More teeth for the Dangerous Dogs Act?
Do we need to change the law on dangerous dogs?
London's deputy mayor for policing Kit Malthouse thinks so. This morning he demanded urgent government action and called on the public to sign a petition.
He believes the solution is tougher punishment.
He says owners, who use their dogs as weapons, should face the same penalties as carrying a knife. That's up to a four year jail sentence.
Is that too harsh? You could argue some offenders get lesser sentences for serious crimes like rape.
But having just talked to the mother of Maurice Lambert, you could argue four years might not be enough.
Maurice was just over two years old when he was savaged by a pit-bull-type dog in a playground in Primrose Hill. He needed 40 stitches to his right leg.
Although, Maurice was not an intended target for some gang member who wanted to take down a rival. He was the victim of an owner who was unable to control his/her dog.
Kit Malthouse also wants the ban on specific breeds to continue.
And he's calling for the legislation to be extended to include private land. Currently, police can only seize a dog and prosecute an owner when an attack takes place on public land.
Not much help then for your local postie.
According to the commucations union the CWU 6,000 postmen and women are attacked every year. They say 70 per cent of those are on private land.
Yet, don't you have to ask the question: aren't all dogs unpredictable? If your normally, child-friendly Labrador goes berserk in a park, kills another dog and bites an owner, should you face a four year stretch in jail?
Are owners of bull breeds being demonised? Are the politicians and campaigners forcing the issue? What do you think?