arguments you give for this and accept it has no power to deal with dangerous dogs under the Act? I don't see that any of your arguments given so far hold water. (In fact they seem to be a thin retread of the ones put forward by Sara on her save Champ website - Champ hasn't done anything - dogs have rights like people - snot right). However you never know, maybe the court would neuter the legislation meant to deal with dangerous dogs and would allow Champ to go home and play with baby. Human rights for dogs and all that.

 

I'd hope the court might instead make a distinction between a dangerous dog and a vicious dog, perhaps along the following lines:

 

The debate about "dangerous dogs" cannot progress without clarification of the meaning of "dangerous." A thing, activity, dog or person should be considered "dangerous" if it or he presents an unacceptably high risk of serious injury, even before causing harm. This definition uses the word "risk." …. When discussing whether a dog is "dangerous" in this sense, the issue is not whether that particular dog will ever bite, but whether it presents too great a risk of serious injury -- not because of what it has done, but because of what others of its class have done. The definition also uses the term "serious injury." The bites of teacup-sized dogs and even herding dogs (who use their mouths to seize and guide as opposed to crush and rip) do not present the risk of serious injury inherent in the bites of dogs which were bred for the specific purpose of killing animals.

 

The law often makes a distinction between the words "dangerous" and "vicious." .. The term "vicious" refers to a dog that has done or communicated by its actions an intention, habit, tendency or propensity to do something harmful to people.

Source

 

I'd accept your argument if S.19 (1)c) used the word 'vicious'. But it doesn't - it says 'dangerous'.

[John Wright]

Twaddle

 

You are now questioning the burden of proof in criminal proceedings.

 

You will argue black is white for the hell of it.

 

I am telling you what the law says and how it has historically been interpreted. To be dangerous the dog has to have done something, shown a propensity not been a dog or breed or type of dog. That is the ejusdem generis an activity not a state of being.

[Skeddan]

Twaddle

Is that your best shot at a counter-argument?

[WTF]

Twaddle

Is that your best shot at a counter-argument?

very funny to see a lawyer complaining that someone is arguing black is white!! that is the bollox bullshit tactic they all use to get wankers off on technicallities and twist the truth. and ofcourse it is a pot/kettle situation from someone who makes a living as a lawyer.

[jimbms]

very funny to see a lawyer complaining that someone is arguing black is white!! that is the bollox bullshit tactic they all use to get wankers off on technicallities and twist the truth. and ofcourse it is a pot/kettle situation from someone who makes a living as a lawyer.

That's because they make shed loads of money ripping people off by arguing and don't like it when someone does it for free

[manshimajin]

That's because they make shed loads of money ripping people off by arguing and don't like it when someone does it for free

Now is that the start of a joke "What is the difference between an advocate and Champ....."

Champ will have a go at ripping people off for free...

[jimbms]

That's because they make shed loads of money ripping people off by arguing and don't like it when someone does it for free

Now is that the start of a joke "What is the difference between an advocate and Champ....."

Champ will have a go at ripping people off for free...

Or "What is the difference between an advocate and Champ....."

Cars swerve to avoid Champ

[immortalpuppet]

[Skeddan]

Twaddle

You are now questioning the burden of proof in criminal proceedings.

 

You will argue black is white for the hell of it.

 

I am telling you what the law says and how it has historically been interpreted. To be dangerous the dog has to have done something, shown a propensity not been a dog or breed or type of dog. That is the ejusdem generis an activity not a state of being.

I see you added something - picked out in blue (I guess as a subscriber you can edit and add to your post without showing as being an edit).

 

No I am not questioning the burden of proof in criminal proceedings. That is quite clearly 'beyond reasonable doubt'. I don't need to be told what the law says on that.

 

What I am saying is that when a court deals with a dog under The Dogs Act, this is not criminal proceedings. Read my post. Are you seriously saying that Manx courts use criminal proceedings for dogs?

 

I really don't see how you can say this has anything to do with ejusdem generis. Is Black's Law Dictionary not good enough authority on this basic point?

 

If S.19 (1)c) of The Dogs Act 1990 has 'historically been interpreted' this way, perhaps you will substantiate this by showing Manx case law which establishes this - presumably this will also substantiate your claim that the burden of proof in criminal proceedings must be met.

 

Frankly I doubt very much that there is such case law; had there been such a landmark judgement I would suppose that the Department of Local Government and the Environment would be aware of this, and would not have given the Reassurance Regarding Dangerous Dogs - which you claim 'is wrong'. However if you have anything to back up your assertion besides yet more blustering, then please show this.

 

Apart from adding the claim that this is how the law has historically been interpreted, all you are saying in your edit beneath 'Twaddle' is merely repetitiously insisting upon your notion that to be dangerous the dog must have done something. Saying 'twaddle', 'completely wrong', and 'I am telling you what the law says' together with ad-hominem attacks and your other blustering doesn't add any weight to your so-called arguments. Frankly some of these, such as your notion that worrying livestock is more serious than causing injury are nonsense. Your latest "That is the ejusdem generis an activity not a state of being" goes from nonsense to the nonsensical - this bit of pseudo legalese is neither grammatical nor coherent, and does not even approach making a sensible point.

 

Your carry-on has the appearance of someone whose nose has been put out of joint and who has dug themselves into a hole and is trying to bluster their way out to save face rather than stop digging. Since you are an Advocate I would assume you to be capable of putting forward a clear and coherent, or at least sensible argument to support your contentions. If you have something to contribute, I'd be glad to hear it, but in a manner which might do more credit to you and your profession.

[manxy]

You're very dogmatic today Skeddan.

Which one is Champ again?

In hindsight, maybe I shouldn't have said that and kept my nose out of it

I'll paws for thought next time

[bluemonday]

Whats the difference between Champ and Kaupthing Edge?

 

Champ makes a deposit by shitting on the pavement

Kaupthing Edge takes deposits and shits on savers.

[Skeddan]

You're very dogmatic today Skeddan.

Which one is Champ again?

In hindsight, maybe I shouldn't have said that and kept my nose out of it

I'll paws for thought next time

 

Thanks for that manxy. Yes I was a bit growly and maybe a bit ruff - not meant to be vicious and didn't mean to cause injury, but a bit of a doleance about being put down like that, but tail now wagging again.

[Bananaman]

http://tinyurl.com/49lfjy