Help end medical misogyny. Sign our petition.

Help end medical misogyny.
Sign our petition.

Sign the petition

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Another child killed by a dog...

900 replies

tnorfotkcab · 09/04/2026 22:08

Another poor child is killed by a dog.... We already know this is an XL Bully, don't even have to wait for confirmation.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce35zkl9dg3o

A Google street view of Hardale Grove. It is a residential cul-de-sac with cars parked on the pavement.

Child dies in Redcar dog attack, police say

Police remain at the scene in Dormanstown, where one dog was destroyed earlier.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce35zkl9dg3o

OP posts:
Thread gallery
28
MandingoAteMyBaby · 12/04/2026 08:45

YeOldeGreyhound · 12/04/2026 01:21

They still wont know what fighting is.
If you think they need to, then I really hope you are not in charge of small children.

In that case we’ll need to ban all dogs then.

GlovedhandsCecilia · 12/04/2026 08:47

QuintadosMalvados · 12/04/2026 08:41

Because that's while you may get the odd dopey, airy fairy middle class woman who thinks all 'Truffles' (her xl bully/rescue rottweiler) needs is her love (just like her thug boyfriend) to make him behave the majority of these attacks do not occur in naice areas. They just don't.
This is bloody obvious.

You may not be able to set rules in private houses but you can have certain rules people have to adhere to in social housing.

Why not laws discriminate all the time.

I don't think we should purposefully make unnecessary and discriminatory laws. There is nothing to say that someone in SH isnt objectively better placed to own a powerful breed than someone who isnt. It's about understanding dogs and training them.

Sometimes the size and layout of your property is a factor when considering if you can suitably own a specific type of dog. But ownership of said place isn't as necessary, especially where you have a long term SH tenancy opposed to a private rented residence.

EdithStourton · 12/04/2026 08:54

BackToLurk · 11/04/2026 18:53

Again, to a degree. People who want a dog that fights will breed already aggressive dogs that fight, but they will still be goaded, undersocialised and trained using bait dogs. They won’t ’just fight’. In addition, lots, if not most, of the ones in the general population are there because they don’t fight. If you want an aggressive dog you dump the ones that aren’t or the puppies of the ones that aren’t. I don’t disagree about being aware of general traits, and hyper arousal is certainly one. Again bullies tend to be very sociable to humans, so the often repeated claim that they are naturally aggressive toward them doesn’t really hold water. That’s the sort of thing I’m talking about. Yes they are strong. Yes they have strong jaws. But so do other breeds.

Personally I’d have tighter regulations and licensing on all dogs, with the possibility of stricter requirements for some breeds, As much to protect the dogs, who are often undersocialised, but I’d probably include other breeds beyond bullies.

Our disagreement is definitely one of degree. I don't know enough to argue about man-biters being culled (it seems that some dog-fighting circles culled them but others didn't) or the use of bait dogs (again, seems to have been uncommon to non-existent in at least some dog-fighting circles). But it's not something that has left a representative stash of easy-to-access records, so it's hard to be sure.

My own view is that bullies have a high risk profile due to a group of factors (and not all of these will apply to every dog):
Fighting heritage (high levels of dog aggression);
Bite strength;
Bite style (grab and shake);
Tendency to over-arousal;
Tendency to offer few warning signs (which was an advantage in the fighting pit);
High prey drive (hence their tendency to attack small squeaky things like babies);
Often poorly socialised (an owner issue);
Often owned by people who want to look well hard so barking and lunging is encouraged (another owner issue);
Not given breed-appropriate outlets (tug games etc - owners again).

Some or many of these factors can apply to other breeds (mastiffs, for example). Bans work as a sticking plaster until the next power breed comes along, so probably some sort of licence is the way forward, with different levels of owner competence and insurance required for, say, an Anatolian shepherd compared to a springer spaniel compared to a papillon.

Devising and implementing a system would take expertise, consultation, the willingness to make unpopular decisions, money and parliamentary time...

