Kemi Badenoch recently had a car crash interview with Sky News. She got the name of an important international agreement wrong. Got several facts wrong, and generally sounded amateurish. Not a good look. If it had been a Lab person the press would have had a field day.
Kemi Badenoch recently had a car crash interview with Sky News. She got the name of an important international agreement wrong. Got several facts wrong, and generally sounded amateurish. Not a good look. If it had been a Lab person the press would have had a field day.
Graduated from Cambridge, the first black woman mp - and yet the press persist in portraying her as stupid, can’t imagine why, can’t think of any single reason why our right wing press would constantly monster her - oh wait …
Graduated from Cambridge, the first black woman mp - and yet the press persist in portraying her as stupid, can’t imagine why, can’t think of any single reason why our right wing press would constantly monster her - oh wait …
Graduated from Cambridge, the first black woman mp - and yet the press persist in portraying her as stupid, can’t imagine why, can’t think of any single reason why our right wing press would constantly monster her - oh wait …
I can think of at least 2.
Bear in mind they're pandering to the "lots of people have degrees from Cambridge and qualifications but they can still be stupid compared with me from with my degree from the University of Life and School of Hard Knocks" crowd. I've generally found said crowd tend to conflate "intelligence" with "agrees with me".
I understand the masque was commissioned by Frederick, Prince of Wales, who was a protagonist of building up British naval power. He was at odds with his father, George II, who was a military man and the last British monarch to lead his troops into battle.
OK how insignificant are we as a country and government?
At the recent international conference in India Rishi had a planned meeting with PM Modi at his (Modi’s) house. It was cancelled in favour of Modi meeting Biden, and pushed to a fringe meeting.
The UK was snubbed in a big agreement between Europe, India, and the Gulf.
At the big upcoming environmental conference the UK has been told it will not be at any of the most significant discussions because our environmental policies are bad.
World beating Global Britain eh.
There was a string of proponents of Brexit restating the "the UK can make it's own trade deals" message we've heard before prior to the G20 summit, with an emphasis on historical and cultural links between the UK and India* which suggested that a trade deal with the largest democracy in the world would be straight forward.
They've certainly been quiet since Sunak got sidelined and only seems to have managed an agreement for some discussions on the possibility of a deal, and not even a time table for discussing that possibility. Meanwhile the EU walks away with a signed international agreement to create an economic trade corridor between India and the EU via Saudi Arabia, UAE, Jordan, Israel - reducing costs of trade and delays, and improving digital connectivity. OK, so it's not a trade deal in the sense of making any difference to tariffs and regulations over imports, but should still allow EU producers to have greater access to markets along that corridor, and conversely producers along that corridor greater access to EU markets.
* ie: still pretending that the UK is an imperial power, with colonies bowing and scraping to do what the UK government tells them.
I do wonder how much is due to breed, versus socialisation and training of any given dog.
Well, I don't really have a dog in this fight(sorry), but this breed seems related to various other breeds that always seem to be involved in violence-related controversies around the world. So, smoke/fire and I'm gonna wager that there's something particular to this branch of the canine family that always gets them at the centre of attention.
There's a certain amount of chicken and egg though. Breeds with that rep get bought by people who want a vicious dog and then brutalise them accordingly.
I saw this article, which would suggest we need more consistent and focused research on the topic. I just think the ban the breed response is likely to be a mistake - because it gives false confidence that other dogs will not bite.
I recently read a book written by a magistrate. In it he describes how they sometimes hear cases involving attackers by dangerous dogs. He made the observation that such dogs nearly always have names like Psycho, Killer and Sabre but never names like Charlie, Fifi or Mr Puffles which, as he points out, says more about the owners than the dogs themselves.
I recently read a book written by a magistrate. In it he describes how they sometimes hear cases involving attackers by dangerous dogs. He made the observation that such dogs nearly always have names like Psycho, Killer and Sabre but never names like Charlie, Fifi or Mr Puffles which, as he points out, says more about the owners than the dogs themselves.
Quite. Although there may be multiple factors here - inasmuch as owners who want the sort of dog you can unironically give that sort of name to (personally I'd love to know someone had a Rottweiler called Mr Puffles, or for that matter a sausage dog called Killer) are going to be choosing, well, the sort of dog you can unironically give that sort of name to. So dangerous dogs will correlate both with aggressively named animals and certain breeds of dog.
