http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0...739551,00.html

"Dog mauls football boy" is sky's headline...It describes a vicious
dog attack on a boy who jumped over a wall into his neighbours yard to
retrieve a ball. However if you read the wording it seems to only be
telling half the story .

Now i sympathize with this boy injuries...and i would be horrified if
it happened to my son but I cant understand why the boys father
expects and has convinced sky that the dogs should be put down.

If it had been a burgler who had jumped over and been attacked would
anybody question if the dogs had any fault? Why is this situation
different? the boy was trying to take a ball from the neighbours
property. How were the dogs to know that the boy presented no threat
to the dogs owner and that the ball didnt belong to the dogs owner?

Mr Knowlden is planning to bring civil proceedings against the owner
of the dogs. I am looking forward to this trial. The father will have
quite a job proving that the dogs owners were neglegent ... if i were
the judge i would charge the father as the negligent party.

I would have renamed the headline to "Father allows boy to jump into a
yard guarded by vicious dogs".

Regards,
Sam