744 dog attacks in Essex in past three years

Echo: 744 dog attacks in Essex in past three years 744 dog attacks in Essex in past three years

MORE than 700 people across Essex have been injured by dangerous dogs in just three years, new figures reveal.

The shocking statistics, obtained by the Echo through a Freedom of Information request to Essex Police, show there have been 744 recorded offences across the county since 2010.

In south Essex alone, 312 people have fallen victim to dog attack, with Basildon ranking the worst of the 14 police districts in the county with 107 reported incidents.

Between 2010 and 2013, 964 people were admitted to Southend Hospital as a result of being attacked by an out of control dog.

Postwoman Shelley Turnidge, of Ambleside Drive, Southend, had to have eight weeks off work after needing 17 stitches when a dog latched on to her arm while she was out delivering letters.

She said: “I cannot believe there have been that many attacks. That’s madness. I think owners should be made to take more responsibility for their pets because it’s not just the attack that is frightening, but it’s the repercussions afterwards.

“It was so scary when the dog just latched on to my arm out of nowhere. I had to have two months off work and now I’m absolutely petrified of dogs so much so I now have a job indoors.”

Owners can face a £5,000 fine or up to six months in jail if their animal injures someone.

Of the 744 incidents, 421 have been resolved with 29 people let off with a caution, 49 people charged, and the remaining offences resolved with a community order or neighbourhood resolution.

Nick Alston, Police and Crime Commissioner for Essex, said: “The figures suggest there have been just under 200 offences involving dangerous dogs in each of the past four years, and just over half of these offences are solved – through means such as a charge or a neighbourhood resolution.

“This suggests Essex Police areworking hard, within the existing legal framework, to address concerns around dangerous dogs and to find solutions.

“The issues around controlling dangerous dogs are likely to be similar across the country, so I believe it is right and proper that Parliament leads on attempting to provide the most meaningful and effective framework for reducing the risk of harm.”

The Government is currently in the process of debating the new Antisocial, Behaviour, Crime and Police Bill which aims to tighten the laws around out of control dogs and their owners.

Castle Point MP Rebecca Harris said: “This shows just how much the new legislation in the Antisocial Behaviour Bill is needed. It is in its final stages of becoming law and it can’t come soon enough.”

Comments (21)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:26am Fri 27 Dec 13

Southchurch Steve says...

744 out of character attacks by cutie little dogs who would never hurt a fly? Surely not?
744 out of character attacks by cutie little dogs who would never hurt a fly? Surely not? Southchurch Steve

9:43am Fri 27 Dec 13

Rich;'Carol says...

744 reported and the same amount not reported
744 reported and the same amount not reported Rich;'Carol

10:46am Fri 27 Dec 13

Loosers says...

We need a lead and muzzle law for all dogs in public places. I say muzzle also because most people have those extendible leads which allow the animal to move a distance away from them which renders any level of meaningful control useless.

How much longer will these attacks go on before somebody takes action on this; after all there is a solution - leads and muzzles. Make it happen!
We need a lead and muzzle law for all dogs in public places. I say muzzle also because most people have those extendible leads which allow the animal to move a distance away from them which renders any level of meaningful control useless. How much longer will these attacks go on before somebody takes action on this; after all there is a solution - leads and muzzles. Make it happen! Loosers

10:56am Fri 27 Dec 13

DogsMessInLeigh says...

Owners can face a £5,000 fine or up to six months in jail if their animal injures someone.

Of the 744 incidents, 421 have been resolved with 29 people let off with a caution, 49 people charged, and the remaining offences resolved with a community order or neighbourhood resolution.



so how many £5000 fines and/or prison terms given out..?

744 thats a massive amount...this needs addressing as a matter of urgency with tough penalties given out and not soppy ones, and also a crack down on dog sh!te and dogs off leads where they shouldn't be.
Owners can face a £5,000 fine or up to six months in jail if their animal injures someone. Of the 744 incidents, 421 have been resolved with 29 people let off with a caution, 49 people charged, and the remaining offences resolved with a community order or neighbourhood resolution. so how many £5000 fines and/or prison terms given out..? 744 thats a massive amount...this needs addressing as a matter of urgency with tough penalties given out and not soppy ones, and also a crack down on dog sh!te and dogs off leads where they shouldn't be. DogsMessInLeigh

11:12am Fri 27 Dec 13

Howard Cháse says...

How many people have been injured in attacks by other people in same time frame?
How many people have been injured in attacks by other people in same time frame? Howard Cháse

11:17am Fri 27 Dec 13

pembury53 says...

