How legal is this sign?

[Gaspode]

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?

[gruffalo]

A dog being walked off the lead through a field of sheep! Do Dawin a favour and put the owner down and rehome the dog, it can't put itself on a lead, no opposing thumb!

[Hoonabator]

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.

[anonymous-user]

You might perhaps tell us exactly where the sign is located. People can only guess at what byelaws might apply to the location shown without knowing where it is. Does it really matter whether or not the sign is backed by an enforceable legal rule? As suggested above, why not just treat it as a request, which a civilised dog walker would happily comply with?

[Hoonabator]

I've pointed out that we're talking playing fields, mentioned that the nearest farmland is a couple of miles away. Pointed out that it's not a dog mess issue. Tried to explain that you can approach the area from several
places without encountering a sign. Pointed out that there is no obvious indication of the exact area covered. What im trying to estabish is whether a fine can be issued taking into account all of this. Read the thread surely you don't actually need a grid reference!!

[Hoonabator]

Oh and yes it does matter. People are being issued £80 fines on the back of 4 signs covering a 100 yard path on one edge of this area that covers 4 playing fields and same about of rough land.

[oldsoak]

Hoonabator said:

I've pointed out that we're talking playing fields, mentioned that the nearest farmland is a couple of miles away. Pointed out that it's not a dog mess issue. Tried to explain that you can approach the area from several
places without encountering a sign. Pointed out that there is no obvious indication of the exact area covered. What im trying to estabish is whether a fine can be issued taking into account all of this. Read the thread surely you don't actually need a grid reference!!

Well actually....

Seriously though you cannot expect a definitive answer when
A. We don't know the actual area concerned
and
B. Since we don't know exactly where it is we can't look for local bye-laws that may or may not support the signs.
Since you are obviously local look on your L/A's website and check out the bye-laws then and only then (I suspect) will your curiosity be sated.

[Hoonabator]

So you guys aways walk your dogs after first checking the local byes laws!! Come on!

[oldsoak]

Hoonabator said:

So you guys aways walk your dogs after first checking the local byes laws!! Come on!

It's not 'us guys' asking about the sign though is it? Come on.

[anonymous-user]

Is the location top secret for some reason? If (and it is an if) the fines are being imposed without legal basis, then any person fined could challenge the fine, but unless you tell us where these events are occurring, we can't venture a legal opinion. We might venture the opinion that keeping a dog on a lead on or close to a playing field would be a sociable and neighbourly action.

[mph1977]

Nigel Worc's said:

simoid said:

Us urban types don't understand

I know, I removed a shotgun from a farmer once, as the cretin had it loaded on a public highway (it was a country lane).

There were two very different camps, as far as thoughts on what I'd done, some thought fair enough, others thought I wasn't used to Country ways.

Either way I caused him a whole load of st, he had his licence removed and had to re-apply.

I hate guns, I worry about the people that wish to own them !

where were you born and brought up Nigel - names not required just an indication of the nature of the place ... people who have been brought up in the country or have farmers in their family tend to see guns and big f-off knives as tools of a trade ...

admittedly the farmer with the loaded shottie on public highway is a tool ofthe first order ...

[Variomatic]

Hoonabator said:

I've pointed out that we're talking playing fields, mentioned that the nearest farmland is a couple of miles away. Pointed out that it's not a dog mess issue. Tried to explain that you can approach the area from several
places without encountering a sign. Pointed out that there is no obvious indication of the exact area covered. What im trying to estabish is whether a fine can be issued taking into account all of this. Read the thread surely you don't actually need a grid reference!!

Who's handing the penalties out and on what basis? A penalty can only be served for breach of a specific regulation, not just because "we don't want you doing it". Which suggests that there's probably a bylaw in force. If there is then tough - you break it, you're liable. That's regardless of whether you checked for its existence or not.

So, the way to answer your question is NOT to ask on the internet without any details of exactly where it is, then get shirty and start insulting people when it drifts off topic. The answer is to find out what regulation the penalties are being raised under or do a bit of research to see if there's a bylaw covering it.

