bg1: what do you think about the insurance for having a dog? - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HotUKDeals, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HotUKDeals app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit

bg1: what do you think about the insurance for having a dog?

£0.00 @
in case it attacks someone. Seems like a big ole scam to shaft us into paying more tax, i think you should have to go take a test to see what kind of person you are, then you can be accepted/rejected… Read More
black gerbil1 Avatar
7y, 3m agoPosted 7 years, 3 months ago
in case it attacks someone. Seems like a big ole scam to shaft us into paying more tax, i think you should have to go take a test to see what kind of person you are, then you can be accepted/rejected to get a dog.

and dangerous dogs like rotties/stafs should be made illegal.

boom, go.
Tags:
black gerbil1 Avatar
7y, 3m agoPosted 7 years, 3 months ago
Options

All Comments

(46) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
Page:
#1
Is this the same person who usually posts under this username?!!!

I think the idea is rubbish - just an excuse to get more money.
banned#2
its a bad idea...another con, should be veted whether your allowed them or not


how is your dog BG? any recipes yet?
#3
Stupid Idea
[mod][Moderator]#4
It's not the dog, it's the person who owns them, known plenty of rotties/staffs/dobes and none been vicious, but then they've all been owned by decent responsible people. I have insurance for my 2 dogs for vet bills etc and that includes public liability upto 2 million as standard, costs about £6.50 a month each, and all vet bills over £35 paid.
#5
ODB_69
its a bad idea...another con, should be veted whether your allowed them or not


how is your dog BG? any recipes yet?

not yet bro, thinking about serving then in my restaurant, just waiting for a reply from my MP first to see if i can serve it.
banned#6
well we all know what this threads about, and been done by you before, ok under a different title, but still
#7
I think it’s a good thing. At the end of the day the owner should be responsible for the dog’s actions. I agree that the owner can’t control all the dogs’ behaviour but if the dogs been treated properly and so to speak “raised properly” it will be friendlier. The insurance will deter owners from teaching the dog any unruly things. Maybe I don’t know.
#8
wishihadadonkey
It's not the dog, it's the person who owns them, known plenty of rotties/staffs/dobes and noe been vicious, but then they've all been owned by decent responsible people. I have insurance for my 2 dogs for vet bills etc and that includes public liability upto 2 million as standard, costs about £6.50 a month each, and all vet bills over £35 paid.


yeah its usually the owner a good owner will equal a good dog, but the more vicious dogs, even if the owners are really good, they still can go on a mad one n bite a brother. they should be banned, jack russles, labs and other should be allowed as pets.
sassie
oh hai every1 just letting everyone know this is a trolling thread by bg1, but obz im not smart or have a life to not view this thread, so every page or so ill post something which has no releveance to this thread and ill add either "lmao/PMSL" at the end to act like it dont bother me but it really does.

fixed your post
#9
Ive been bitten twice by other peoples dogs, only little nips mind, nothing to sue over. In my line of work, i think its a brilliant idea. There was a dog attack on my estate too, a larger dog was running loose and ATE a smaller dog that was out for a walk with its owner on a lead. People tried to save the little dog, but they got bitten in the process. The larger dog was never caught/found.
#10
rodent

fixed your post


sassie
well we all know what this threads about, and been done by you before, ok under a different title, but still


Correct.

Though am I all for people paying to have special breed liscences which is a repeat thread.
banned#11
black gerbil1;8066929

fixed your post


AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


Que insult followed by 'Sassie Safety LOL'
#12
splatsplatsplat
Ive been bitten twice by other peoples dogs, only little nips mind, nothing to sue over. In my line of work, i think its a brilliant idea. There was a dog attack on my estate too, a larger dog was running loose and ATE a smaller dog that was out for a walk with its owner on a lead. People tried to save the little dog, but they got bitten in the process. The larger dog was never caught/found.

