Why the Guardian sometimes drives me nuts.

Usually I read, in order, the Scotsman, the Independent, the Guardian, the New York Times, the Economist and the Onion's AV Club. Each presents a slightly different view on matters, and each discusses things on a different level. Except the AV Club, which I use for Savage Love and my film reviews. But, man, the Guardian sometimes drives me nuts!

The Guadian is a left-wing broadsheet in the UK, recognised around the world. Sometimes their opinion articles feature in the New York Times (and vice versa), but the Guardian is far more frustrating than the New York Times, if only because of the readers.

The Guardian, like the other British newspapers, allows comments on the articles posted online. It is this haven of what they like to consider freedom of speech where my ire is usually directed.

Like this recent opinion article about the new dog law. As the Scottish Libertarians report, the government is considering forcing all owners of some breeds of dogs to take out insurance in case their pet attacks someone. This legislation is aimed at the "vicious" dogs generally owned by the underclasses which they own either for protection or to look tough. (Which can be a protection in itself.) It would be costly and would effect far more of the underclasses than of the middle and upper classes.

The Guardian hosted a nice piece by a 23-year-old woman with a cane corso, a "dangerous dog". She makes a nice case for why she got her dog (she lives in a rough neighbourhood, so she trained it to growl at groups of young men in hoodies), how harmless her dog really is (burglars get licked instead of bitten?) and how she feels discriminated against just because some people can't (or don't) control their dogs.

But it's the comments that pissed me off. Here is a good girl with a good dog making a case for discounted dog training classes instead of expensive insurance and microchipping, and the comments loudly reject her and her arguments.

There's no good reason to have a threatening looking 'status' dog.

How about state-funded, compulsory dog-training classes?

How about not?

Yes your personal experience outweighs all the vast evidence and everyone elses personal experience.

Did you get paid to write this?
As for the "attack dog" Jack Russell, a swift boot and problem over. Not so easy when its a pitbull, Doberman, Rottweiler, German Shepard, etc etc
As for prejudice.....yup am guilty of that, as soon as I see someone with a certain type of dog I immediately think, Chav. Am sure I am not alone in that either.

So let me get this straight. You think poor people should get subsidies to help them cover the costs of training dangerous dogs.

Okay. So perhaps we could also pay chavs to go on courses designed to teach responsible boozing, or how to enjoy a football match without wanting to beat up other people.
Funny how CiF commentators never talk about personal responsibility

I know I'm middle class, but Jesus Christ was a bunch of middle class tossers!!!