GlovedhandsCecilia · 12/04/2026 09:16

I think it would be easier to isolate specific behaviours that we see often and prohibit them. So we often see dogs of all breeds off lead despite having poor recall. If we changed societal attitudes to make that unacceptable irrespective of breed, then it would stand out when a dog who is not trained to that level is off the leash and reprimand the owner.

The same goes for reactivity. The number of small dogs who are highly reactive to other dogs and bark and lunge for them is ridiculous. If those dogs were the size snd strength of mine, there is no question that they'd actually attack their target. The only reason they do not is because their owner can hold them back.

This doesnt change the fact that they are acting out of anxiety/aggression/frustration/prey drive or whatever. It is the same behaviour you'd see in an XL, just in a smaller dog.

This is a behaviour that would be simply unworkable in my rottie and so I have made sure to a) get a puppy from a reputable breeder who I can train to their full potential and b) kept up with said standards and training. If we made it so this type of behaviour was always unacceptable, irrespective of breed, it would raise our expectations of how all dogs need to behave in public. Again, highlighting those who have not "done the work".

In theory, there is nothing stopping someone having a series of small dogs who are not well trained believing that they now have the experience to have a more powerful or challenging breed based on their ability to physically control a spaniel.

TwoSwannits · 12/04/2026 09:17

YeOldeGreyhound · 12/04/2026 00:56

Getting in before people say that all dogs with bull in them are killers.
But you read my post how you want, yes?

I don't think anyone is stupid enough to think, or say that all dogs with bull in them are killers.

Just that most dogs that kill do appear to have bull in them.

Again, so many people on this thread seem to struggle with nuance, degree and perspective. We don't need to think or speak in absolutes.

theworldisadarkplace · 12/04/2026 09:49

Katemax82 · 10/04/2026 12:03

A family member just bought a cane corso and has 3 kids....I'm bewildered as to why??

I got bitten on the face by a CC. My Ds's GF at the time had one and I was sitting next to my son consoling him as he was upset about something (can't remember what now).
Next thing I know the CC jumped up an nipped me. A slight break to the skin, but I definitely felt it was 'warning' me. Very frightening.

BackToLurk · 12/04/2026 10:06

@GlovedhandsCecilia’s point about behaviour is a good one. There’s are some parallels around cars, although not perfect. We have a system whereby everyone who wants to drive has to pass a test and maintain their car. Once they do that they can drive any road legal car of any size or power. We penalise people who don’t abide by laws on licence and road worthiness, but also who don’t abide by certain standards of behaviour eg on speed, dangerous driving etc. Poor car behaviour is apparent because there are some base standards. We further mandate that some types of vehicle, HGVs for example, require a higher level of training. Of course, not all people abide by the law, but we don’t ban cars because of it. Whether the laws are well applied is probably a subject for an entirely different thread.

TwoSwannits · 12/04/2026 10:10

TheGoldenOwl · 12/04/2026 07:20

I am so conflcited on this topic.

Dogs biting humans is unacceptable. Period. Nobody disagrees with that.

And the ban stipulates the XLs be muzzled, not off lead etc. Makes sense, I support this.

But then part of me wonders if that means there are just a load of potentially dangerous dogs who are now also unerexercised and frustrated. That is an even bigger risk than before.

I wonder this because the type of person to have this kind of dog is usually not the type of person to have spare tenners several times a week to spend on secure dog paddocks to have off lead time.

That's if they're even allowed off lead in the secure private rent by the hour fields?

Personally I think we should have cracked down much harder on the existence of these dogs in the first place. I know many of them will have owners who insist they are gentle giants and much loved members of the family, but there simply shouldn't ever have been room for sentimentality here. The longer they were allowed to proliferate as a breed, the more decent if slightly deluded and misguided people were going to be hurt and angry at having to surrender their pets for euthanisation.

The problem is, by the time all the relevant authorities on the subject have concluded their investigations and collated their data and prevaricated over precisely what defines a Pit Bull or an XL Bully or whichever other devil dog is all the rage that year, it's often far too late and the problem has become a runaway train.