Howard Cháse wrote:
How many people have been injured in attacks by other people in same time frame?
so what ? if it's 10 times as many it still doesn't make 744 avoidable dog attacks any more acceptable than the people on people violence..... lock all the scum up and destroy all the dogs...
[quote][p][bold]Howard Cháse[/bold] wrote: How many people have been injured in attacks by other people in same time frame?[/p][/quote]so what ? if it's 10 times as many it still doesn't make 744 avoidable dog attacks any more acceptable than the people on people violence..... lock all the scum up and destroy all the dogs... pembury53

11:34am Fri 27 Dec 13

John T Pharro says...

DogsMessInLeigh wrote:
Owners can face a £5,000 fine or up to six months in jail if their animal injures someone.

Of the 744 incidents, 421 have been resolved with 29 people let off with a caution, 49 people charged, and the remaining offences resolved with a community order or neighbourhood resolution.



so how many £5000 fines and/or prison terms given out..?

744 thats a massive amount...this needs addressing as a matter of urgency with tough penalties given out and not soppy ones, and also a crack down on dog sh!te and dogs off leads where they shouldn't be.
I fully agree and of course this will trigger the "not the dogs, but the owners" brigade. I couldn't careless which or both is to blame the sentences are just too little. As to the law about dogs mess not being picked up and carrying a fine how many of them have been issued? Obviously not a lot, because judging by the amount you see and the thrown away poo filled bags. That of. course is entirely the owners fault and I am amazed that the majority of dog owners that do clear up after their dogs don't start reporting the owners who let them down.
[quote][p][bold]DogsMessInLeigh[/bold] wrote: Owners can face a £5,000 fine or up to six months in jail if their animal injures someone. Of the 744 incidents, 421 have been resolved with 29 people let off with a caution, 49 people charged, and the remaining offences resolved with a community order or neighbourhood resolution. so how many £5000 fines and/or prison terms given out..? 744 thats a massive amount...this needs addressing as a matter of urgency with tough penalties given out and not soppy ones, and also a crack down on dog sh!te and dogs off leads where they shouldn't be.[/p][/quote]I fully agree and of course this will trigger the "not the dogs, but the owners" brigade. I couldn't careless which or both is to blame the sentences are just too little. As to the law about dogs mess not being picked up and carrying a fine how many of them have been issued? Obviously not a lot, because judging by the amount you see and the thrown away poo filled bags. That of. course is entirely the owners fault and I am amazed that the majority of dog owners that do clear up after their dogs don't start reporting the owners who let them down. John T Pharro

11:49am Fri 27 Dec 13

DogsMessInLeigh says...

Howard Cháse wrote:
How many people have been injured in attacks by other people in same time frame?
This is about Dogs Howie, sure the figures are out there for person on person assaults, when you find them let us know.
[quote][p][bold]Howard Cháse[/bold] wrote: How many people have been injured in attacks by other people in same time frame?[/p][/quote]This is about Dogs Howie, sure the figures are out there for person on person assaults, when you find them let us know. DogsMessInLeigh

2:26pm Fri 27 Dec 13

emcee says...

Howard Cháse wrote:
How many people have been injured in attacks by other people in same time frame?
Irrelevant.
[quote][p][bold]Howard Cháse[/bold] wrote: How many people have been injured in attacks by other people in same time frame?[/p][/quote]Irrelevant. emcee

2:51pm Fri 27 Dec 13

emcee says...

Qupte Nick Alston: "... just over half of these offences are solved – through means such as a charge or a neighbourhood resolution... this suggests Essex Police are working hard, within the existing legal framework..."
-
1. A charge is not a conviction.
2. A caution or neighbouhood resolution is not a fine or prison sentence.

If the police cannot be bothered to push for convictions and judges not pushed into handing down substantial fines, what is the good of the exiating legal framework?

The only way to reduce attacks on people is to force owners to muzzle their dogs in public and to use leads which enable full control of their dog (not those extendable strings some use). Above all, owners should not be allowed to let dogs off leads in populated areas or where there are other members of the public. If you do not have access to a large area, where there is no danger of the dog to come accross other people, or big enough garden for the dog to run around in then, maybe, a dog is not for you.
Qupte Nick Alston: "... just over half of these offences are solved – through means such as a charge or a neighbourhood resolution... this suggests Essex Police are working hard, within the existing legal framework..." - 1. A charge is not a conviction. 2. A caution or neighbouhood resolution is not a fine or prison sentence. If the police cannot be bothered to push for convictions and judges not pushed into handing down substantial fines, what is the good of the exiating legal framework? The only way to reduce attacks on people is to force owners to muzzle their dogs in public and to use leads which enable full control of their dog (not those extendable strings some use). Above all, owners should not be allowed to let dogs off leads in populated areas or where there are other members of the public. If you do not have access to a large area, where there is no danger of the dog to come accross other people, or big enough garden for the dog to run around in then, maybe, a dog is not for you. emcee

2:56pm Fri 27 Dec 13

emcee says...

