Search results for:

Sounds like I'm at exactly the same place as you - S3E13 - but it's showing up as still available free for me, but with ads, or I can pay for it. That's on my laptop, I haven't looked on my TV.

If it carries on with the same leg, you might want to get it checked for his ACL. Probably nothing, but keep an eye on it.

Walk behind him and see if he’s favouring one leg

Is it both back legs or just one?

Wait, aren’t you moving to Scotland?

Maybe that'll change in 7 years when my daughter is old enough to do her own thing.

That’s exactly when you do want to be here

Well, it’s less “true crime” and more a shocking reminder of the levels of racism and corruption in the police in the 80s. It has some heartbreaking moments and is hardly uplifting, but worth watching.

^^^Markyboy; thanks for the recommendation. Shows the uselessness of i-player too, always recommending crap I'd never watch and missing out stuff like that that I lap up.

Has it recommended A Killing In Tiger bay yet?

Larry Holmes was 60%, Ray Leonard 62%...

My tuppence - Joshua got the boxing lesson he's been due for some time, largely because of his slow hands, lack of lateral movement (other than the predictable occasional step to his left), telegraphed head movement, once paced, boxing by numbers and lack of any kind of in-fight strategy.

Whatever you think about AJ he’s done so much to bring excitement back to this weight class. People can call him a bodybuilder or whatever other silly snide remark they fancy but he’s brought the box office back and for that you have to appreciate him

True, as did Bruno. I'm not sure the "bodybuilder" comment is completely silly, just like Bruno, he has an over-muscled physique that lets him down - slow hands, heavy arms that get heavier with each round, forced rather than flowing punches, etc. And, just like Bruno, he has no instinct when he gets hurt - doesn't grab, doesn't move, doesn't cover up, just leaves his chin out there.

These tactical fighters who dance around the jab, Fury, Mayweather and possibly now Usyk are the end of the the big hitters?

You must be watching different fights to me if they're dancing around the jab. Usyk threw more power punches than Joshua (96 to 71) and the same number of jabs - from a fighter giving away 3" in height, 4" in reach and 8kg. Fury had Wilder down twice before stopping him. Punchers often get themselves to the top, but rarely stay there if that's all they've got - I fear this is probably the case with Joshua.

Really?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/58604851

Anyway, a meeting beckons, so I need to do some work rather than debate something I doubt we're going to agree on.

That history, even though many would dispute it, doesn't say what you're claiming.

Good news that they're going to follow up.

Good news on Madge too, I hope she continues to recover.

I've shown that the American Staffy is the Pit Bull, they're the same dog

It's your opinion, but I don't see how you've shown it. Different size, different shape, different structure - similar but not the same. A bit like Vizslas and Weimaraners.

The only genuine reason I can think of for people trying to claim a current American Staffy is totally not a pit bull is to try and deny their dangerous genetics.

Actually, not far off. People in the UK who are breeding pits (and there's not many) and are stupid enough to be selling them online, will call them American Bullies or Amstaffs to try to get around the DDA. They're still different :)

I think this has been covered by others' replies but, for what it's worth, here is my view, which I've posted before.

Owners can be walking dogs on the lead and prefer not to be approached by other dogs for a variety of reasons. I had a dog that underwent ACL surgery and, as part of its rehabilitation needed to be walked on the lead very carefully otherwise a more serious injury could have occurred - I would warn off any off-lead dog approaching so that I could keep my dog calm. Rescue dogs can be nervous because of how they've been treated. Dogs that have suffered an attack can become reactive - this happened to my last dog. A friend's elderly dog is easily knocked over and will suffer a seizure. Some dogs are just unfriendly and want to be left alone, and will become aggressive if they're not. All of these are perfectly acceptable reasons for wanting off-lead dogs to keep their distance, and the owners have every right to walk their dogs without fear of an unwanted approach.

Obviously I don't know the situation you described in detail, and I'm sure you weren't at fault, but asking someone to keep their off-lead dog away from 20m seems responsible to me (a dog can travel 20m very quickly), if it avoids an incident - only, of course, if the other owner has their dog on a lead.

Firstly, I apologise if I got under your skin on this last night, I didn't mean to make it personal. Secondly, that's an impressive amount of research you've got through, I hope you'll be able to catch up on your sleep! We don't actually disagree on much.

I haven't got time to respond in detail to each of the articles you've quoted or referred to, but your history of the different bull breeds is broadly accurate. As someone who was around when the DDA came in, it was clear that it had little to do with the aggressiveness of pit bulls, but more a knee-jerk politicians' response to one particularly high profile and horrific attack on a young girl. The politicians introduced breed specific legislation that identified four breeds - American Pit Bull Terriers, Japanese Tosas (of which there were only known to be two in the country, owned by Ed Reid in Croydon), Dogo Argentinos and Fila Brasilieros. I don't believe there were any of the last two in the UK and there were no reported attacks by the last three. The government targeted breeds that didn't have the protection of an influential lobby like the Kennel Club, and didn't go for GSDs, Rotties and others because they knew MPs would be lobbied hard. BSL was, in my opinion, the wrong way to go to improve public safety, but it is what we have today.

