Analyse af artikler om farlige hunde

Throughout the last couple of decades, newscasts and newspaper headlines have often offered stories concerning children or adults being mauled by aggressive dogs. These stories have spread fear throughout the people of the United Kingdom and led to heated discussions and demands for initiatives to prevent such accidents from happening ever again. Can one solve the problem by prohibiting certain breeds or even euthanizing the dangerous dogs? Or is it the owners who need to be held responsible for their lack of exerted discipline on the animals? This controversy is the main theme of the three features by Jamie Doward, Victoria Stilwell and Simon Heffer respectively, concerning the current legislations where they all have different notions on the matter and how to eventually defeat this specific threat once and for all. The following analysis will be focusing on the three texts and how they differ from one another. Furthermore, I will try to define the tone in Simon Heffer’s feature and finally attempt to single out the most peculiar few of the solutions in the three different texts.

There are no major points of disagreement between the three texts, but they each have their own take on the matter. If we have a closer to look at text 1, Jamie Doward’s feature, “Police back new law on killer dogs” (2007), the author describes a widespread wish among British policemen for a change of the current legislation under the Dangerous Dogs Act, punishing the individual dog owner rather than lumping them all together as is the current practice. With the present regulation, a rather significant number of dogs is affected which do not compose a threat. Jamie Doward puts this statement to life as seen here: “Animal welfare groups say that at present many responsible owners have their pets put down needlessly.” (text 1, ll. 11-13). Doward clarifies the issue as the law focusing erroneously on certain breeds instead of judging each individual dog and its owner, causing a lot of dogs to be put down without solid evidence on them posing a danger to society.