There is a strong argument that if instincts for retrieval and herding can be bred into certain breeds of dog, so can aggression. There's a strong counter-argument that most animals belonging to said breeds never attack anyone. There's another argument that even if all dogs have an equal propensity to become aggressive a huge great pit-bull type can kill you a lot more easily than a miniature poodle. With risk management you factor in both the likelihood of an event occurring and its likely severity, so by that measure the more powerful dogs present a greater risk even if the likelihood of an attack is the same.
I just think the ban the breed response is likely to be a mistake - because it gives false confidence that other dogs will not bite.
Banning particular breeds is a lazy option, when the problems are usually elsewhere. All dogs may attack other dogs or people, though (obviously) injuries are likely to be more serious for bigger and more muscular dogs. There are two main categories of issues that make a difference between a dog that's likely to be dangerous, and one that isn't, and they relate to the fact that dogs are still inherently wolves and have the same instincts.
Wolves are pack animals. To control dogs properly the first thing that's needed is make sure your dog knows itself to be subordinate to you, the dog needs to recognise that it's in a pack with all the humans being above it in the pecking order. Establishing and maintaining that pecking order means consistently treating dogs as subordinate in the same way as would happen in a wolf pack - so, for example, make sure they're never fed before people, only give dogs left overs from your dinner or their own dinner after everyone else has finished eating. Dogs that are treated as being higher in the pecking order of the pack will fight to defend that status.
Wolves are territorial and pack hunters. They will attack others that they consider to be other packs entering their territory, or prey. But, as pack animals they will only do so if the rest of the pack, the higher ranked members in particular, act aggressively towards others or they perceive a threat to the pack (remember wolves will only hunt when the top dogs decide it's time to hunt, and will avoid confronting potential threats to the pack unless put in a position where confrontation is unavoidable). These are, of course, traits that we use to train dogs to protect property or herd sheep, or for police dogs to attack people - where the training also includes reinforcing the pack structure so that the dog handler calls back the dog reliably when needed. If the dog owner behaves as pack leader and sends out "we're going hunting" signals then the dog will respond to those and become more aggressive. If the pack leader/owner approaches other people as equals then the dog will treat them as part of their pack, and be less aggressive. Conversely if they act as though other people are infringing on their territory then the dog will become more aggressive to defend territory.
There are, of course, dogs that get abused to such an extent that their instincts are overwritten. As these dogs no longer respond to signals in the same way as wolves or other dogs would they're to a large extent uncontrollable - except possibly to their abusive owner who might have programmed them with a new set of commands and identity.
The way to address dog attacks is in teaching dog owners how to behave so that their dogs know their place within the pack - not just the immediate family of the owner (including other dogs they may own) but the wider community, because the dog will instinctively seek a much larger pack than just themselves and a few humans. And, the signals that owners give off - so that dogs see people they meet as either members of their pack or not a threat - and also the signals to avoid that identify other people as threats or subject of a hunt. Of course, the government (of all parties over the last decades) has seen measures such as mandatory training for owners as part of licensing requirements to own a dog as politically unacceptable, so to a large extent blame dogs for the failures of their owners.
I thought the "top dog" sort of pack dynamics had been largely discredited, as they were based on mixed packs of unrelated wolves in captivity, as opposed to wild packs which are largely an extended family.
There is a strong argument that if instincts for retrieval and herding can be bred into certain breeds of dog, so can aggression. There's a strong counter-argument that most animals belonging to said breeds never attack anyone. There's another argument that even if all dogs have an equal propensity to become aggressive a huge great pit-bull type can kill you a lot more easily than a miniature poodle. With risk management you factor in both the likelihood of an event occurring and its likely severity, so by that measure the more powerful dogs present a greater risk even if the likelihood of an attack is the same.
Yes, even if all dogs bite there is a big difference in the result according to size and breed.
There is also an issue here about the impact on society. If I was a parent of a toddler and my next door neighbour had a 50kg dog bred for aggression, I would be living in fear. To be honest, I would be living in fear even without a child as there is no way I would be able to fight it off. These breeds of dog are more common in deprived areas like my home town of Luton rather than here in nice middle class Cambridge and are often used to intimidate people. I suspect Guardian journalists don’t tend to live in those sorts of neighbourhoods.
If you can’t ban the owners you have to ban the dogs.
I thought the "top dog" sort of pack dynamics had been largely discredited, as they were based on mixed packs of unrelated wolves in captivity, as opposed to wild packs which are largely an extended family.