ate? WTF even more reason to ban the more vicious dogs. The problem is that youths just use them as another weapon apposed to a knife.
Danny_d
I think it’s a good thing. At the end of the day the owner should be responsible for the dog’s actions. I agree that the owner can’t control all the dogs’ behaviour but if the dogs been treated properly and so to speak “raised properly” it will be friendlier. The insurance will deter owners from teaching the dog any unruly things. Maybe I don’t know.

the more vicious dogs should be higher tax, and the younger the owner should also increase it
#13
black gerbil1


fixed your post


:lol:
banned#14
black gerbil1

fixed your post


Poor Sassie - it's not her fault she's the way she is.:x
#15
in case it attacks someone. Seems like a big ole scam to shaft us into paying more tax, i think you should have to go take a test to see what kind of person you are, then you can be accepted/rejected to get a dog.

and dangerous dogs like rotties/stafs should be made illegal. And that the idea of the tax is a "big ole scam to shaft us into paying more tax"


In your op you say dangerous dogs should be made illegal. I assume vicious dogs comes under the same heading as dangerous dogs?


black gerbil1
yeah its usually the owner a good owner will equal a good dog, but the more vicious dogs, even if the owners are really good, they still can go on a mad one n bite a brother. they should be banned, jack russles, labs and other should be allowed as pets.


In this quote you also say they should be banned.

black gerbil1
ate? WTF even more reason to ban the more vicious dogs. The problem is that youths just use them as another weapon apposed to a knife.

the more vicious dogs should be higher tax, and the younger the owner should also increase it


Then here you say the vicious dogs should incur a higher tax!!

Which is it to be?
#16
i think you should have to go take a test to see what kind of person you are, then you can be accepted/rejected to get a dog.


agree
and dangerous dogs like rotties/stafs should be made illegal.

disagree
#17
black gerbil1


fixed your post


post of the day:w00t:


disagree oin making dogs illegal i agree they should be insured and also go for some kind of official dog handleing course for certain breeds unless they have previous experience
banned#18
oooh lookie a sassie thread, sassie running the misk
banned#19
laughing at this thread
#20
dog_cop
laughing at this thread


Normally, 4 blokes picking on a woman in an Internet forum wouldn't be funny, but on this occassion I think they are just trying to get Sassie's attention. Must be lurve.....:whistling:
banned#21
gari189
Normally, 4 blokes picking on a woman in an Internet forum wouldn't be funny, but on this occassion I think they are just trying to get Sassie's attention. Must be lurve.....:whistling:


oh theres a few more to drop in yet ;-)
#22
Eagerly awaiting Dan's poem here.
#23
black gerbil1
ate? WTF even more reason to ban the more vicious dogs. The problem is that youths just use them as another weapon apposed to a knife.

i gotta laugh at people who think they are hard with staffies

the more vicious dogs should be higher tax, and the younger the owner should also increase it


so how do you judge a vicious dog?? staffies have power and can be vicious to other dogs but total softies in general to people


p.s i have a staffy choses because it was 1 of only 2 dogs recomended as good with children

mines a total pussy chipped and insured @£26 a month thats more than my life insurance AND car insurance put together :x
banned#24
What’s going on? A sensible thread?
What’s got into Bee Gee One’s Head?

Where’s the bragging gone?
It’s not like you BG1

Serious thread, no time for the haters
My shoes be made from the skins of alligators

Ride around in my made up German car
My dog is a gold-plated Rottwei-lar

Dem gyal they all love my gold-plated hound
Did I tell you that my ride cost 66 thousand pound?

Let’s get this back to normal, the usual BG1 stuff
And none of this serious, new-based fluff
#25
gari189
Normally, 4 blokes picking on a woman in an Internet forum wouldn't be funny, but on this occassion I think they are just trying to get Sassie's attention. Must be lurve.....:whistling:


i like your angle...........worked better than mine as you actually got a response;-)

white knighting
banned#26
Stafs arent dangerous around people at all. Just around other dogs. Nothing a muzzle or strict owner can't sort
#27
shibi din
Is this the same person who usually posts under this username?!!!


