Skeptics with a K: Episode #326

Alice digs into the evidence behind the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, and Marsh asks why charities who pedal nonsense about autism are able to maintain their charitable status. Meanwhile, Emma makes a flying visit to talk about the Manchester marathon.

If you want to donate to Emma’s marathon effort for Refugee Women Connect, visit

Mixed and edited by Morgan Clarke.

  1. #1 by Derek Dadey on April 15, 2022 - 02:35

    While I agree for the most part with the discussion on the dangerous breed dog legislation I do find the arguments somewhat similar to those used to argue against gun bans. Assault rifles are used in a very small percentage of lethal gun violence but are banned based on various features many of which are cosmetic (folding stock, pistol grip, etc).I am in favour of banning assault rifles (I’m in Canada where we’re currently trying to implement a buyback of such guns), but the logic of such bans seems to apply equally to banning “dangerous “ breeds of dogs. Pit bulls may not be statistically more likely to attack but when they attack are more serious, assault rifles are rarely used in criminal cases but when they are are particularly lethal.
    On another note I can’t comprehend people walking their dogs off leash except in designated off leash areas. It’s great that you “know” your dog is well behaved and not a threat but how am I to know you’re that responsible and not one of the many people who think they’re dog is well behaved until it isn’t. When I walk my two small miniature schnauzers I keep clear of pit type dogs or any large dog that the owner seems to small to control. A one second lapse by your dog can mean death to my smaller breed . If I see an off leash dog in not in the off leash park I quickly change directions and keep as clear as possible

(will not be published)