I freely admitted that I've not checked out the sources for that article - but at least I bothered to find some, rather than simply making things up on the fly as you appear to be doing. You constantly ask others to provide photographs, factual reports, and afitdavits signed in triplicate whilst providing *none whatsoever* of your own.

Also, I was quite clear in that I do not think that the dogs are inherently dangerous - given a competent, responsible owner, I'm sure they're fine. However, they are the go-to dog of choice for people who wish to use their dog as a weapon against either other dogs, or human beings - which is reflected in the statistics.

You can't simply put your hands over your ears and go 'lalalala, I'm not listening'. If you're sure its crossbreeds that are the problem - find the statistics to prove it. And then come up with a convincing reason why pit crosses are represented more highly in bite statistics than, say, collie crosses.


EDIT: for all that, I do completely sympathise with not wanting things to be needlessly killed.
( Happy Phantom has been to Hastings, Brighton, and Eastbourne too, Sat 13 Nov 2010, 14:51, Reply)