How legal is this sign?

Author
Discussion

Tiggsy

10,261 posts

251 months

Tuesday 8th May 2012
quotequote all
Gaspode said:
10 Pence Short said:
I would have thought, were the sheep killed more or less pets to you (irrespective of the value), it would put you in a better position to empathise with the dog owner (assuming they were decent people who were horrified by what their animal had done)?
Hmm. "Your dog has just killed some of my much-loved pets, but because i recognise that this dog is a much-loved pet of yours, I'll forgive you and allow you to keep your pet so that it may kill again."

I agree that it's possible that one could reach that level of empathy, but that's not the way it happened in this case, and I'm not sure that I would have that much milk of human kindness flowing in my veins should I be confronted with a similar situation again. I certainly don't think that I would have necessarily demanded the immediate destruction of the animal, but the owner voluntarily took the dog to be destroyed, with no real prompting from myself or the policeman present.

I've never really thought about it before, but why would an owner do this to an apparently much-loved pet? The only reason I can think of is that this was not in fact the first occasion of the animal worrying sheep, maybe?
The actual story then is "dog attacked my sheep, cop said I could shoot it (I didnt, because I'd not be allowed to and cop seemed retarded to suggest I could) so owner said they'd put it down within an hour (because owner was either as thick as the cop or didnt like their dog much!)

oldsoak

5,618 posts

201 months

Tuesday 8th May 2012
quotequote all
Tiggsy said:
The actual story then is "dog attacked my sheep, cop said I could shoot it (I didnt, because I'd not be allowed to and cop seemed retarded to suggest I could) so owner said they'd put it down within an hour (because owner was either as thick as the cop or didnt like their dog much!)
Sounds fairly plausible does that...much more so than the 'original' version.
biggrin

veryRS

409 posts

144 months

Tuesday 8th May 2012
quotequote all
Breadvan72 said:
No, there is no human rights issue here. The ECHR should not be cheapened by people asserting that they have the right to be selfish or the right not to be inconvenienced. What a bunch of complainers and barrack room lawyers PH includes! A byelaw may be challenged by way of an application for judicial review, on limited grounds.

Hoonabator, you cannot expect a precise answer to a question so general and vaguely formulated. The answer must depend on the wording of the relevant byelaw. Ordinarily, a byelaw is enforceable regardless of whether a not a person subject to it has seen or could have seen a sign indicating the rule in question. Many laws operate thus. You do not need a sign saying "do not steal or beat people up" to make stealing and beating people up unlawful. All depends, however, on the precise wording of the byelaw.

Why do people want to have dogs off leads near a playing field?
WHOOOSH!!

That there was the sound of the sarcasm going right over your head.

anonymous-user

53 months

Tuesday 8th May 2012
quotequote all
Perhaps, but I'm not sure. Some people get mighty upset about the smallest things.

Gaspode

4,167 posts

195 months

Tuesday 8th May 2012
quotequote all
oldsoak said:
Tiggsy said:
The actual story then is "dog attacked my sheep, cop said I could shoot it (I didnt, because I'd not be allowed to and cop seemed retarded to suggest I could) so owner said they'd put it down within an hour (because owner was either as thick as the cop or didnt like their dog much!)
Sounds fairly plausible does that...much more so than the 'original' version.
biggrin
That is indeed a pretty fair summary of what happened, I went back and re-read my original post, and I can't see much difference - apart from the fact that I omitted to make it clear enough that it was the owner's decision to have the dog put down, not mine. I don't know how thick the owner was, but she was a local councillor, so maybe her decision to reach a swift end to the situation was affected by considerations as to how it would look politically? Plus of course she might not have liked her dog much - or possibly because this wasn't the first time it had happened?

veryRS

409 posts

144 months

Tuesday 8th May 2012
quotequote all
Breadvan72 said:
Perhaps, but I'm not sure. Some people get mighty upset about the smallest things.
I thought you were referring to my post about mounting a legal challenge. If not then appologies.

anonymous-user

53 months

Tuesday 8th May 2012
quotequote all
I was responding to this one, which might be ironic in intent, but I'm not sure that it is:-


singlecoil said:
veryRS said:
I suppose the only way to be certain would be to mount a legal challenge against it.
Hmmm. Interesting. What are you thinking here, judicial review in the High Court? Or perhaps there's a Human Rights angle that could be exploited?

veryRS

409 posts

144 months

Tuesday 8th May 2012
quotequote all
Gaspode said:
oldsoak said:
Tiggsy said:
The actual story then is "dog attacked my sheep, cop said I could shoot it (I didnt, because I'd not be allowed to and cop seemed retarded to suggest I could) so owner said they'd put it down within an hour (because owner was either as thick as the cop or didnt like their dog much!)
Sounds fairly plausible does that...much more so than the 'original' version.
biggrin
That is indeed a pretty fair summary of what happened, I went back and re-read my original post, and I can't see much difference - apart from the fact that I omitted to make it clear enough that it was the owner's decision to have the dog put down, not mine. I don't know how thick the owner was, but she was a local councillor, so maybe her decision to reach a swift end to the situation was affected by considerations as to how it would look politically? Plus of course she might not have liked her dog much - or possibly because this wasn't the first time it had happened?
Nicely executed (excuse the pun) save there.

veryRS

409 posts

144 months

Tuesday 8th May 2012
quotequote all
Breadvan72 said:
I was responding to this one, which might be ironic in intent, but I'm not sure that it is:-


singlecoil said:
veryRS said:
I suppose the only way to be certain would be to mount a legal challenge against it.
Hmmm. Interesting. What are you thinking here, judicial review in the High Court? Or perhaps there's a Human Rights angle that could be exploited?
Hmm dunno. I assumed he had cottoned on to the sarcasm in my post and was adding to it.

anonymous-user

53 months

Tuesday 8th May 2012
quotequote all
Maybe. Anyway, now that the TVR vs horse case of the century has gone away, we need a new major Strasbourg case involving the heinous injustice of being asked not to let your dog run about and affright the populace.

Richard C

1,685 posts

256 months

Tuesday 8th May 2012
quotequote all
Hoonabator said:
Well 5 years ago I would have got a sensible answer to this very simple question.

Bring back the good old days of Pistonheads.

As by now the idiot members will have stopped reading this post I'll continue to say that this is the reason PH is now st. Back in the day it was frequented by petrolheads with an education you could call on when needed, not fooking morons.

Anyway thanks for all the constructive input.

Next time I'll post on mumsnet.
Neither breadvan72 nor oldsoak or several other posters are correct. On page 3 singlecoil posted a link to best of bothworlds. Buried in the verbiage was

www.bobw.co.uk said:
What are Dog Control Orders?
The Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 and associated regulations (Dog Control Orders (Prescribed Offences and Penalties, etc.) Regulations 2006 and the Dog Control Orders (Procedures) Regulations 2006) allow local authorities, parish councils and some other bodies to introduce Dog Control Orders. There are regulations provide for five offences to be prescribed in a dog control order:

(a) failing to remove dog faeces
(b) not keeping a dog on a lead
(c) not putting, and keeping, a dog on a lead when directed to do so by an authorised officer
(d) permitting a dog to enter land from which dogs are excluded
(e)taking more than a specified number of dogs onto land.

A Dog Control Order can be made in respect of any land which is open to the air and to which the public are entitled or permitted to have access (with or without payment). As for the provisions on litter, land which is covered is treated as land ‘open to the air’ if it is open to the air on at least one side. Exceptions to this are Forestry Commission land and roads (defined as ‘any length of highway or of any other road to which the public has access, and includes bridges over which a road passes.’)

It should be noted that Defra’s advice to Order-making authorities is that Dog Control Orders should be used only where necessary and offer a proportionate response that balances the interests of those in charge of dogs against the interests of those affected by the activities of dogs.
I'd say the prohibition on the sign is not necessarily enforceable. The Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 i.e. relevant complicated legislation, part 6 chapter 1 requires a dog control order to be in place for that land named specifically or by designation. Previous overlapping byelaw provisions are revoked and enabling legislation has been withdrawn.

Since the notice neither mentions a byelaw nor a DC order I'd guess the absence from any sign around there would make the order even if it has been enacted unenforceable.

anonymous-user

53 months

Tuesday 8th May 2012
quotequote all
What have I said that you think is incorrect? I haven't expressed any view on the legality of the rule complained of, as the OP declines to tell us where the sign is located. Also, the enforceability of a rule will not always depend on signage. It may do in contexts such as speed or parking control, but not in other contexts. There might in this case not even be a rule - the sign might be a request, not an order; but we don't know, because of the lack of detail provided by the OP.

Tiggsy

10,261 posts

251 months

Tuesday 8th May 2012
quotequote all
Gaspode said:
oldsoak said:
Tiggsy said:
The actual story then is "dog attacked my sheep, cop said I could shoot it (I didnt, because I'd not be allowed to and cop seemed retarded to suggest I could) so owner said they'd put it down within an hour (because owner was either as thick as the cop or didnt like their dog much!)
Sounds fairly plausible does that...much more so than the 'original' version.
biggrin
That is indeed a pretty fair summary of what happened, I went back and re-read my original post, and I can't see much difference
I think the difference is your first post sounded like a loony farmer and inbreed cop acted like some sort of Whickerman/Deliverance combbo to remove a ladies dog from her and kill it (I'm surprised it wasn't done in a burning kennel effigy while the cop played his banjo!