There are differences in the way in which pack hierarchy is established, and in captivity that hierarchy is modified by the presence of zoo keepers (who by providing food take the "it's time to hunt" role of pack leaders). But, lots of features are common to both wild extended family wolf packs and captive mixed packs, and indeed other pack animals such as prides of lions. There will be a wolves at the top of the pack, this higher position in the pack will be demonstrated by being the first to eat after a kill, priority in breeding, taking a lead in when to hunt or where to move the pack, but also at the front when confronting rival packs to protect territory. That those behaviours persist in captivity (albeit it modified to fit restrictions of limitations to movement and provision of food - which put the keepers in a position where they're taking up some roles from the pack leaders), and are present in different species, means that they're very likely to be inherited by domesticated dogs - especially given that until relatively recently dogs were kept and bred specifically to retain some natural instincts (as hunting dogs, herding dogs, guard dogs etc).
In many ways, the behaviour of captive wolves in a mixed pack of unrelated animals may be more appropriate to consider when thinking about the social behaviour of domestic dogs - after all, domestic dogs will also usually be unrelated to other dogs in the community, and of course are definitely not related to the human members of their "pack".
Yes, even if all dogs bite there is a big difference in the result according to size and breed.
There is also an issue here about the impact on society. If I was a parent of a toddler and my next door neighbour had a 50kg dog bred for aggression, I would be living in fear. To be honest, I would be living in fear even without a child as there is no way I would be able to fight it off. These breeds of dog are more common in deprived areas like my home town of Luton rather than here in nice middle class Cambridge and are often used to intimidate people. I suspect Guardian journalists don’t tend to live in those sorts of neighbourhoods.
If you can’t ban the owners you have to ban the dogs.
There's an answer to that @Heavenlyannie implicit in your last sentence. If you were to adopt that solution, I wouldn't disagree with you.
In many ways, the behaviour of captive wolves in a mixed pack of unrelated animals may be more appropriate to consider when thinking about the social behaviour of domestic dogs - after all, domestic dogs will also usually be unrelated to other dogs in the community, and of course are definitely not related to the human members of their "pack".
The 'alpha male' 'dominant hierarchy' models were gleaned from packs of young unrelated male wolves in captivity (it's similar to understanding human behaviour by only looking at groups of teenagers), and even animal psychologists who believe that these hierarchies exist caution against using them as a lens for training https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/pets-and-their-people/201603/dominance-in-dogs-again
Yes, even if all dogs bite there is a big difference in the result according to size and breed.
There is also an issue here about the impact on society. If I was a parent of a toddler and my next door neighbour had a 50kg dog bred for aggression, I would be living in fear. To be honest, I would be living in fear even without a child as there is no way I would be able to fight it off. These breeds of dog are more common in deprived areas like my home town of Luton rather than here in nice middle class Cambridge and are often used to intimidate people. I suspect Guardian journalists don’t tend to live in those sorts of neighbourhoods.
If you can’t ban the owners you have to ban the dogs.
There's an answer to that @Heavenlyannie implicit in your last sentence. If you were to adopt that solution, I wouldn't disagree with you.
I think the problem is that identifying the problem owners is hard to do before the animals actually injure someone. It's entirely reactive.
I had to laugh at the idea that diversity training in the Home Office will be vetted, as right wing media complained, that it was "woke" and "far too woke". The reason I laughed, is that after Windrush such training was increased, as an antidote to racist attitudes. Braverman's head must be spinning.
Reverting for a moment to the G20 debacle (for Sunak) it never ceases to amaze me that Conservative, and indeed other British, politicians should imagine that a Hindu nationalist government, which honours the men of the Indian National Army who fought alongside the Japanese raher than those of the old British-led Indian Army, should feel any residual loyalty, gratitude or fellow-feeling towards the former imperial power. The same doubtless applies perhaps to an even greater extent to former British colonies in Africa and the Caribbean.
Reverting for a moment to the G20 debacle (for Sunak) it never ceases to amaze me that Conservative, and indeed other British, politicians should imagine that a Hindu nationalist government, which honours the men of the Indian National Army who fought alongside the Japanese raher than those of the old British-led Indian Army, should feel any residual loyalty, gratitude or fellow-feeling towards the former imperial power. The same doubtless applies perhaps to an even greater extent to former British colonies in Africa and the Caribbean.
That tories should have delusional views about Empire comes as no surprise at all. You might think that Sunak, with his family connections with India, might have more of a finger on the pulse but I suspect being part of the monied global elite is makes him out of touch with public opinion in every nation.
