The case for outlawing XL Bully dogs was overwhelming even before the horrific ­killing of devoted son Ian Price

Deadly dogs

THE case for outlawing XL Bully dogs was overwhelming even before the horrific ­killing of devoted son Ian Price.

Our hearts go out to his family and the mum he died bravely trying to protect.

Dog lovers who claim this breed cannot itself be blamed have no argument left.

These are savage, inbred killing machines, not pets. Drug dealers buy them as weapons.

Veteran dog expert Stan Rawlinson has never before backed laws against a specific breed.

The XL Bully, he says, is different: “Predatory, incredibly strong — the most dangerous dog ever created.”

Rishi Sunak has done the right thing.

But swifter action might save more lives.

And we are troubled by the idea of an amnesty for existing XL Bullies, no matter how fond their owners are of them.

How will muzzles in public stop them bursting from their homes and killing yet more people?

Votes outrage

GIVING children the vote would be an ­electoral outrage by Keir Starmer akin to blatant cheating.

Most 16-year-olds have little life experience and zero clue about politics or economics.

They cannot drive, watch an 18 movie, buy a pint or get a tattoo.

They will never have paid a utility bill, rent or a mortgage.

Yet Starmer would let them vote — and for one reason only. He is all but certain they will heavily back Labour.

If young people leaned towards the Tories, he would run a mile from it.

So there is no principle in play.

It is nothing but a deeply sinister attempt to skew ­elections forever in his party’s favour.

Vanishingly few other nations on Earth let kids vote — and with good reason.

Safety farce

CUTTING speed limits to 20mph is safer for pedestrians. That’s true.

And 10mph is safer still, while 5mph is incredibly safe.

Safer yet would be to ban all non horse-drawn vehicles or at least have them proceed at 3mph, perhaps with a guard walking in front waving a warning flag, as we did before 1896.

We don’t do that now, though — or have blanket 5mph or 10mph limits.

Why? Because a balance must be struck between the statistically tiny risk to the public and drivers’ freedom to go about their business at a reasonable speed.

That sweet spot was struck in 1935 when the 30mph limit was introduced in built-up areas.

The proof of its success lies in the fact that few reasonably object to it — and that UK roads are persistently rated the safest of any major nation, as measured by deaths per head of population.

We don’t mind 20mph zones outside schools or hospitals.

There is no credible case anywhere else.