Zhou Xuanyao

Rural Pig, there are Argentinian Dogo's here too

Sounds like momentum is building for a challenge; the ban may yet be overturned. I can't accept that a whole industry is shut down simply because Baird says so

I don't really know what's going on elsewhere but here in NSW, in the council areas I have had experience with throughout Sydney and regional areas nobody seems to me to take any interest in 'restricted breeds' anymore... I think the days of BSL are numbered.

I emailed him, basically said what I just said here, and he wants to have coffee and discuss it face to face. Bit better than the usual platitudes we're used to when sending feedback to these companies

Well that defeats the purpose of the reason they introduced it in the first place. Who's going to carry a muzzle around in the car for their dog just in case they stop in at Bunnings?

This is not a good reason for it to be 'ruined for everyone'-- that old line. If the rule were to be repealed, It's not the dog owners fault, that would be Bunnings choice. Cultural change takes time; it takes time to adjust, and there are always bumps and bruises along the way. As others have noted, there's a novelty value to factor in at the moment. That combined with a certain foolhardiness by owners taking unsuitable dogs, kids not being used to it and being nuisances etc. It'll take years, but we have to start somewhere, or the culture of dogs not being allowed anywhere will continue indefinitely.

You gotta do what you gotta do when you're an Indian, when you become a chief you can choose your work.

Hang on, are you a prosecutor? I will ROFL if you are, but then a few things will make sense, I know you're in the legal field in some capacity

It's a difference in values, as I mentioned before. I don't think you're 'wrong', it's a subjective matter, I just don't like your opinion. You say you'll usually side with law enforcement, whereas in my case, I will defend the rights of the accused in the face of government abuses, often but not necessarily for their sake, but for the sake of upholding the values I believe in for society as a whole--just as courts do. Maybe I should have been a defence lawyer. To me, all individuals have certain rights in this country. This is not a lawless society of corruption and impunity where jackboots rule and do as they wish even though they too often do, so for the sake of a civilized society where life, liberty and peoples rights are respected there can be no exceptions and no excuses for government abuse of citizens. Obviously now we are going into it a bit more than might be necessary, but suffice to say we disagree and I sympathise with abusive law enforcement about as much as you do with the accused.

No, his refusal, if that's what happened, didn't cause it. They caused it when they assaulted him. It was their choice to react that way, their actions, their choice, their responsibility. Each individual is the cause of their own behaviour, no-one else is responsible. The best way to avoid heavy handed law enforcement is to force them not to be heavy handed by creating a society that doesn't accept it and a culture that will ensure that they end up charged and in jail when they overstep the mark. One man is out of a job because he assaulted a citizen on the beach, and rate payers are shelling out cash for a new ute because the morons are not capable of driving responsibly on a beach.

Then he doesn't need to take responsibility because he's not responsible. The leash issue is a minor by-law and whether or not he should have obeyed it is another discussion not relevant to this one. Earlier you said that he created the situation and that had the dog bitten his attackers and been subsequently put down that would have been his fault as-well, would you like me to quote you? Nice logic there. Like I said at the end of the day nothing you say is really 'wrong', it's just a differing, albeit distasteful opinion in my view--differing values. I think you've drawn a few parallels in your own mind as this discussion has progressed and realized the same thing but still want to hang on to a thread of 'blaming him' in some way so you don't let him off scot-free for breaking the leash law

No he doesn't need to take any responsibility for the assault whatsoever. The issue of the dog being off the lead and the assault are completely separate, the former does not justify the latter in even the smallest degree.

How would you know? If he'd done that when asked then what? So if he refuses then that gives them a right to beat him up? Maybe that's cool by your world view and you're entitled to your opinion, but it isn't cool by mine, it's starting to sound like it isn't cool by the police's either, and it won't be cool by their cell mates, so this incident is starting to look up--could turn out to be a nice little warning to the other tough guys to pull their heads in.

Interviewing the bloke, he says he has an ongiong neck injury (obviously, given the hold) and that they were also punching him repeatedly on the side of the head and neck. Police are saying that they're still investigating but charges are likely, and that the young guy is no longer with the council. A Coffs Councillor has also spoken out in support of the victim.

Bastards. Sounds like the cops are going to nail them for it after all... and then they're going to get a pounding if they end up in Grafton, see how good his Karate does him then

They are unfortunate individuals, not a culture. Let's not conflate the debate about types of meat eaten with the way the animals are treated before slaughter--there is no comparison between our two cultures. As unpopular a view I'm sure it is on this forum I don't necessarily have a problem with dog eating, but boiling them alive, beating them, burning them etc is what we are talking about here, not the relativity of what type of animals we respectively eat.

We don't treat our animals anything like them. Civilized versus uncivilized, simple as that.

The rangers weren't patrolling, they were called. It's not because of the leash law, it's because of the way they assaulted him over it.. that's obviously where the contention is I'd have thought.

No, that's not what it's about. I said that we pay their wages and for the trashed ute, not that we want an apology for trashing the ute.

No, it's a leashed beach. According to the article they did charge this bloke, who knows what the truth is, the council isn't talking

I agree, having said that, why all the lying and omission? Either the ABC or their source, presumably the police, are covering up what happened. I'm not too concerned about the vehicle story, save them some embarrassment etc, but the serious part of this is the fact that the CO's detained him and the nature in which they did it, none of which is mentioned. That's a strangle hold by the way, it can be fatal, a New York cop used it to kill Eric Garner last year. Problem is, I dare speculate, that they're all mates down the pub, and if the local police can deflect heat from the council when they think there will be no foul to them they will--just make the whole incident disappear by saying that he became aggressive when police arrived and was arrested, end of story.

Nice find! I like the way the loss of the ute (which was written off after it was finally recovered) is the headline, with no mention made about how the CO's, not the police, detained the accused and the omission of the damning photographs--that's where the real substance of what happened lies. Also the ute didn't become swamped while they were talking to him, it became swamped because they parked it well below the tide line for some reason and it became bogged, there was nobody to help them because that beach has restricted 4WD access, and the vehicle was subsequently swamped when the tide came in.

The following are just a few of about a dozen images captured by a passer by on Murrays Beach in Sawtell on the 26th of May this year. There has been no media coverage nor police report or media release to the best of my knowledge. Allegations of bullying against Coffs Council CO's are not uncommon. The narrative accompanying these images is that he refused to put his dog back on the lead when asked. They also lost their 4wd to an incoming tide as they parked it below the tide line when they got out and detained this beach goer. The council needs to face this incident head on and apologise to us, the public who pay these CO's wages and for the car they recklessly trashed, or explain their version of events if they differ. Had this dog defended it's owner as one might expect, the dog probably would have been put down as well. If anyone would like to contact Coffs Harbour council about this incident, please email [email protected]

First sentence is correct, but the last isn't (from a drive and/or aggression perspective). For example, a friend bought a French Mastiff for a number of reasons, one of which was it's guarding potential. Well it turns out that he's completely useless, will not even bark unless he's playing or you're a cow. So this is an example of why it's nonsense to take breed generalizations to mean one and the same as a description of a particular dog of a particular breed. Whilst there are other Mastiffs who have suitable attributes to guard a lady on her own out on a rural block, he doesn't, so any comment in which 'some breeds' follows a premise of 'some dogs' is wrong.

The relativism of it all... I had a German friend who told me that she used to speed when she was younger but today she never exceeds 160km/h