I think we have another "Octang Frye-ism" here ... he throws in little comments like that to spread mis-information, hoping no one will bother to challenge it.

I think OF likes the 'dog analogy' to the 'gun control' situation, because it supports his position with respect to gun control - when the government tries to ban obviously dangerous weapons that have no purpose for hunting or home-defense, the gun control guys worry about 'slippery slope' legislation eventually coming down to simple hand-guns, and so they fight the bans on the obviously dangerous weapons to nip the process in the bud. One technique is to argue that you can't easily define 'what' is an obviously dangerous weapon, and therefore (by their argument), you shouldn't ban any weapon. And so with dogs ... we have the 'obviously dangerous' breeds such as Pit Bulls, but rather than supporting a ban on such dogs, they try to argue that there is a continuous spectrum of danger, all the way down to the placid labrador, and thus, you shouldn't try to ban any dog.

I read some more about this week's breaking story about the pregnant woman who was killed by her family Pit Bull. The overriding message is, the dog never exhibited any violent tendencies before this event. That's what makes this so frustrating - all these owners of Pit Bulls (etc) arguing that 'my dog is an angel' are simply playing with a time-bomb with an un-known fuse.

PS - I suspect OF will come back with an argument that is based on some statistics. Labradors are the most popular dog in the world, and as such, is probably cited by some statistics as being the dog most often involved in some sort of 'incidents'. Kinda like saying the Honda Accord (or Toyota Camry) is the most stolen car in the US ... but that's not because its inherently not secure, its a statistical reflection of the fact that there are more of them out there ...

I seem to remember statically kids are bitten most by Labradors because there are more Labs being kept as pets by families than other breeds.

Yep, that's what I added to my post as a PS .. "PS - I suspect OF will come back with an argument that is based on some statistics. Labradors are the most popular dog in the world, and as such, is probably cited by some statistics as being the dog most often involved in some sort of 'incidents'. Kinda like saying the Honda Accord (or Toyota Camry) is the most stolen car in the US ... but that's not because its inherently not secure, its a statistical reflection of the fact that there are more of them out there ... "

An interesting statistic would be - number of DEATHS caused by the breeds, weighted by relative volume of the breed

I think he was probably trying to be pedantic and tell us we shouldn't rely on statistics to prove points, but I'm not sure 'cause Ive only really skimmed the posts

I've been watching the Beed on this since the riots started. Don't recall anything about nationality either.

I watched the link the only thing I can think you're meaning is they talked to representatives of the Pakistani community group, which doesn't really mean they're not British just they happen to have ancestral roots in Pakistan. Also those guys were the victims of the incident and not looters or rioters??

It doesn't.

Somebody else raised that issue.

I believe they were the ones defending their property/business and then the guy at the end was a representative of the other part of the community.

I have not commented on anybody's nationality, I do not know, so I will leave that to others.

Er, no, I think that was you.

Then please explain what was meant by whilst there are no doubt English people participating, the majority seem otherwise.

Explain what?

Seems quite understandable.

How do "I have not commented on anyone's nationality" and ""whilst there were no doubt English people participating, the majority seem otherwise" go together?

I don't think we're going to get an answer.

I feel as though I've slipped into an alternate universe.

You should try and debate with the guy in MBTUK Rover's Return thread who thinks evicting people from their homes won't make problems worse than they are