Please report, shop a dog !!!!!

Please report guys, they want people too shop a dog and you get a free mug!!!!! they are also trying too get staffys too have too be muzzled!!!!
report here.
http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/top_stories/9263660.News_Shopper_launches_campaign_against_dangerous_dogs/
report here guys http://www.pcc.org.uk/complaints/process.html

xXxshelly_stanliexXx wrote:Please report guys, they want people too shop a dog and you get a free mug!!!!! they are also trying too get staffys too have too be muzzled!!!!
report here.
http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/top_stories/9263660.News_Shopper_launches_campaign_against_dangerous_dogs/
report here guys http://www.pcc.org.uk/complaints/process.html

Are Staffordshire bull terriers banned?

No. Despite at least five Staffordshire bull terrier attacks in the News Shopper area in the last three years, they are legal and don't need a muzzle in public.
WHAT WE WANT

- Increase the sentence for owning a banned dog - in line with carrying a knife.

- Extend the law to include dog attacks on private land - therefore protecting workers such as postmen and carers.

- Increase the prison sentences for owners convicted of allowing their dog to attack humans.

- Force all Staffordshire Bull Terriers to wear a muzzle in public.

- Simplify the court process so that banned dogs can be destroyed immediately.


These people are uneducated what can we do ??

The only thing that can be done is try to educate these morons but they're probably too narrow minded to learn.

I will never muzzle Ty as I think a muzzle makes people more nervous imo.

put it this way anyone who tries to make us put a muzzle on our stanley will be in hospital, and if anyone even thinks of trying to take him off us god help them i will do time for murder. grrrrrrrrrr

12 years of us having taz he didnt have a muzzle and wouldnt have even thought of doing it NO MATTER WHAT

This was that email I got;

Further to our previous correspondence, the Commission has now made its assessment of your complaint under the Editors’ Code of Practice.



The Commission members have asked me to thank you for giving them the opportunity to consider the points you raise. However, their decision is that there has been no breach of the Code in this case. A full explanation of the Commission’s decision is below.



Although the Commissioners have come to this view, they have asked me to send a copy of your letter to the editor so that they are aware of your concerns.



If you are dissatisfied with the way in which your complaint has been handled - as opposed to the Commission’s decision itself - you should write within one month to the Independent Reviewer, whose details can be found in our How to Complain leaflet or on the PCC website at the following link:



http://www.pcc.org.uk/about/whoswho/independentreview.html



Thank you for taking this matter up with us.



Yours sincerely









Chris Paget

chris.paget@pcc.org.uk



Commission’s decision in the case of

Various v News Shopper



The Commission received complaints regarding a campaign, “Shop a Dog”, which aimed to get the law regarding dangerous dogs changed. The complainants considered the coverage breached five clauses of the Editors’ Code of Practice. The complainants considered that the campaign inaccurately and misleadingly represented the Staffordshire Bull Terrier as a dangerous and aggressive dog, while the campaign’s encouragement to photograph banned dogs was an intrusion into the dog’s and owner’s private lives and amounted to harassment, as the dog owners had not consented to having their dog’s photograph taken. It was also considered that the campaign discriminated against the Staffordshire Bull Terrier and their owners as it gave a prejudiced impression of the breed as dangerous and aggressive. One complainant also considered the offer of a free mug in return for a photograph was a breach of Clause 16 (Payment to Criminals).



The Commission turned first to the complaint under Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Code. The complainants considered that the campaign and related articles misleadingly represented the Staffordshire Bull Terrier as an aggressive and dangerous dog. The Commission made clear that newspapers are entitled to be partisan and to take an editorial position on issues and subjects of legitimate debate. The Code does not seek to prevent campaigning journalism; however, the newspapers obligations to take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information are not negated by taking a prominent, partisan position on an issue. It was inevitable that a campaign which took such a firm stance on a debated issue would not be met with agreement by all readers – a difference of opinion was unavoidable. It was for the Commission to establish whether the articles published as part of the campaign raised a breach of the Editors’ Code. The campaign was aimed at changing the law on dangerous dogs, with one aspect being that the Staffordshire Bull Terrier must wear a muzzle while in public. This was clearly a controversial position, and one that many readers would not agree with. The newspaper made clear its position was based on 5 attacks in 3 years in the newspapers region. While the complainants did not agree that made the Staffordshire Bull Terrier a dangerous dog, the Commission made clear that the newspaper was entitled to report the figures and interpret them in such a way; this did not make them inaccurate or misleading.