Reverting for a moment to the G20 debacle (for Sunak) it never ceases to amaze me that Conservative, and indeed other British, politicians should imagine that a Hindu nationalist government, which honours the men of the Indian National Army who fought alongside the Japanese raher than those of the old British-led Indian Army, should feel any residual loyalty, gratitude or fellow-feeling towards the former imperial power. The same doubtless applies perhaps to an even greater extent to former British colonies in Africa and the Caribbean.
Just to be clear, though, I don't think there were alot of colonized people in British Africa and the Caribbean who fought with the Axis. Maybe there woulda been, had Germany and Japan made significant incursions there, but since that didn't happen...
Reverting for a moment to the G20 debacle (for Sunak) it never ceases to amaze me that Conservative, and indeed other British, politicians should imagine that a Hindu nationalist government, which honours the men of the Indian National Army
I think it's more a professed admiration for Bose and his attempt to kick out the British rather than an admiration for the INA as a entire group.
And the idea that all colonised peoples feel (or should) "a residual loyalty, gratitude or fellow-feeling towards the former imperial power" is not a delusion restricted to Sunak.
Heartbroken owners would be able to register their dogs, have to have them neutered, insured and muzzle them. This is the usual procedure for existing dogs when dogs are banned and is discussed here https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66829892
Heartbroken owners would be able to register their dogs, have to have them neutered, insured and muzzle them. This is the usual procedure for existing dogs when dogs are banned and is discussed here https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66829892
I thought the "top dog" sort of pack dynamics had been largely discredited, as they were based on mixed packs of unrelated wolves in captivity, as opposed to wild packs which are largely an extended family.
There are differences in the way in which pack hierarchy is established, and in captivity that hierarchy is modified by the presence of zoo keepers (who by providing food take the "it's time to hunt" role of pack leaders). But, lots of features are common to both wild extended family wolf packs and captive mixed packs, and indeed other pack animals such as prides of lions. There will be a wolves at the top of the pack, this higher position in the pack will be demonstrated by being the first to eat after a kill, priority in breeding, taking a lead in when to hunt or where to move the pack, but also at the front when confronting rival packs to protect territory. That those behaviours persist in captivity (albeit it modified to fit restrictions of limitations to movement and provision of food - which put the keepers in a position where they're taking up some roles from the pack leaders), and are present in different species, means that they're very likely to be inherited by domesticated dogs - especially given that until relatively recently dogs were kept and bred specifically to retain some natural instincts (as hunting dogs, herding dogs, guard dogs etc).
In many ways, the behaviour of captive wolves in a mixed pack of unrelated animals may be more appropriate to consider when thinking about the social behaviour of domestic dogs - after all, domestic dogs will also usually be unrelated to other dogs in the community, and of course are definitely not related to the human members of their "pack".
This raises so many questions for me about police dogs used for crowd control in political unrest, when dogs have been trained to chase and bring down human beings. Local hospitals have protested about the severity of the bites inflicted by aggressive animals cornering protestors.
And just a note on canine breeds: if someone decides to raise a Basenji dog (increasingly popular in France), they need to be very aware of this breed's exceptionally strong prey drive. This isn't a breed that has been domesticated and interbred for centuries, they are wild dogs from central Africa and only adopted by humans in the last century or so. I've had to dog-sit a young Basenji; they don't come across as aggressive but will chase anything that runs whether the 'prey' is a squirrel, cat or child. They won't attack the 'prey' but will pin it down and not let go. Not suitable for most domestic households.
What appeared to be an American bully XL was outside our local Tesco earlier this week. Her owner simply looped her leash over one of the car park posts, close to the shop door, before going inside.
Several people were heard to remark *Isn't that one of those dogs?*, perhaps an indication of public awareness of these animals. If the dog had decided to behave badly (or perhaps, in all fairness, in accordance with the nature of her breed), I could have done very little to protect myself or anyone else...
So how, if at all, does this evil-dog controversy line up politically? Or is it just basically a non-ideological public safety issue?
There was controversy about pit-bulls in Canada in the 1980s, and I remember one local right-wing columnist(a non-intellectual business tycoon who was heavily edited by the paper) including on his list of dystopian outcomes awaiting Canada under socialism, the murder of "the family pet" by government agents.
But, honestly, I think that's the only time I've seen the issue framed in an ideological way. I will say that one of the more balanced opinions I've heard on the issue was from a pit-bull owner who was quite left-wing in almost all his views.
