Back then I seem to recall the concern was over chavs and other low-lifes owning nasty vicious dogs which they were unwilling or unable to control.
Whiz forward to 2010 and we have two very interesting incidents involving dangerous dogs.
Police Superintendent Julia Pendry (above left) was for some unstated reason keeping a police German Shepherd at her home when it attacked and injured a neighbour's dog. It is somewhat ironic that this police officer was in charge of the Met's dog unit and the force's efforts to crack down on dangerous dogs. She has previously said "it would be absolutely fantastic’ to kill the thousands of illegal breed, dangerous dogs confiscated by police." You try saying that out loud in public and see how long it is before plod, or even worse, the RSPCA show up and have you prosecuted for under some surreal New Labour law.
Then we have the case of Judge Beatrice Bolton (above right) who has, much to my surprise, actually been convicted of failing to control her dangerous dog. Her behaviour during her trial and her reaction to the verdict tell is all we need to know about the true nature of this pillar of the judiciary.
The question springs to mind as to what one of these women did to avoid prosecution that the other one didn't, or perhaps wasn't asked to. But there are more serious issues here.
If we accept that the Dangerous Dogs Act was brought in to deal with the problem of low-lifes and chavs not controlling their vicious dogs. Is it fair to assume that these two cases show that the woeful state of the police and judiciary is because they are full of low-lifes and chavs? I think it does and that is all that matters.