Dangerous Dogs Act

The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 has always been a controversial law in the United Kingdom.

The law originates from a time when early in the 1990s the press in the UK sharply increased their reporting of dog attacks. Throughout 1990 the frequency of reporting about dog attacks increased sharply, towards the end of 1990 and into early 1991 the focus of press reporting centred upon pitbull dogs.

It is a sad, but true, fact that despite the increase in the media's increased frequency of reporting of attacks, bites and other incidents involving vicious or aggressive dogs, the actual number of these attacks remained more or less constant. In other words the media had not identified a problem and reported it, but rather that they had created public hysteria about an event that most people are not at all likely to ever experience in their life.

The United Kingdom population is in excess of 60 million people. Exact numbers of dogs in the UK are very difficult to estimate, but the numbers are clearly into the tens of millions. Despite the large number of people and dogs on the small island is the incidence of death by dog bite per annum has rarely achieved double figures. For this reason I have to question why attacks by so called dangerous dogs are given such prominence in the media at all? This isn't to call into question the potentially severe effects on an individual of being on the receiving end of a dog attack, but rather to call into question the reason why the media gives such a relatively rare occurrence such prominent coverage.

Let us look at road safety by means of comparison with the coverage given to attacks by "dangerous dogs". The United Kingdom has one of the best road safety records in Europe. Despite the fact that Britain leads the the rest of Europe in this area many thousands of people are killed on British roads each year and the numbers injured are in the tens of thousands. Media coverage of deaths and injuries on the roads is seldom more than a footnote at the end of the bulletin. If the intention was to call an event to the attention of the public in order to preserve life, or prevent injury, then surely a much greater effect can be achieved in the area of publicising road safety issues.

It is due to thinking through comparisons similar to this that I have to assume that the media in the UK this reporting on these incidence of dog attacks merely to sell copy, rather than do any public good. 

The word "democracy" literally means "mob rule".  The United Kingdom is a democracy but we rely on the government and the judiciary to guide us from the worst effects of mob rule.  Good governance should surely be about serving the needs of the population and not the demands of an overly dramatic press.

This concludes my article giving details on the background of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 in the United Kingdom.  If you wish to read more on this subject please visit my website dedicated to opposing the Dangerous Dogs Act.