09 Mar 2010 @ 11:22 
 

Barking mad

 

Why is it that our Government is playing with a proposal that will mean that all dogs will have to be insured – on the off-chance that they cause some kind of damage or kill someone?

And yet cyclists, who we know do cause damage and have killed people, are not going to face the same requirement?

Answers on a bent piece of logic please…

Tags Categories: Cyclists Posted By: Brennig
Last Edit: 09 Mar 2010 @ 11:36

Email • Permalink
Previous Next
 

Responses to this post » (2 Total)

 
  1. Mya says:
    March 9, 2010 at 20:35

    Is dog cycling a new craze in the UK?I’d like to see how a Jack Russell could reach the pedals. Barking.

  2. Vicola says:
    March 10, 2010 at 08:24

    The government already has a law that says you have to have insurance to drive a car. And who ignores this entirely? The kind of people who own weapons-grade pitbulls, fighting dogs and uncontrolled rottweilers. So what on earth makes the idiots in Westminster think that they are going to insure the dog? Those of us who are responsible dog owners already have dog insurance, not because we’re afraid of the dog biting someone but because we’re afraid of the crippling vet bills should the dozy creature get flattened by a car. Or cyclist.

Comment Meta:
RSS Feed for comments
\/ More Options ...
Last 50 Posts
Register an account
Change Theme...
  • Users » 6
  • Posts/Pages » 1,367
  • Comments » 4,779
Change Theme...
  • VoidVoid
  • LifeLife « Default
  • EarthEarth
  • WindWind
  • WaterWater
  • FireFire
  • LightLight