1. Give an outline of the various views on dangerous dogs presented in text 1, 2 and 3. There are different opinions in the three texts.
In text 1, “Police bask new law on killer dogs” by Jamie Doward, the police officer, Bernard Hogan-Howe has demanded a change to the law on dangerous dogs so children are better protected and so the new rules will target the owners of dangerous dogs, rather than the animals themselves. That happens after five-year-old Ellie Lawrenson was mauled by a pit bull and died. Four breeds were banned as followed by the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act. That led to hundreds of people handing in their dogs to the police in the Merseyside area, because they were afraid they might be prosecuted. Bernard Hogan-Howe says that there are now 200 fewer illegal dogs in Merseyside. In text 2, “Jail owners of killer dogs” by Victoria Stilwell has another view. She is against breed-specific legislation. She means that you should face jail if your dog kills someone, and it is time owners take responsibility when they mix kids and pets. The death of 13-month-old Archie-Lee Hirst – mauled by his family’s rottweiler – has started a tighter control on dangerous dogs. But Victoria Stilwell says that people should not start thinking that all rottweilers are killers, because they certainly are not. Instead she recommend people to consider which breed that fit into their home, and not to buy a dog on the net or from a backyard breeder. In text 3, “If the dog is dangerous, the owner will be, too” by Simon Heffer, Simon Heffer himself means that the Dangerous Dogs Act is a pointless piece of legislation, because many pit bulls are still to be found. He also writes that the owner of the dog, who killed five-year-old Ellie Lawrenson, Kiel Simpson was a drug dealer and was jailed for possessing 44Ib of cannabis. Simon Heffer thinks that this underlines that if you meet a dangerous dog, a dangerous human is not far away.