Was thinking that myself, it actually seems quite sensible, and I can understand almost every word in the OP.......

gari189
Normally, 4 blokes picking on a woman in an Internet forum wouldn't be funny, but on this occassion I think they are just trying to get Sassie's attention. Must be lurve.....:whistling:


So you're assuming sassie's a woman.... :w00t:
#28
shibi din
In your op you say dangerous dogs should be made illegal. I assume vicious dogs comes under the same heading as dangerous dogs?
In this quote you also say they should be banned.
Then here you say the vicious dogs should incur a higher tax!!
Which is it to be?

im saying ban the rotties/dobers/staffs etc etc.

then the other less dangrous dogs, categories them, obz german shepard should be rated higher then a jack russ.



boothy
agree

disagree

care to expand fam?
jamstaruk1972
so how do you judge a vicious dog?? staffies have power and can be vicious to other dogs but total softies in general to people


p.s i have a staffy choses because it was 1 of only 2 dogs recomended as good with children

mines a total pussy chipped and insured @£26 a month thats more than my life insurance AND car insurance put together :x

when you here about dog attacks they usually staffs
ryman1000
Stafs arent dangerous around people at all. Just around other dogs. Nothing a muzzle or strict owner can't sort

all dogs should be muzzled when outside any IMO
#29
black.gerbil1 if you search you will see more people per year are bitten by labs then staffs etc,
#30
DanJackson
What’s going on? A sensible thread?
What’s got into Bee Gee One’s Head?

Where’s the bragging gone?
It’s not like you BG1

Serious thread, no time for the haters
My shoes be made from the skins of alligators

Ride around in my made up German car
My dog is a gold-plated Rottwei-lar

Dem gyal they all love my gold-plated hound
Did I tell you that my ride cost 66 thousand pound?

Let’s get this back to normal, the usual BG1 stuff
And none of this serious, new-based fluff


lol nice dan, nice

I hate dogs, if only they would come up to you give you a bit of a sniff and let you stroke them, none of this running up to you and jumping on you crap, wtf is that about.

Also people that let dogs off their leads in the park and then cant get control of their bloody dog when I'm walking through, should be put down
#31
numptyj
Also people that let dogs off their leads in the park and then cant get control of their bloody dog when I'm walking through, should be put down


The people or the dogs? :?
#32
Dub1
black.gerbil1 if you search you will see more people per year are bitten by labs then staffs etc,

because more people own labs then staffs so you prob right, ratio wise i would think staffs, staffs are more dangerous then labs, i know which one id rather get bitten by.
numptyj
l
Also people that let dogs off their leads in the park and then cant get control of their bloody dog when I'm walking through, should be put down

stanna
#33
Staffs get a bad rep because of their owners, if the dogs are trained propally then they shouldn't bit unless provoked, and my dogs part rottweiler and he isn't aggressive in the slightest !
#34
civms47
The people or the dogs? :?


maybe both lol :p
#35
im near on 90% sure there is more staffs owned now then labs, but i could be wrong
black gerbil1;8069634
because more people own labs then staffs so you prob right, ratio wise i would think staffs, staffs are more dangerous then labs, i know which one id rather get bitten by.

stanna
#36
Dub1
black.gerbil1 if you search you will see more people per year are bitten by labs then staffs etc,




+1


but that wouldnt intrest the papers, they want to see a staffy with its teeth snarling on front page

ive never actually seen a staffy bite a human

a loud shout at a staffy and they know whos boss
#37
you people know nothing, a lab when it bites does not have enough power in there jaws to kill, while staffs do.
#38
i do not agree with banning large dogs in my opinion the little ones are worse.
#39
black gerbil1
you people know nothing, a lab when it bites does not have enough power in there jaws to kill, while staffs do.


next youl be saying they have lockjaw
banned#40
I am a dog owner and it's usually nothing to do with the dog and all to do with the owner. These chavs who have staffs probably don't ever exercise them. When you don't exercise a dog, no matter what kind it is, it will go mental.

2 walks a day and plenty of time running round off the lead and you'll have a nice calm dog that's friendly with other dogs and other people

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!