On top of any attacks on people NOT reported, I wonder how many dog on dog attacks there have been also. I would not mind betting that the total number of "out of control" dog incidents are at least double the 744 quoted, if not far more.
On top of any attacks on people NOT reported, I wonder how many dog on dog attacks there have been also. I would not mind betting that the total number of "out of control" dog incidents are at least double the 744 quoted, if not far more. emcee

5:26pm Fri 27 Dec 13

Southend Andy says...

It's about time all dogs no matter of size or breed should be muzzled.
It's about time all dogs no matter of size or breed should be muzzled. Southend Andy

12:33pm Sun 29 Dec 13

Letmetryagain says...

All these attack, and you can guarantee that not one is the fault of the dog.

Give me a break. !
All these attack, and you can guarantee that not one is the fault of the dog. Give me a break. ! Letmetryagain

12:36pm Sun 29 Dec 13

Letmetryagain says...

What do you reckon on a couple of lookalikeys who keep two noisy dogs in their garden, and remove part of their neighbours fence.
Just to get them barking whenever they see the neighbour go into their back garden.
What do you reckon on a couple of lookalikeys who keep two noisy dogs in their garden, and remove part of their neighbours fence. Just to get them barking whenever they see the neighbour go into their back garden. Letmetryagain

4:25pm Mon 30 Dec 13

shallotman says...

Time for all dogs to wear a muzzle in public places.
Time for all dogs to wear a muzzle in public places. shallotman

11:34am Tue 31 Dec 13

stubbs2013 says...

i cant understand why in every story about a dog attack or a dangerous dog a picture of a staff is used? there are plenty of other breeds that bite people! me myself have been by Yorkshire terriers twice in two years trying to keep them away from my own dog as she's scared of other dogs due to being attacked by several as a puppy! no one seems to care about those sorts of dogs as there little and seem harmless... if i was to let my dog go and it attacked them it would be all over the paper! it really grates in me that staffs and similar type dogs are always portrayed as the 'dangerous dog' type.!
i cant understand why in every story about a dog attack or a dangerous dog a picture of a staff is used? there are plenty of other breeds that bite people! me myself have been by Yorkshire terriers twice in two years trying to keep them away from my own dog as she's scared of other dogs due to being attacked by several as a puppy! no one seems to care about those sorts of dogs as there little and seem harmless... if i was to let my dog go and it attacked them it would be all over the paper! it really grates in me that staffs and similar type dogs are always portrayed as the 'dangerous dog' type.! stubbs2013

9:05pm Sun 5 Jan 14

MerrittClifton says...

Of the 4,448 dogs involved in fatal and disfiguring attacks on humans occurring in the U.S. & Canada since September 1982, when I began logging the data, 2,994 (67%) were pit bulls; 545 were Rottweilers; 3,794 were of related molosser breeds, including pit bulls, Rottweilers, mastiffs, boxers, and their mixes. Of the 531 human fatalities, 276 were killed by pit bulls; 85 were killed by Rottweilers; 398 (75%) were killed by molosser breeds. Of the 2,655 people who were disfigured, 1,778 (67%) were disfigured by pit bulls; 319 were disfigured by Rottweilers; 2,231 (83%) were disfigured by molosser breeds. Pit bulls--exclusive of their use in dogfighting--also inflict more than 70 times as many fatal and disfiguring injuries on other pets and livestock as on humans, a pattern unique to the pit bull class. Surveys of dogs offered for sale or adoption indicate that pit bulls and pit mixes are less than 6% of the U.S. dog population; molosser breeds, all combined, are 9%.
Of the 4,448 dogs involved in fatal and disfiguring attacks on humans occurring in the U.S. & Canada since September 1982, when I began logging the data, 2,994 (67%) were pit bulls; 545 were Rottweilers; 3,794 were of related molosser breeds, including pit bulls, Rottweilers, mastiffs, boxers, and their mixes. Of the 531 human fatalities, 276 were killed by pit bulls; 85 were killed by Rottweilers; 398 (75%) were killed by molosser breeds. Of the 2,655 people who were disfigured, 1,778 (67%) were disfigured by pit bulls; 319 were disfigured by Rottweilers; 2,231 (83%) were disfigured by molosser breeds. Pit bulls--exclusive of their use in dogfighting--also inflict more than 70 times as many fatal and disfiguring injuries on other pets and livestock as on humans, a pattern unique to the pit bull class. Surveys of dogs offered for sale or adoption indicate that pit bulls and pit mixes are less than 6% of the U.S. dog population; molosser breeds, all combined, are 9%. MerrittClifton

9:08pm Sun 5 Jan 14

MerrittClifton says...