I haven't noticed any particular political comments - yet. The fact that the tory government has, perhaps rather uncharacteristically, taken note of its citizens being mauled and killed by dangerous dogs, is unlikely to be challenged by any other party.
All the tabloids are on board with it, so naturally both tories and Starmer are super keen. In fairness it fits with their general view that your genetic heritage decides your behaviour.
Comments
Diane Abbott springs to mind.
I can think of at least 2.
Bear in mind they're pandering to the "lots of people have degrees from Cambridge and qualifications but they can still be stupid compared with me from with my degree from the University of Life and School of Hard Knocks" crowd. I've generally found said crowd tend to conflate "intelligence" with "agrees with me".
They're not exactly alone in that.
How is that any worse than pontificating on an internet forum?
Nobody comes onto an internet forum for a quiet drink, and most people posting here are sober (with a few I have my doubts about).
You can scroll past posts on an internet forum. The Bloke In The Pub is often too loud to ignore...
-- edited to remove duplicate quoting, chrisstiles, Hell Host
At the recent international conference in India Rishi had a planned meeting with PM Modi at his (Modi’s) house. It was cancelled in favour of Modi meeting Biden, and pushed to a fringe meeting.
The UK was snubbed in a big agreement between Europe, India, and the Gulf.
At the big upcoming environmental conference the UK has been told it will not be at any of the most significant discussions because our environmental policies are bad.
World beating Global Britain eh.
They've certainly been quiet since Sunak got sidelined and only seems to have managed an agreement for some discussions on the possibility of a deal, and not even a time table for discussing that possibility. Meanwhile the EU walks away with a signed international agreement to create an economic trade corridor between India and the EU via Saudi Arabia, UAE, Jordan, Israel - reducing costs of trade and delays, and improving digital connectivity. OK, so it's not a trade deal in the sense of making any difference to tariffs and regulations over imports, but should still allow EU producers to have greater access to markets along that corridor, and conversely producers along that corridor greater access to EU markets.
* ie: still pretending that the UK is an imperial power, with colonies bowing and scraping to do what the UK government tells them.
The efforts of the tories and their Gammon to pretend that this country is still a world leader would be funny, if they weren't so pathetic.
Well, I don't really have a dog in this fight(sorry), but this breed seems related to various other breeds that always seem to be involved in violence-related controversies around the world. So, smoke/fire and I'm gonna wager that there's something particular to this branch of the canine family that always gets them at the centre of attention.
Quite. Although there may be multiple factors here - inasmuch as owners who want the sort of dog you can unironically give that sort of name to (personally I'd love to know someone had a Rottweiler called Mr Puffles, or for that matter a sausage dog called Killer) are going to be choosing, well, the sort of dog you can unironically give that sort of name to. So dangerous dogs will correlate both with aggressively named animals and certain breeds of dog.
There is a strong argument that if instincts for retrieval and herding can be bred into certain breeds of dog, so can aggression. There's a strong counter-argument that most animals belonging to said breeds never attack anyone. There's another argument that even if all dogs have an equal propensity to become aggressive a huge great pit-bull type can kill you a lot more easily than a miniature poodle. With risk management you factor in both the likelihood of an event occurring and its likely severity, so by that measure the more powerful dogs present a greater risk even if the likelihood of an attack is the same.
Wolves are pack animals. To control dogs properly the first thing that's needed is make sure your dog knows itself to be subordinate to you, the dog needs to recognise that it's in a pack with all the humans being above it in the pecking order. Establishing and maintaining that pecking order means consistently treating dogs as subordinate in the same way as would happen in a wolf pack - so, for example, make sure they're never fed before people, only give dogs left overs from your dinner or their own dinner after everyone else has finished eating. Dogs that are treated as being higher in the pecking order of the pack will fight to defend that status.
Wolves are territorial and pack hunters. They will attack others that they consider to be other packs entering their territory, or prey. But, as pack animals they will only do so if the rest of the pack, the higher ranked members in particular, act aggressively towards others or they perceive a threat to the pack (remember wolves will only hunt when the top dogs decide it's time to hunt, and will avoid confronting potential threats to the pack unless put in a position where confrontation is unavoidable). These are, of course, traits that we use to train dogs to protect property or herd sheep, or for police dogs to attack people - where the training also includes reinforcing the pack structure so that the dog handler calls back the dog reliably when needed. If the dog owner behaves as pack leader and sends out "we're going hunting" signals then the dog will respond to those and become more aggressive. If the pack leader/owner approaches other people as equals then the dog will treat them as part of their pack, and be less aggressive. Conversely if they act as though other people are infringing on their territory then the dog will become more aggressive to defend territory.