The Commission acknowledged that some complainants did not agree with the presentation of readers’ letters and the removal of a readers’ poll or their comments. They considered that by doing so the newspaper was misrepresenting the wishes of the public and distorting the argument that was being put forward against the campaign. One complainant considered that the newspaper gave greater coverage to a reader’s letter in favour of the campaign than to another letter against it. He considered that this demonstrated the newspaper’s bias. The Commission made clear that the presentation and selection of material for publication was a matter for the discretion of individual editors, provided that such editorial decisions did not engage the terms of the Editors’ Code. The Commission was satisfied that that the editing of material by the newspaper had not distorted the information regarding the Staffordshire Bull Terrier and as such, readers would not be misled. Furthermore, the Commission noted the newspaper had published views in the third feature of the campaign that were contrary to its position on the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Mr Singh, a dog psychologist, stated that he did not agree with the campaign’s aim of muzzling all Staffordshire Bull Terriers in public, as it was not the breed that was the problem but the person behind the breed. It also noted that a letter expressing contrary views was published; this demonstrated to readers that other views on the subject existed.



The Commission then considered the concerns over the use of a picture of a Doberman. The complainants considered the photograph was misleading. They believed it had been airbrushed to make the dog look more menacing; furthermore there was no further mention of a Doberman in the newspaper’s campaign. The Commission considered that the image was intended to reflect the purpose of the campaign – to protect the public from vicious dogs. As such, the image, whether airbrushed or not, was merely intended to be an illustrative example of a vicious dog. While it acknowledged the concerns of the complainants over the use of an image of a Doberman, it did not consider that readers would be misled into understanding that all Dobermans were necessarily dangerous. The Commission then turned to the pictures of the current banned dogs under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. Although part of the campaign related to Staffordshire Bull Terriers wearing muzzles in public, the wider scope of the campaign aimed to alter the current law on dangerous dogs. Therefore, the inclusion of photographs depicting the current banned breeds was not misleading. The Commission made clear that the Code was designed to balance the principles of freedom of expression with rights of individuals; although it acknowledged that the newspaper’s campaign was controversial and appreciated that many would not agree with its views, it considered readers would understand that the campaign was the editorial position of the newspaper and was clearly presented as such. Therefore, the Commission did not find a breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Code.



The Commission then turned to the complaint under Clause 3 (Privacy) of the Code. The complainants considered that the campaign’s encouragement to take photographs of suspected banned dogs was a breach of privacy. The Commission noted that the campaign encouraged photographs of dogs and not of their owners. It made clear that Clause 3 protected an individual’s right of respect for their private life; the terms of the clause did not extend to animals. Furthermore, the Commission noted that the newspaper did not intend to publish the pictures and as such, the Commission did not establish a breach of the Code on this point.



The Commission then turned to the complaint under Clause 4 (Harassment) of the Code. Clause 4 relates to the conduct of journalists during the newsgathering process. It does not concern the manner in which the newspaper covered issues – such as through campaigning journalism – and it is not the case that publishing a number of articles about one issue constituted harassment. While the Commission acknowledged that the campaign encouraged photographs to be taken of banned dogs, it did not consider it could be held responsible under the terms of the Code for the conduct of the readers. As such, Clause 4 was not engaged and the Commission did not establish a breach of the Code on this point.



The complainants considered that the campaign discriminated against Staffordshire Bull Terriers and their owners by implying that they were dangerous and as such should be muzzled in public. They therefore complained that Clause 12 (Discrimination) of the Code had been breached. The Commission made clear that the Code does not cover references to animals and as such, under the terms of the Code dogs cannot be discriminated against. In regards to the owners, under Clause 12 (i), newspapers must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual’s race, colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability. However, the clause does not cover references to an individual’s choice of pet or indeed to groups or categories of people. Given that the complainants believed owners were discriminated against on the grounds of the breed of their dog, the Commission did not establish that Clause 12 (i) of the Code had been breached.



Finally, the Commission turned to the complaint that the incentive of a free mug in return photographs of a banned dog breached Clause 16 (Payment to Criminals) of the Code. The Commission made clear that Clause 16 was designed to prevent the payment to criminals in exchange for information, thereby, preventing the exploitation and, or, glamorising of crime. The newspaper offered a free mug as an incentive for participation by the public in their campaign; this did not equate to the payment of a criminal and as such, did not engage Clause 16. The Commission did not establish a breach of the Code on this point.



Reference No’s. 114515/115253





Chris Paget

Complaints Officer



Press Complaints Commission

Halton House

20/23 Holborn

London EC1N 2JD



Tel: 020 7831 0022

What a complete whitewash. They were just too weak to do anything about it.

Completely ridiculous!

agree