The fatal flaw in the Dangerous Dogs Act, literally, is that it exempts Staffordshires -- the original & most common type of pit bull -- while ostensibly prohibiting possession of pit bulls. Staffordshires have killed or disfigured at least eight people in the U.K. during the past eight months. The U.K. has about a fifth of the human population of the U.S., and about 75% as many dogs per capita (one dog per six people, to one dog per 4.5 people in the U.S.), so eight fatal & disfiguring attacks in the U.K. would be the equivalent in proportionate scale to 50 in the U.S., or 100 projected over a year's time. To put that into perspective, the total number of fatal and disfiguring attacks by all types of pit bull in the U.S. combined, Staffordshires included, came to just 103 in the eleven-year 1982-1992 time frame. The annual total reached 100 for the first time in 2003 (128), topped 100 twice more in the next three years, and has now risen for six consecutive years, from 74 in 2007 to 572 in 2013. In other words, Staffordshires alone are now wreaking as much havoc in the U.K. as the entire pit bull class did in the U.S. until the post-Michael Vick era, when the situation here exploded completely out of hand, coincidental with the rise of aggressive pit bull advocacy -- and the situation in the U.K. is on the same trajectory.
The fatal flaw in the Dangerous Dogs Act, literally, is that it exempts Staffordshires -- the original & most common type of pit bull -- while ostensibly prohibiting possession of pit bulls. Staffordshires have killed or disfigured at least eight people in the U.K. during the past eight months. The U.K. has about a fifth of the human population of the U.S., and about 75% as many dogs per capita (one dog per six people, to one dog per 4.5 people in the U.S.), so eight fatal & disfiguring attacks in the U.K. would be the equivalent in proportionate scale to 50 in the U.S., or 100 projected over a year's time. To put that into perspective, the total number of fatal and disfiguring attacks by all types of pit bull in the U.S. combined, Staffordshires included, came to just 103 in the eleven-year 1982-1992 time frame. The annual total reached 100 for the first time in 2003 (128), topped 100 twice more in the next three years, and has now risen for six consecutive years, from 74 in 2007 to 572 in 2013. In other words, Staffordshires alone are now wreaking as much havoc in the U.K. as the entire pit bull class did in the U.S. until the post-Michael Vick era, when the situation here exploded completely out of hand, coincidental with the rise of aggressive pit bull advocacy -- and the situation in the U.K. is on the same trajectory. MerrittClifton

9:11pm Sun 5 Jan 14

She Who Sees says...

Staffordshire Bull Terriers and Pit Bull Mixes, anyone? Yup.
Staffordshire Bull Terriers and Pit Bull Mixes, anyone? Yup. She Who Sees

1:46pm Wed 8 Jan 14

stubbs2013 says...