Bullies not being exercised isn't the fault of the new law. It's the fault of the owners. Given that those dogs have been allowed to live, they can and should at least be exercised properly, IN MUZZLES AND ON HARNESSES that give the owner better control over a powerful dog. And yes, perhaps off lead in strictly controlled environments only. That way, while they might still be prone to lunging in attack, they can't actually do any real harm. Knocking someone (or another dog) over and scaring them half to death is probably as bad as it would get. Still not great but better than being mauled to death.

The problem is the idiots who don't exercise or socialise their dogs at all and probably didn't before the law about muzzling came in. In general they are not responsible owners and regardless of the breed they chose, they'd probably never be. These are the dogs that will go crazy and kill visitors to the houses and gardens they spend their lives locked up in. Or they go crazy in the street when they find an opportunity to get loose. They are literally living like caged wild animals most of the time, not domestic pets. And if they get taken out on a regular lead the owner rarely has the strength to hold onto them if they want to bolt. Even the well meaning idiots who buy these dogs (as opposed to the definitely less well meaning sort) find that they are far more dominant than the Instagram twats filming their toddlers clambering all over a seeminly relaxed and docile Bully ever let on. They soon realise they can't cope with the commitment of training them and exercising them, so they keep them confined largely to a crate, a balcony, a spare room or a small yard.

And then their are the idiots who do walk and socialise their dogs, but refuse to muzzle them or keep them on a leash. They are the ones who insist that their dog is just a 'mix' and not the breed it so clearly is. And just because they might look like a banned breed doesn't mean they are one. It's sly and disengenuous. They take their precious babies out unmuzzled and off-leash because they think the law somehow shouldn't apply to them. And they whine about how the muzzle is cruel, or they need to take it off for the dog to be sick, or because they struggle to breath in it, or some other such nonsense. We all see you. You are a liar and a fool.

Look, these dogs are all mixes or merely 'types', we know that. That's how new breeds come about, by mixing others. It takes many, many generations of strictly controlled breeding to get to pure breed status. But the question is what sort of mix is your dog? If you bought that dog by searching for anything with Bully or Pit Bull or American bulldog, American Staffordshire Terrier, Mastiff or Cane Corso, or a combination of any of those in the description then you knew exactly what you were doing, so don't play innocent and heartsore with us now, please.

TwoSwannits · 12/04/2026 10:20

QuintadosMalvados · 12/04/2026 08:29

I wish there were a shorthand way of saying 'not every' etc, but you are right.

Certain dog breeds should be banned from social/council housing.

I honestly would not blame anybody for undertaking any measures they deemed necessary for getting rid of these beasts in their immediate vicinity. I mean it. Zero judgement.

I'd like to get rid of their dumb c*nt owners, too, but apparently it's not legal - or indeed possible- to send them to Mars.

Edited

Councils can't even stop the amount of illegal and fraudulent behaviour that goes on around subletting and other tenancy related issues. What are the chances of them managing to enforce a ban on dangerous dogs in their properties? I'd support the rule, but I have zero confidence it would make one iota of difference.

ChimpanzeeThatMonkeyNews · 12/04/2026 10:21

I have a question. Do MPs ever speak about this in Parliament?

ChimpanzeeThatMonkeyNews · 12/04/2026 10:21

I’m off to check Hansard…

GlovedhandsCecilia · 12/04/2026 10:22

TwoSwannits · 12/04/2026 10:10

Personally I think we should have cracked down much harder on the existence of these dogs in the first place. I know many of them will have owners who insist they are gentle giants and much loved members of the family, but there simply shouldn't ever have been room for sentimentality here. The longer they were allowed to proliferate as a breed, the more decent if slightly deluded and misguided people were going to be hurt and angry at having to surrender their pets for euthanisation.

The problem is, by the time all the relevant authorities on the subject have concluded their investigations and collated their data and prevaricated over precisely what defines a Pit Bull or an XL Bully or whichever other devil dog is all the rage that year, it's often far too late and the problem has become a runaway train.

Bullies not being exercised isn't the fault of the new law. It's the fault of the owners. Given that those dogs have been allowed to live, they can and should at least be exercised properly, IN MUZZLES AND ON HARNESSES that give the owner better control over a powerful dog. And yes, perhaps off lead in strictly controlled environments only. That way, while they might still be prone to lunging in attack, they can't actually do any real harm. Knocking someone (or another dog) over and scaring them half to death is probably as bad as it would get. Still not great but better than being mauled to death.