There are, of course, dogs that get abused to such an extent that their instincts are overwritten. As these dogs no longer respond to signals in the same way as wolves or other dogs would they're to a large extent uncontrollable - except possibly to their abusive owner who might have programmed them with a new set of commands and identity.
The way to address dog attacks is in teaching dog owners how to behave so that their dogs know their place within the pack - not just the immediate family of the owner (including other dogs they may own) but the wider community, because the dog will instinctively seek a much larger pack than just themselves and a few humans. And, the signals that owners give off - so that dogs see people they meet as either members of their pack or not a threat - and also the signals to avoid that identify other people as threats or subject of a hunt. Of course, the government (of all parties over the last decades) has seen measures such as mandatory training for owners as part of licensing requirements to own a dog as politically unacceptable, so to a large extent blame dogs for the failures of their owners.
There is also an issue here about the impact on society. If I was a parent of a toddler and my next door neighbour had a 50kg dog bred for aggression, I would be living in fear. To be honest, I would be living in fear even without a child as there is no way I would be able to fight it off. These breeds of dog are more common in deprived areas like my home town of Luton rather than here in nice middle class Cambridge and are often used to intimidate people. I suspect Guardian journalists don’t tend to live in those sorts of neighbourhoods.
If you can’t ban the owners you have to ban the dogs.
In many ways, the behaviour of captive wolves in a mixed pack of unrelated animals may be more appropriate to consider when thinking about the social behaviour of domestic dogs - after all, domestic dogs will also usually be unrelated to other dogs in the community, and of course are definitely not related to the human members of their "pack".
One big problem is that there's very little evidence that populations of domestic dogs behave this way: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15857815/
The 'alpha male' 'dominant hierarchy' models were gleaned from packs of young unrelated male wolves in captivity (it's similar to understanding human behaviour by only looking at groups of teenagers), and even animal psychologists who believe that these hierarchies exist caution against using them as a lens for training https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/pets-and-their-people/201603/dominance-in-dogs-again
I think the problem is that identifying the problem owners is hard to do before the animals actually injure someone. It's entirely reactive.
Conference season is coming up.
That tories should have delusional views about Empire comes as no surprise at all. You might think that Sunak, with his family connections with India, might have more of a finger on the pulse but I suspect being part of the monied global elite is makes him out of touch with public opinion in every nation.
Just to be clear, though, I don't think there were alot of colonized people in British Africa and the Caribbean who fought with the Axis. Maybe there woulda been, had Germany and Japan made significant incursions there, but since that didn't happen...
I think it's more a professed admiration for Bose and his attempt to kick out the British rather than an admiration for the INA as a entire group.
And the idea that all colonised peoples feel (or should) "a residual loyalty, gratitude or fellow-feeling towards the former imperial power" is not a delusion restricted to Sunak.
And, she did, just a few hours ago. Heartbroken owners already making the media rounds.
That’s good to know.
This raises so many questions for me about police dogs used for crowd control in political unrest, when dogs have been trained to chase and bring down human beings. Local hospitals have protested about the severity of the bites inflicted by aggressive animals cornering protestors.
And just a note on canine breeds: if someone decides to raise a Basenji dog (increasingly popular in France), they need to be very aware of this breed's exceptionally strong prey drive. This isn't a breed that has been domesticated and interbred for centuries, they are wild dogs from central Africa and only adopted by humans in the last century or so. I've had to dog-sit a young Basenji; they don't come across as aggressive but will chase anything that runs whether the 'prey' is a squirrel, cat or child. They won't attack the 'prey' but will pin it down and not let go. Not suitable for most domestic households.
Several people were heard to remark *Isn't that one of those dogs?*, perhaps an indication of public awareness of these animals. If the dog had decided to behave badly (or perhaps, in all fairness, in accordance with the nature of her breed), I could have done very little to protect myself or anyone else...
There was controversy about pit-bulls in Canada in the 1980s, and I remember one local right-wing columnist(a non-intellectual business tycoon who was heavily edited by the paper) including on his list of dystopian outcomes awaiting Canada under socialism, the murder of "the family pet" by government agents.
But, honestly, I think that's the only time I've seen the issue framed in an ideological way. I will say that one of the more balanced opinions I've heard on the issue was from a pit-bull owner who was quite left-wing in almost all his views.
It’s a very useful diversion from all the other shit that’s going on.
This.