Sure, although this does feel like it's becoming painfully drawn out. Let's use a simple parallel example: If someone's having a laugh at, say, Trump. Then they use that as an example of how those those silly Canadians are always electing daft politicians. You're probably going to point out that Trump was not in fact the president of Canada. That the example is not relevant.
Likewise, it is a mistake to lump the Nazi dog case in with the other case. One occurred under Scottish legal jurisdiction, the other under English legal jurisdiction. The example is not relevant.
Likewise, it is a mistake to lump the Nazi dog case in with the other case. One occurred under Scottish legal jurisdiction, the other under English legal jurisdiction. The example is not relevant.