I'm on record in this thread of clearly stating that staffs can have a higher propensity for aggression towards other dogs, because of their original purpose - and that they require responsible ownership. Owners who are not in control of any dog are a liability, and more so with certain breeds. I've always said that and so your comment below is an unfair and unwarranted characterisation of my position:

I could go on but to be honest I'll be surprised if you bother reading this far after shutting off your brain while repeating "the bad man doesn't like my cute little staffy, it wouldn't hurt a fly".

On the question of dog attacks on humans, it is worth saying that "dog men" (breeders of fighting dogs) used to and continue to cull "man biters" - it is seen as an undesirable trait, as dogs need to be handled in the pit, often by strangers, whilst fighting another dog. Breeders of pit bulls in the 70s and 80s in the UK used to keep GSDs and Rotties to guard their yards, as pits were too easy to steal. All of that said, of course, a human aggressive pit bull, staff or other strong dog is frightening and can cause a lot of damage. It is easy to quote statistics that support your argument, but I agree that there is a higher than average number of attacks on people from pit bulls. I would suggest that these numbers are inflated by a combination of their popularity amongst irresponsible owners (and those who encourage human aggression) as status dogs, the higher likelihood of "pit bull attacks" being reported and an inability of most people to correctly identify a pit bull. Nonetheless, the numbers are not good.

There's a bunch more numbers on that page if you care to read it although it won't back up the lies you've sold yourself.

You may not agree with much of what I say, but I struggle to understand how this comment is helpful. What are the lies you're referring to? In none of my comments last night did I make any claims about the aggression of pit bulls, staffs or anything else.

Which brings us back to where the argument started - whether an American Staffordshire Terrier is a pit bull - and I don't think we are far apart on that. I think you are using term pit bull where I would use bull breed. Bull breed is a term that covers a number of different breeds of dog in the way gun dog might. They include the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, American Pit Bull Terrier, Alapaha Blue Blood Bulldog, English Bulldog and many others. They are all individual and separate breeds that share some similar traits and some ancestry. If you choose to use pit bull to describe them all, then that is misleading, as is saying they are all effectively the same.

they're the most dangerous type of dog by far

You haven't seen a Caucasian Ovcharka or Kurdish Kangal in the flesh then...

I'm really happy to continue this conversation, but can we do so in good faith and keep the personal insults out of it?

Sorry, working so don’t have time to respond for now. I don’t know if the “denying genetics” was aimed at me, but my previous contributions on this thread about bull breeds will show - after a lifetime of owning them - that I’m far from denying their nature. Hope to provide a fuller reply later, your extensive research deserves it!

It’s the fact that you got bitten, rather than your dog, and required hospital treatment that will get action from the police. You will still probably have to push them. Good luck, it’s a horrible situation.

Lol, how can you get so much wrong in two sentences?

Anyway, out of respect for the poster whose dog suffered a horrible attack, I suggest stopping here.

I didn't say the AKC and others recognise the pit bull, I said it is the Amstaff...

Unfortunately, you haven't got a clue what you're talking about and, if you're using Wikipedia as your source, then I'm not surprised. It's too late to explain and you wouldn't be interested, which is of course your prerogative.

From top to bottom - American Stafford, American Bully, Pit Bull

"American Staffy" imports which are basically pit bulls with a different name.

This statement simply is not true. The American Staffordshire Terrier is a breed of dog, quite distinct from the pit bull (American Pit Bull Terrier), recognised by the different US equivalents of the Kennel Club. It is not a pit bull, but a show dog. I very much doubt they are being imported to the UK in any significant numbers. It is American Bullies and XL Bullies (as opposed to American Bulldogs) that have been imported and are currently popular in the UK, but this is a different breed and, again, not a pit bull, but often owned by people who wish they could own a pit bull.

I've been reading about so many attacks by pit bull type dogs recently

What do you mean by a "pit bull type"? Most journalists/people, couldn't recognise a pit bull if it licked their hand and pretty much every story I read (e.g. the Scottish RSPCA recent petition to repeal the Dangerous Dogs Act) is accompanied by a photo of a vicious looking dog, labelled a pit bull, which is not actually a pit bull.

If the woman you mention in your anectdote had her dog on a lead and gestured for you to keep your dog away, then she was acting responsibly if her dog is reactive (which it could be for any number of reasons).

Apologies for coming across as defensive, but I get tired of this kind of misinformation.

Shit, this is a horrible and very familiar situation. Well done for reporting it - it woud be covered under the Dangerous Dogs Act, the dog being "dangerously out of control".

It's excruciating. Does anyone genuinely give a flying fuck about anyone else's school experience?

I'm genuinely puzzled by this post. I appreciate you went to school in another country and that you don't have kids but, given the issues you post so passionately about, I'm surprised that your two comments on the issue have been so dismissive. There are very few things that lead to social injustice and inequality, or the ongoing control a minority exert over our lives, more than an education system that gives the children of those that can afford it a huge leg-up in life and limits the chances of those who most need it. It's something I thought you would care about.

Perhaps you don't like the way the conversation is going, but it's reasonable and inevitable that people will be talking from their own experiences. If you don't care or don't like it, put it on ignore and go and shout about something else.