The problem is the idiots who don't exercise or socialise their dogs at all and probably didn't before the law about muzzling came in. In general they are not responsible owners and regardless of the breed they chose, they'd probably never be. These are the dogs that will go crazy and kill visitors to the houses and gardens they spend their lives locked up in. Or they go crazy in the street when they find an opportunity to get loose. They are literally living like caged wild animals most of the time, not domestic pets. And if they get taken out on a regular lead the owner rarely has the strength to hold onto them if they want to bolt. Even the well meaning idiots who buy these dogs (as opposed to the definitely less well meaning sort) find that they are far more dominant than the Instagram twats filming their toddlers clambering all over a seeminly relaxed and docile Bully ever let on. They soon realise they can't cope with the commitment of training them and exercising them, so they keep them confined largely to a crate, a balcony, a spare room or a small yard.

And then their are the idiots who do walk and socialise their dogs, but refuse to muzzle them or keep them on a leash. They are the ones who insist that their dog is just a 'mix' and not the breed it so clearly is. And just because they might look like a banned breed doesn't mean they are one. It's sly and disengenuous. They take their precious babies out unmuzzled and off-leash because they think the law somehow shouldn't apply to them. And they whine about how the muzzle is cruel, or they need to take it off for the dog to be sick, or because they struggle to breath in it, or some other such nonsense. We all see you. You are a liar and a fool.

Look, these dogs are all mixes or merely 'types', we know that. That's how new breeds come about, by mixing others. It takes many, many generations of strictly controlled breeding to get to pure breed status. But the question is what sort of mix is your dog? If you bought that dog by searching for anything with Bully or Pit Bull or American bulldog, American Staffordshire Terrier, Mastiff or Cane Corso, or a combination of any of those in the description then you knew exactly what you were doing, so don't play innocent and heartsore with us now, please.

Edited

If you buy from an ethical breeder, you arent going to get a mixed breed.

Soddingcat · 12/04/2026 10:26

GlovedhandsCecilia · 12/04/2026 08:31

Why from social housing specifically? Surely it should be the type of house (if anything) and shouldn't matter whether you own it or not.

Should we be able to own our rottweiler but our social housing neighbours with a bigger property on the same estate not be able to?

Because it would pretty much solve it, most of these attacks happen in council houses/ are by dogs who live in them .

Most people who own these dogs are of a certain demographic, and pretending otherwise is very silly.

It just is true, you don't hear of little Harriet from Richmond, or Florence from the Cotswolds getting killed.

Maybe if that happened the government would act….
I think its shocking that people from deprived areas appear to be dispensable

SerendipityJane · 12/04/2026 10:29

ChimpanzeeThatMonkeyNews · 12/04/2026 10:21

I have a question. Do MPs ever speak about this in Parliament?

It's a subject more explosive that Palestine. Wherever possible they avoid it.

Furbaby fever is weirdly apolitical (possibly the one thing that unites half of Britain).

Unless you are standing up to offer free kennels and a spa break, you are onto a loser.

ChimpanzeeThatMonkeyNews · 12/04/2026 10:34

People are daft about their dogs, and I can just imagine the howls of x if they were told their dog was being taken away by the ‘government’.

Never mind the actual humans around them who could die if the dog decided he wasn’t in the mood that day.

Muh civil liberties!
Muh fur baby!

TwoSwannits · 12/04/2026 10:36

GlovedhandsCecilia · 12/04/2026 10:22

If you buy from an ethical breeder, you arent going to get a mixed breed.

Is there such a thing as an ethical breeder of XL Bullies and Pit Bulls? There isn't even a defined breed standard as far as I am aware. I don't think either breed is officially recognised as a pedigree by kennel clubs? Certainly not in the UK as far as I am aware. It might be in the US, but my laptop is playing up and it's taking me too long to google the proper answer to this. 😂

TwoSwannits · 12/04/2026 10:43

Soddingcat · 12/04/2026 10:26

Because it would pretty much solve it, most of these attacks happen in council houses/ are by dogs who live in them .