MerrittClifton wrote:
The fatal flaw in the Dangerous Dogs Act, literally, is that it exempts Staffordshires -- the original & most common type of pit bull -- while ostensibly prohibiting possession of pit bulls. Staffordshires have killed or disfigured at least eight people in the U.K. during the past eight months. The U.K. has about a fifth of the human population of the U.S., and about 75% as many dogs per capita (one dog per six people, to one dog per 4.5 people in the U.S.), so eight fatal & disfiguring attacks in the U.K. would be the equivalent in proportionate scale to 50 in the U.S., or 100 projected over a year's time. To put that into perspective, the total number of fatal and disfiguring attacks by all types of pit bull in the U.S. combined, Staffordshires included, came to just 103 in the eleven-year 1982-1992 time frame. The annual total reached 100 for the first time in 2003 (128), topped 100 twice more in the next three years, and has now risen for six consecutive years, from 74 in 2007 to 572 in 2013. In other words, Staffordshires alone are now wreaking as much havoc in the U.K. as the entire pit bull class did in the U.S. until the post-Michael Vick era, when the situation here exploded completely out of hand, coincidental with the rise of aggressive pit bull advocacy -- and the situation in the U.K. is on the same trajectory.
I'd be more worried about being disfigured by a yorkishire terrier than my staff... With the wrong owner any dog can be dangerous! Due to there build people use these dogs for all the wrong reasons ... Blame the owners not the dogs!
[quote][p][bold]MerrittClifton[/bold] wrote: The fatal flaw in the Dangerous Dogs Act, literally, is that it exempts Staffordshires -- the original & most common type of pit bull -- while ostensibly prohibiting possession of pit bulls. Staffordshires have killed or disfigured at least eight people in the U.K. during the past eight months. The U.K. has about a fifth of the human population of the U.S., and about 75% as many dogs per capita (one dog per six people, to one dog per 4.5 people in the U.S.), so eight fatal & disfiguring attacks in the U.K. would be the equivalent in proportionate scale to 50 in the U.S., or 100 projected over a year's time. To put that into perspective, the total number of fatal and disfiguring attacks by all types of pit bull in the U.S. combined, Staffordshires included, came to just 103 in the eleven-year 1982-1992 time frame. The annual total reached 100 for the first time in 2003 (128), topped 100 twice more in the next three years, and has now risen for six consecutive years, from 74 in 2007 to 572 in 2013. In other words, Staffordshires alone are now wreaking as much havoc in the U.K. as the entire pit bull class did in the U.S. until the post-Michael Vick era, when the situation here exploded completely out of hand, coincidental with the rise of aggressive pit bull advocacy -- and the situation in the U.K. is on the same trajectory.[/p][/quote]I'd be more worried about being disfigured by a yorkishire terrier than my staff... With the wrong owner any dog can be dangerous! Due to there build people use these dogs for all the wrong reasons ... Blame the owners not the dogs! stubbs2013

1:46pm Wed 8 Jan 14

stubbs2013 says...

MerrittClifton wrote:
The fatal flaw in the Dangerous Dogs Act, literally, is that it exempts Staffordshires -- the original & most common type of pit bull -- while ostensibly prohibiting possession of pit bulls. Staffordshires have killed or disfigured at least eight people in the U.K. during the past eight months. The U.K. has about a fifth of the human population of the U.S., and about 75% as many dogs per capita (one dog per six people, to one dog per 4.5 people in the U.S.), so eight fatal & disfiguring attacks in the U.K. would be the equivalent in proportionate scale to 50 in the U.S., or 100 projected over a year's time. To put that into perspective, the total number of fatal and disfiguring attacks by all types of pit bull in the U.S. combined, Staffordshires included, came to just 103 in the eleven-year 1982-1992 time frame. The annual total reached 100 for the first time in 2003 (128), topped 100 twice more in the next three years, and has now risen for six consecutive years, from 74 in 2007 to 572 in 2013. In other words, Staffordshires alone are now wreaking as much havoc in the U.K. as the entire pit bull class did in the U.S. until the post-Michael Vick era, when the situation here exploded completely out of hand, coincidental with the rise of aggressive pit bull advocacy -- and the situation in the U.K. is on the same trajectory.
I'd be more worried about being disfigured by a yorkishire terrier than my staff... With the wrong owner any dog can be dangerous! Due to there build people use these dogs for all the wrong reasons ... Blame the owners not the dogs!
[quote][p][bold]MerrittClifton[/bold] wrote: The fatal flaw in the Dangerous Dogs Act, literally, is that it exempts Staffordshires -- the original & most common type of pit bull -- while ostensibly prohibiting possession of pit bulls. Staffordshires have killed or disfigured at least eight people in the U.K. during the past eight months. The U.K. has about a fifth of the human population of the U.S., and about 75% as many dogs per capita (one dog per six people, to one dog per 4.5 people in the U.S.), so eight fatal & disfiguring attacks in the U.K. would be the equivalent in proportionate scale to 50 in the U.S., or 100 projected over a year's time. To put that into perspective, the total number of fatal and disfiguring attacks by all types of pit bull in the U.S. combined, Staffordshires included, came to just 103 in the eleven-year 1982-1992 time frame. The annual total reached 100 for the first time in 2003 (128), topped 100 twice more in the next three years, and has now risen for six consecutive years, from 74 in 2007 to 572 in 2013. In other words, Staffordshires alone are now wreaking as much havoc in the U.K. as the entire pit bull class did in the U.S. until the post-Michael Vick era, when the situation here exploded completely out of hand, coincidental with the rise of aggressive pit bull advocacy -- and the situation in the U.K. is on the same trajectory.[/p][/quote]I'd be more worried about being disfigured by a yorkishire terrier than my staff... With the wrong owner any dog can be dangerous! Due to there build people use these dogs for all the wrong reasons ... Blame the owners not the dogs! stubbs2013

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree