I am sorry but when your dog doesn't require vet treatment it isn't a "mauling". The whole article doesn't even say the poodle was actually injured in the attack.
First post, correct no mention of breed but discounting the story already, no mention of irresponsible owner
I would say it is because there was actually no bite marks left on the dog, it was probably more of a "scrap" then anything else ie: the Staffy was telling the Poodle off, if the Staffy was serious Poodle would be seriously wounded. The Poodle was possibly eyeballing the Staffy. When you are only getting the story from one side it is always going to make the other side look guilty and themselves and their dog innocent.
Second post, breed is introduced, damage minimalised, possibilties introduced
is more posturing and bullying then anything and that is what this incident sounds like.
Not saying the Staffy (if that is what it was) is blameless and the owner certainly needs to keep his dog on lead from now on and do some more training with the dog (but doubt that will happen).
Third post, minimalising it again, then actually mentioning the owner of the "staffy"and suggesting he shouldnt let his dog off the lead again
Better to ignore the breed of dog and focus on the attack instead, it matters not whether it was a Staffy, a Bullmastiff or any other breed.
And the reason I bolded the word "possibly" was to stop comments like yours above
I only pointed out the dog was not injured because they used the word MAUL in the story
Fifth post, now your changing to it doesnt matter what breed it is, even introducing another breed name "bullmastiff".
You use the word "possibly" because you can make a statement about anything without consequence
So the dog wasnt injured because they used the word "maul"???
I'll leave it there..............