Most people who own these dogs are of a certain demographic, and pretending otherwise is very silly.

It just is true, you don't hear of little Harriet from Richmond, or Florence from the Cotswolds getting killed.

Maybe if that happened the government would act….
I think its shocking that people from deprived areas appear to be dispensable

The parents of Florence and Harriet from Richmond don't tend to chose these dogs in the first place, but I totally take your point that if they did, they'd probably be far more intelligent and responsible in their ownership than Destiny-Blu's divvy mum from a council house in Rochdale.

However, legislating against free will and equality of choice for the working classes and those with merely 'average' IQs or lower levels of education will never, ever happen. There are many times when we might dearly wish that it would happen,but it won't. And that's the way it should be. We know it is.

GlovedhandsCecilia · 12/04/2026 10:48

Soddingcat · 12/04/2026 10:26

Because it would pretty much solve it, most of these attacks happen in council houses/ are by dogs who live in them .

Most people who own these dogs are of a certain demographic, and pretending otherwise is very silly.

It just is true, you don't hear of little Harriet from Richmond, or Florence from the Cotswolds getting killed.

Maybe if that happened the government would act….
I think its shocking that people from deprived areas appear to be dispensable

I dont think it's as easy as separating by who owns and who doesn't. Some parts of the country are cheaper than others and some people who are terrible dog owners make enough money to own. And yes I am pretty much talking about people who are involved in crime at some level.

Also, where would that leave private renters? People who are paying private rent but arent in SH or a CH?

Slowlygettingthehangofthings · 12/04/2026 10:49

Ownership of these dogs disproportionately blights the lives of people living in deprived areas. There was a thread on here not so long ago by a pregnant women who felt no choice but to move home because her three surrounding neighbours all had bully breed dogs. You could feel the fear and desperation in her posts. She thankfully had the means to move away, but a lot of people don't. They then have to live with the very tangible risk of them or their children being literally eaten alive by these beasts. If affects every aspect of your life, from not being able to use your own garden, being wary every time you step outside your house, not able to let your kids play out, the barking. Of course, the sort of muppets who owns these dogs don't pick up after them, so you have human-sized turds littering the pavements and green spaces. I agree with other posters - breed specific legislation on its own isn't working effectively. I really feel the solution is to ban ALL dogs from social housing. Dogs are not a right and the council is under no obligation to house them. They don't have the same rights as humans, no matter what the hard of thinking may bleat. They blight the area with barking and dog shit and damage much needed social housing stock. Also, if you're reliant on others to house you, what on earth would possess you to bring a dog into the equation?! You cannot rely on having the space to keep the dog properly, if your home is needed more by somebody else.
Also, the authorities need to be much more proactive in tackling these menace dogs. They need to patrol the parks and be far more responsive to reports. Any dog that even looks like a banned breed should be seized and put down.

SerendipityJane · 12/04/2026 10:50

Ownership of these dogs disproportionately blights the lives of people living in deprived areas.

Interestingly, the discussion rarely - if ever - looks at removing deprived areas as a solution.

Just leaving that here ....

Slowlygettingthehangofthings · 12/04/2026 10:52

SerendipityJane · 12/04/2026 10:50

Ownership of these dogs disproportionately blights the lives of people living in deprived areas.

Interestingly, the discussion rarely - if ever - looks at removing deprived areas as a solution.

Just leaving that here ....

Poverty is relative. There will always be deprived areas, just as there will always be fools looking to own dogs that make them look hard.

GlovedhandsCecilia · 12/04/2026 10:55

TwoSwannits · 12/04/2026 10:36

Is there such a thing as an ethical breeder of XL Bullies and Pit Bulls? There isn't even a defined breed standard as far as I am aware. I don't think either breed is officially recognised as a pedigree by kennel clubs? Certainly not in the UK as far as I am aware. It might be in the US, but my laptop is playing up and it's taking me too long to google the proper answer to this. 😂

There arent ethical breeders of any mixed breed or banned dog. There are places in the world you can find ethical pitbull breeders because the laws of that country permit them and they can be supported in maintaining ethical standards.

