Loud, wild, barking... but enough about Ring
EVEN against some pretty stiff competition, Michael Ring must rank as one of the most ridiculous figures ever to tread the corridors of power in this country.
It hardly needs saying that Leinster House is full of backslapping, small-town politicians from central casting. But few of them are as brazen about it as Mr Ring – and fewer still find themselves with their backside on a Cabinet seat.
I’d struggle to think of a more embarrassing moment in public life than the scenes that accompanied his return to Mayo after being promoted by Leo Varadkar two months ago.
There were whoops and cheers as he declared at a homecoming celebration attended by hundreds of supporters: ‘I love money and I love spending it.’
Just in case there was any doubt about what exactly he meant by this, Mr Ring went on to say that he would ‘continue to bring all the money that I have in to Ballina, and to Ballycastle, and to Killala, and every part of this county that I have an opportunity.’
It was shameless stuff. The fact that he was as good as his word by giving Mayo the largest share of funding for rural recreation projects is further proof that he is unfit to hold down a government job.
Thankfully, though, there must be someone at the Department of Rural and Community Development with a smidgen of common sense. Whoever it was that came up with the response to some unlikely sounding research on dangerous dogs deserves a nod of acknowledgement. The background to this is a study published last month in the Irish Veterinary Journal which claimed ordinary dogs were more likely to attack people than so-called restricted breeds were. Under laws introduced in 1998, several types of dog – including pit bulls, Rottweilers and Dobermanns – must be muzzled in public and held on a short lead by someone aged 16 or older.
Sounds reasonable enough, doesn’t it? But the recent study carried the clear implication that the legislation is ineffective and unfair.
Maybe I am missing the point here, but even if the findings are correct, it is difficult to see what the actual relevance of any of this is supposed to be. Given the choice between being bitten by a pit bull or a poodle, I know which I’d prefer.
Besides, it is also about the element of fear. During my childhood years, I was bitten on a couple of occasions by smallish dogs. But those experiences were far less traumatic than the one occasion I had an Alsatian come running at me at top speed, even if his owner did call him off at the last minute.
Credit where it is due, as I say, to Mr Ring’s people for the official response to this research. The department said in a statement that it was ‘satisfied’ with the existing situation, adding: ‘The specific control requirements for these restricted breeds are a balanced and workable arrangement which recognises the rights of dog owners, respects animal welfare to the extent possible, while also taking account of the needs of society to be protected from dogs with a significant capability to inflict very serious injury.’
My only gripe with that response is that it doesn’t go far enough. Even as an animal lover, I can’t for the life of me understand why anyone would choose to have a pit bull as a pet.
So much so, in fact, that I would almost be more concerned about the threat from the owners themselves than their four-legged friends. I’d even go so far as to say that the current legislation ought to be extended. Not only should dangerous breeds of dogs be muzzled in public, the same rule should also apply to their owners.
I’m happy to give that idea to officials at the Department of Rural and Community Development free, gratis and for nothing. While they’re mulling it over, they might want to also consider sticking a muzzle on their minister.
Even if it is for different reasons.