In actual fact, the woman took her dog back and killed it herself...still an odd turn of events but you and your bobby seem a "little" less "country folk" than before wink

oldsoak

5,618 posts

201 months

Tuesday 8th May 2012
quotequote all
Breadvan72 said:
What have I said that you think is incorrect? I haven't expressed any view on the legality of the rule complained of, as the OP declines to tell us where the sign is located. Also, the enforceability of a rule will not always depend on signage. It may do in contexts such as speed or parking control, but not in other contexts. There might in this case not even be a rule - the sign might be a request, not an order; but we don't know, because of the lack of detail provided by the OP.
We're wrong because 'he guesses' we are...so that's an end to it.

Problem is the question the OP has asked has already been answered correctly as far as we can, but he chooses not to recognise it as such and sets about attacking those who provide the answers that don't fit into his own slant on how things should be.
Plain nose on your face fact is is the sign IS a regulatory sign and ignoring it attracts a penalty just as if it were a 40mph sign and you got caught doing 50.The OP wants a different answer though but fails to give us the information we require to provide a more concise response..East Devon is a fairly large area to be left guessing where a particular sign is and if that particular area has or has not any legislation local or otherwise to back up the sign.

Hoonabator

Original Poster:

573 posts

225 months

Tuesday 8th May 2012
quotequote all
Sorry but the precise location of the sign really doesn't matter.

I've stated that yes there is a bylaw in force in the area.

Surely it cant be right that you have to look up on the Internet or go to the council offices to see the exact area covered. Surely it should be nice and clearly defined either by signage or a map on site. This is one small area on a 2 mile path, as I already stated you can walk straight into the Bylaw area without passing a sign. Surely that cannot be right.

The comparison to speed limits is exactly right. I don't believe there is a road in the UK that doesn't have a speed limit. You will pass a sign that states the limit. The last sign you pass is the speed limit you must adhere to until you pass the next. You can't be issue a speeding ticket unless the speed limit is cleared indicated. Imagine being stopped on a national speed limit road and being issued with an SP 30 because one section was actually a 50 limit but there wasn't a sign?

This is what is happening here.

It's not about the rights and wrongs of walking dogs on or off leads on playing fields.

I do know of a couple of people who are contesting their FP's so as nobody on here seems to be able to help I'll call time on this matter b

anonymous-user

53 months

Tuesday 8th May 2012
quotequote all
Plenty of people are willing to help, but you insist on keeping the location secret. Can you at least post a link to the dog control order for the area in question. The analogy with a speed limit is unlikely to be apposite, as dog control orders do not usually depend for their enforceability on signage. The order will, however, specify the areas to which it applies.

Here is an example of the order in my area.

http://www.islington.gov.uk/publicrecords/document...

anonymous-user

53 months

Tuesday 8th May 2012
quotequote all
PS: Neither the enabling Act nor the Regulations made under the Act, which empower local authorities to make dog control orders, require particular forms or locations of signage. There is, however, a defence of reasonable excuse.


See the Regs:-


SCHEDULE 2
OFFENCE OF NOT KEEPING A DOG ON A LEAD and FORM OF ORDER

1.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2), it is an offence when being in charge of a dog on land to which a dog control order (described as a “Dogs on Leads Order” in the form set out below) applies, not to keep the dog on a lead or on a lead of a maximum length prescribed in the order, during such times or periods as may be prescribed.

(2) No offence is committed where a person has a reasonable excuse for failing to keep the dog on a lead, or the owner, occupier or other person or authority having control of the land has consented (generally or specifically) to his failing to do so.

2. In any Dogs on Leads Order, the offence of not keeping a dog on a lead is to be set out in full as stated in article 3 in the form of the order given below.

3. In all other respects, a Dogs on Leads Order providing for that offence is to be in the form given below, or in a form substantially to the like effect.

Engineer1

10,486 posts

208 months

Tuesday 8th May 2012
quotequote all
From experience you could fight it and win but all that will result in is a bigger cost for you, and more signs being erected to ensure that the next person doesn't stray in without seeing at sign. My parent's fought a FPN for a dog on a beach when my sister took our old dog onto a beach using the one entrance that the council hadn't put a sign up on, it cost more than the fine would have and now there is a sign on the entrance path.