XLs are mixed breed dogs so no, there arent ethical breeders of those dogs.

My point is that you can buy an ethically bred English mastiff. There are many common mixed breed dogs that arent ethically bred because they are mixed breed. They also display problematic behaviours due to their poor breeding. It doesn't cause the same alarm because those dogs arent as big.

IsEveryUserNameBloodyTaken · 12/04/2026 12:11

Soddingcat · 12/04/2026 06:58

I think there is a very simple way to reduce these attacks. No doubt I will be accused of being discriminatory, but i don't believe ive ever seen it suggested.

Ban all types of XL bully, pit bull ,Akitas,
along with crossed with them from social housing .

Virtually all the attacks show the scene before the breed, its nearly always a council estate, and you just know that its going to be a bully type dog.
People living on council estates who are sensible, should not have to fear for their children playing outside, or whilst walking to school

I read some comments on FB on local news reports and they are unbelievable, the utter stupidity of so many defending the dogs, one lady actually said “ I feel sorry for the dog “

With so many utterly stupid negligent people owning dogs like this things will never improve,

I have a friend who works with a dog charity, they have dog bite owners sent to them by the courts, and she said the one thing they all have in common is that they did not believe their dog would bite .
They were all so shocked.

So many people now simply do not understand /refuse to learn about dog behaviour.
It’s quite scary and spoils it for all the many wonderful dog owners.

I would support a list of allowed dogs, a ban on everyday breeders , with a huge fine for anyone caught breeding, a hefty licence fee to pay for it all, a test required like a driving theory test to prove you know about dog language before a licence is permitted , compulsory insurance , and if your dog attacks someone there is a huge penalty,

Obviously that wont happen, but i don't understand why this government is so accepting of people being mauled to death

<waits for inevitable outraged comments …>

Edited

I can see where you are coming from but the idea of banning social housing renters having this breed/ type but the idea won’t even get off the ground.
There are too many so called experts who would put the kibosh on this.
You have that idiot organisation “Save Our Seized Dogs” who work tirelessly to get these dogs back with their owners.They do this by constantly fundraising on their Facebook Page getting idiot donators to cough up for their latest solicitors fees for every seized dog.These idiot donators don’t care about putting these dogs back in the community to cause harm.
Obviously they are not the only organisation, there are many all championing the rights of these dogs no matter the social or human cost.

EdithStourton · 12/04/2026 12:16

@GlovedhandsCecilia I suppose it depends on how you define ethical. To me, it means adequate health testing, selection of physically and temperamentally sounds parent dogs, bringing the puppies up properly (adequate vet care, good early socialisation etc) and not breeding unless you're pretty sure you have a market for the puppies. By that metric, there are ethical breeders of mixed breed dogs. People breed mixes for sport or working roles all the time. Some doodle breeders health test and so on, but they keep their heads down to avoid the constant flack from breed purists.

I consider breeding pedigree dogs to produce puppies with insanely high coefficients of inbreeding to be morally reprehensible, but plenty of 'we're ethical, we breed to the standard, we health test, we're super picky about who we sell to' breeders will produce dogs with a COI of 25%.

PartQualifiedAcca · 12/04/2026 12:18

IsEveryUserNameBloodyTaken · 12/04/2026 12:11

I can see where you are coming from but the idea of banning social housing renters having this breed/ type but the idea won’t even get off the ground.
There are too many so called experts who would put the kibosh on this.
You have that idiot organisation “Save Our Seized Dogs” who work tirelessly to get these dogs back with their owners.They do this by constantly fundraising on their Facebook Page getting idiot donators to cough up for their latest solicitors fees for every seized dog.These idiot donators don’t care about putting these dogs back in the community to cause harm.
Obviously they are not the only organisation, there are many all championing the rights of these dogs no matter the social or human cost.

This is why a mass in discriminatory cull is required.
Then nobody can claim their disproportionately affected by each other we all know who is disproportionately affected by it

Swipe left for the next trending thread