just don`t burgle my tent/house/garden. I have the insurance to cover my dogs but i bet if you had a bite from one of them because you had evil intentions of robbing me the insurance would refuse to pay out.
They sound like great dogs and I'm glad they have a decent life with you now.
As far as I'm concerned anyone who pops over your garden wall to try their luck deserves to get their bottom thoroughly kicked by your dogs because they shouldn't be there and they know it. If they don't know what they're doing because they're too stupid then their parents or some other legal gardian should have them insured against doing dangerous things, or be prosecuted for not keeping better control over them (just like the dogs).
However, the sad fact is that in UK law we all apparently have a "duty of care", even to those who break in to our houses and steal our property - yep, stupid, but true. It's a pathetic state of affairs. There really have been people successfully sued by burglers because they have been injured on their victim's property.
And if you choose to have insurance on your dogs, then that's your right, but it shouldn't be compulsory, any more than it is compulsory to ensure young kids, just in case they pick up a knife and have go at someone. Should the parents of the 2 kids who killed Jamie Bulger have had 3rd party insurance on them, and all parents from now on in case it happens again ??
They can't justify having one set of rules for dogs owners and a totally different set for everyone else who has any other form of dependents who are not mentally developed enough to understand/respect the rules".
Like I said in an earlier post. I can't see a difference between the two groups and I've never seen anyone else come up with one.
Dog violence is a problem is some cases, and it needs to be dealt with better than it is at the moment, but it shouod be dealt with in the same way as any other violent crime. If the dog was provoked beyond reason, then the initial "assault" lies with the person who provoked the dog. If it's the dog's fault depite the owner's best efforts then the dog must be destroyed and the owner found blameless (as long as they can prove that they trewated the dog correctly and ad the dog well trained up to that time), if the attack was the result of a t##sser deliberately raising a dangerous dog then throw the book at the guy - insurance should be unnecessary in any case.
They also need to keep in mind that dogs are not machines. they can be trained yes, and a good owner will hav an obedient dog in 99% of cases, but ulitimately if the dog has mind to do something, there may in some cases be nothing even a good owner can do to stop it. The old shobiz saying "never work with children and animals" came about for a reason, because ultimately they are unpredictable, and have thie rown minds, just like people do.
Life is dangerous - get over it.