We can't do that research for you because you won't say where it is!

[oldsoak]

OP...I had a few quiet moments so I did some work for you...


Have a look at...
http://www.eastdevon.gov.uk/dogs_from_the_grounds....

or even....

http://www.eastdevon.gov.uk/dogs_on_leads_-_exmout...

and there;s always....

http://www.eastdevon.gov.uk/prohibiting_dogs_from_...

Not forgetting....

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/dog_control_...

and finally a 'catch all' in case none of the above fit the bill...

http://www.eastdevon.gov.uk/dog_control_orders

HTH

[Hoonabator]

I'm sorry guys but if you read the first post then it's clear what I'm asking.

You don't need to know the exact location. I know there is a bye law I effect for this area. But surely to be enforceable the exact area covered should be clearly indicated without having to go home and check on the internet.

As I've said several times.....

The signs are along one edge of 3 playing fields

These fields can be approached from the other 3 sides without ever seeing a sign.

There is no indication that breaching the notice will result in a fine.

And just to make it clear again, nothing to do with dog messing, livestock harassment or gun laws.


ETA. Maybe the title is unclear. Should read How enforceable is this sign? Sorry if this is where the confussion has arisen.

Thanks.

Edited by Hoonabator on Tuesday 8th May 07:41

[singlecoil]

So, to pose the questions differently, and perhaps more simply, a) does an area over which there is a bye-law in force have to be signed in such a way that it cannot be approached without passing at least one of the signs? And b) if the answer to a) is no (which would be my guess) then what is the penalty for breaking the bye-law? I expect for question b) one would need to refer to the specific bye-law covering the area in question.

[veryRS]

Hoonabator said:

I'm sorry guys but if you read the first post then it's clear what I'm asking.

You don't need to know the exact location. I know there is a bye law I effect for this area. But surely to be enforceable the exact area covered should be clearly indicated without having to go home and check on the internet.

As I've said several times.....

The signs are along one edge of 3 playing fields

These fields can be approached from the other 3 sides without ever seeing a sign.

There is no indication that breaching the notice will result in a fine.

And just to make it clear again, nothing to do with dog messing, livestock harassment or gun laws.


ETA. Maybe the title is unclear. Should read How enforceable is this sign? Sorry if this is where the confussion has arisen.

Thanks.

Edited by Hoonabator on Tuesday 8th May 07:41

I suppose the only way to be certain would be to mount a legal challenge against it.

[singlecoil]

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?

[oldsoak]

Hoonabator said:

I'm sorry guys but if you read the first post then it's clear what I'm asking.

You don't need to know the exact location. I know there is a bye law I effect for this area. But surely to be enforceable the exact area covered should be clearly indicated without having to go home and check on the internet.

As I've said several times.....

The signs are along one edge of 3 playing fields

These fields can be approached from the other 3 sides without ever seeing a sign.

There is no indication that breaching the notice will result in a fine.

And just to make it clear again, nothing to do with dog messing, livestock harassment or gun laws.


ETA. Maybe the title is unclear. Should read How enforceable is this sign? Sorry if this is where the confussion has arisen.

Thanks.

Edited by Hoonabator on Tuesday 8th May 07:41

1. the sign is a regulatory sign...it tells you what you must do

2. failing to do what the sign tells you can land you in trouble just like if the sign had a number 30 in it and you travelled at 40.

3. the words under the sign reinforce the signs message telling you what you must do...in this case you must keep dogs on leads at all times.

4. just because there are no other signs telling you what the penalty is doesn't detract from the signs purpose...they don't put other signs up with 30mph signs telling you what the penalty is if you go faster, yet everyone knows (or should do) that disobeying the sign carries with it a penalty if you get caught.
5.I don't think we can tell you much more... the rest is up to you...obey the sign or pay a penalty if you get caught disobeying it...your call.

[anonymous-user]

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?

[oldsoak]

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?

I think he has a beef with being handed a FP for disobeying the signs just like many others have a beef with getting 3 points and a £60 fine for going faster than the speed limit sign says they can.