When the Dangerous Dogs Act was passed in 1991, there was a lot of debate about the justice and enforceability of its terms. The pit bull was one of four banned breeds, but it was defined by its appearance and some criteria were loose, others hard to understand. “Its knee joint should be in the upper third of the dog’s rear leg, and the bones below that should appear light, fine and springy,” was one. Once you have figured out what a springy bone looks like, this could cover an awful lot of dogs. “The dog should have a good depth from the top of head to bottom of jaw and a straight box-like muzzle,” was another, which could describe the staffordshire bull terrier and wipe out the sixth most popular breed in the UK. The law never required any suspect to meet the description perfectly; it makes no mention of ears, colour, height or weight.
The upshot is that the American bully XL, all over the news after a series of horrific attacks, is basically already banned, since it’s essentially just a pit bull, only bigger. So, Suella Braverman’s demand for “urgent advice” on whether to ban the breed may come back with the news that it’s unnecessary. If not, she seems set on adding it to the list. This would mean the extermination of what is thought to be several thousand dogs, unless they qualify for an exemption.
