A two-year-old boy is in hospital tonight with serious injuries to his face after being attacked by a dog here in Lincolnshire. Police were called to a caravan site in Skegness this morning and the toddler was rushed to the Pilgrim Hospital in Boston. But he was later transferred to Leicester Royal Infirmary for specialist treatment.
The dog, possibly a Staffordshire bull terrier type, is thought to be owned by a relative of the lad who was visiting his grandparents at the caravan park.
A vet has since identified the dog as a terrier type and is being held in kennels until a dog expert can determine whether it may be of a breed outlawed under the Dangerous Dogs Act.
After the tragedy of the little girl savaged to death by a dog on Merseyside over Christmas, the latest dog attack on a child inevitably made the national teatime news - the photo here is the logo for the Liverpool Post's "Bite Back" campaign for a crackdown on dangerous dogs launched last summer.
BBC Radio Lincolnshire report a Lincolnshire Police spokesperson saying:
"We need to investigate the circumstances of the attack before taking a decision on whether to have the dog destroyed."She added (bizarely in my humble opinion) that there might have been an element of provocation which would be taken into account.
When will people realise that letting toddlers anywhere near dogs of a certain type - even if legal - is asking for trouble?
11 comments:
What has Labour done in ten years to make accidents like this less likely? Or have they had better things to do?
Answers on a postcard.
Michael:
in fairness, you're probably right to point out that these "accidents" weren't at the top of Labour's priority list...
Turning UK plc to go forward, not back, sorting out the economy to end Tory boom'n'bust, ending runaway interest rates, achieving record low inflation, getting a generation back to work (virtually eradicating youth unemployment), the first ever minimum wage, paying off the national debt, reform and modernisation of public services, tackling crime which doubled under the Tories, recruiting more police and community officers, giving councils powers they need to tackle anti-social behaviour,
ending class sizes of over 30 for infants, investing in the biggest ever hospital building programme, cutting cancer and heart deaths, cutting NHS waiting lists, making pensioners better off, improving maternity, paternity and other rights at work, raising standards in schools, ending the culture in schools of getting the buckets out when it rained...much much already done, much more still to do.
i need a bigger postcard...
If I got a bigger postcard, would you ever answer the question?
michael:
i'll speak even slower for you.
Re your first question, ie what's Labour done in ten years to make attacks by dogs less likely:
Oddly enough, I don't have the stats to hand to show whether the incidence has risen or fallen (i guess it's stayed about the same).
Re your second question, ie did Labour have better things to do?
Yes, such as sorting out the boom and bust economy the Tories left behind. Please refer to my original answer.
I am sure the person savaged by the dog will be pleased to know you had better things to do.
I do tire of reading that the government is to blame for everything. We have lost personal responsibility somewhere along the line. The government is responsible for obesity, addictions, personal debt (to mention a few) and now for injury in ones own home!!! The mind boggles!!!
The Dangerous Dogs Act was introduced in 1991 and following massive lobbying, amended in 1997. The amendment introduced registering dog breeds outlawed in the 1991 act. Both Acts were introduced by the previous government and dog lovers felt that the legislation was a knee jerk reaction to isolated injuries casued by poor ownership tec hniques rather than the dog breed. There are strict controls on certain breeds, muzzled, leash, neutered etc in a public place. However, the death rate of just over 2 people per year has not changed and it appears that injuries of 3000 a year has also remained static. Even after the tragic death of the young girl in the West Midlands, the organisations involved with dogs were opposing any tougher legislation.
The young girl who died and this latest injury in Lincolnshire occurred within a family home. No government can legislate for what happens in ones home!
The person who was savaged by the dog should rightly blame the dogs owner - in this case I believe the dog belonged to the child's grandmother? Some people will never learn - this occurred so shortly after a child was killed. Now then, I am thinking what should the government do to satisfy Michael? Perhaps we need grandparents classes? Nanny state - surely people do not want this?
Coming from the Government that banned beef on the bone, that is rich indeed Liz. I am more opposed to a nanny state than anyone, as my postings show. I was just wondering what the Government might have done to lessen the chances of vicious animals attacking defenceless people. The depth of your answers, and Phil's efforts appear to suggest nothing. You obviously had better things to do. Build the dome, invade Iraq, sell peerages...that sort of thing. We understand.
So Michael, sweetie, tell us what you would do about these fearful dog incidents in the home?
Why would it matter? I am not in the Government, or trying to get into it. The only detail that matters here is that this is another issue this hopeless Government hasn't had time to deal with. Better things to do...let foreign prisons on the loose, banned beef on the bone, sort out an exemption for Bernie Ecclestone, that sort of thing...
You don't matter? But Michael, you matter to me.
The dogs owner was not to blame in the latest dog attack in lincolnshire as some people might suggest.The dog was not to blame either it was an incident that could not have been predicted and the child was not playing on the floor.All the stories in the news papers and on tv have got it all wrong the only people who know the exact truth are the owners and the childs parent all this speculation about staffordshire bull terriers needs to stop.They are a protective dog which he was trying to do at the time which went horribly wrong.The owners did not defend the dog or did they ask for it back as some people have suggested they in fact asked for the dog to be destroyed.The area was not cordoned off as said nor was he taken to lincoln hospital i think before people start making false accusations they should get to know the truth first.
Post a Comment