Toddler Mauled to Death by Dog

The mother of a 13-month-old boy mauled to death by a rottweiler has said her "sleeping angel" will always be in her heart.

Becki Hirst turned 18 on Sunday, just two days after her son Archie-Lee was killed by the family pet, which police described as weighing "in the region of seven to 10 stone".

The toddler was spending Christmas at his grandparents' house in Wakefield, West Yorkshire, when the dog attacked.

In a statement, Ms Hirst paid tribute to her 16-year-old sister, who fought in vain to save Archie-Lee from the rottweiler's jaws.

She said: "I'd like to say to Kara we are all so proud of her - she tried.

"She's a hero in my eyes and will be respected for what she did for the rest of her life."

Ms Hirst described Archie-Lee as her "world", adding: "It's so hard for me at this time."

She said: "We shared so many precious memories in the short while that we had together. He is loved by many. He will always be in our hearts, never to be forgotten. He's my sleeping angel.

"All I want is to give my baby the best send-off that he deserves so my little Archie can rest in peace."

Her tribute concluded: "RIP my little angel. You're in our hearts forever, mummy's little man."

Ms Hirst also leaves a message on the Bebo social networking website.

Police have been conducting house-to-house inquiries near the home where the boy was attacked.

Well-wishers delivered floral tributes to the end-terrace house in Chald Lane.

So here we have yet another dead child thanks to a dog. But is it really the dogs' fault? Is it really the fault of an animal that doesn't know right from wrong? Is it really the fault of an animal that, when it comes down to it, is a hunting animal?

You could argue for days about the breed of any dog that kills and how they should be banned from being kept as pets... But again, when it comes down to it, ALL dogs have a nasty side. It just so happens that when a big dog like this one shows that nasty side, it does more damage than a Yorkshire Terrier would.

And this is when it comes down to the responsibility of the parent to make sure their child is safe from the dog.

From my understanding, the dog was kept away from the children and the children, or rather the 7 year old, went looking for the dog which, in my book, does not make this the dogs' fault.

So lets look at the facts:

• Teenage mother
• She must have given birth at 16 if she just turned 18 and he just turned 1
• Teenage mother leave 1 year old in the care of a 16 year old
• A child looking after a child...
• ...who is also looking after other children at the same time
• A dog who was locked away from the children
• A seven year old, who was under the care of the 16 year old, takes the 1 year old to "see the dog"
• A dog who was probably never brought into contact with small children for obvious reasons is suddenly confronted with two
• Dog thinks: TOYS! YEY!

What we will now have is the usual onslaught of stupid headlines from ignorant journalists who spend more time chasing stupid stories than at home looking after a pet.

Headline Number 1

Unsurprisingly, the Sun latches on to what it thinks is a heart-wrenching story and in it's standard way, goes over the top with a massive chavvy headline, a picture of the victims looking cheerful and a massive snarly dog (all next to some slag with her tits and minge out).

Yes, it's a sad story. Yes, it's not the right way for anyone to die (what is the right way though?). Yes, big dogs can be dangerous. But that's just it; CAN BE dangerous, not ARE dangerous.

I grew up with a Doberman that was almost twice my size and he never ever went for me once. Why? Because he knew what was best for him, that's why. Maybe when you've got 12384612 kids being brought up by kids it's hard to look after a massive dog as well. Maybe when you've got kids being brought up by kids you've got an issue far greater than one angry dog...

Headline Number 2

Surprisingly, a non-chavvy, non-tabloid paper giving dogs a bad name...

Now is it that "Attacks by Dogs Soar to a New High" or is it "Bad Training of Dogs Soars to a New High"?

I think really, we know which it is.

How many little boys in tracksuits and white caps do you see on a daily basis walking down a busy road with a Staffordshire Bull Terrier that is literally dragging them down the road? Exactly, a lot. And why do they have these dogs? Because Pitbulls are banned, the Staffy is the closest looking and it's a fashion statement/status symbol.

What we need to do is not ban every fucking dog in the world, we need to educate people into how to actually train a dog. Yes, some people will train their dog to be agressive and if that dog kills someone, it's their own fault and THEY should be put down, not the dog. But most people just want a pet and it's at this point that they should be educated.

Another angle to the story;

Have you ever tried to adopt a dog from the RSPCA or other rescue home? Do you have any idea how many checks they do before they even let you touch a fucking dog? It's more than an adoption agency. Why don't all pet owners get a random check about their suitability? Why don't all chavs get a random check full stop?