Dogs on a lead ambiguity
Discussion
Hi Chaps,
Interested to know how you interpret this sign:
My interpretation is that dogs should be kept on a lead at all times in the park and if not there is the possibility of a fine?
We had a run in with a vicious a$$hole dog owner with a vicious asshole dog this morning (without a lead). His opinion was that his dog could be off a lead until a warden told him to put it on a lead.
I think the problem is the council arent clear and it is open to interpretation so would be grateful for the ph thoughts on the matter,
thanks,
Adam
Interested to know how you interpret this sign:
My interpretation is that dogs should be kept on a lead at all times in the park and if not there is the possibility of a fine?
We had a run in with a vicious a$$hole dog owner with a vicious asshole dog this morning (without a lead). His opinion was that his dog could be off a lead until a warden told him to put it on a lead.
I think the problem is the council arent clear and it is open to interpretation so would be grateful for the ph thoughts on the matter,
thanks,
Adam
davepoth said:
Vicious A$$hole dog owner is right unfortunately. The sign says "when asked".
I'd say different. The sign says failure to comply when asked will incur a fine but that you must keep a dog on a lead at all times. I think the ambiguity arises from the way the fine may be applied. I think keeping a dog off of a lead would be a court deal to enforce a fine whereas failure to comply with an enforcement officer is probably an on the spot offence with no recourse to court for enforcement.
AdamT said:
We had a run in with a vicious a$$hole dog owner with a vicious asshole dog this morning (without a lead). His opinion was that his dog could be off a lead until a warden told him to put it on a lead.
How was the dog viscious? The DDA still applies regardless of any other notice.In terms of the sign, that's going to have been made under the new legislation I suspect (Control Orders) which means that on the facts he is correct, he does not breach the order unless an until asked to place his dog on lead). But that is of course not relevant to the question of the DDA.
the sign said:
You are require by law to keep your dog on a lead in this area. Failure to do so when asked by an authorised officer could result in a penalty...
Translation: there is a Dog Control Order in place that legally requires your dog to be on a lead. Everybody ignores it, and it generally does little harm, but if you take the piss and are caught, you may be prosecuted and fined... but it will take more than some interfering little busybody who doesn't like dogs to enforce it.Translation: there is a Traffic Regulation Order in place that legally requires that you do not exceed 30mph. Everybody ignores it, and it generally does little harm, but if you take the piss and are caught you may be prosecuted and fined... but it will take more than some interfering little busybody who doesn't like cars to enforce it.
HTH
Edited by Sam_68 on Saturday 29th October 11:46
t Zu esque dog which attacked two other dogs in the park (those were on leads). Sam_68 said:
Translation: there is a Dog Control Order in place that legally requires your dog to be on a lead. Everybody ignores it, and it generally does little harm, but if you takle the piss and are caught, you may be prosecuted and fined... but it will take more than some interfering little busybody who doesn't like dogs to enforce it.
Translation: there is a Traffic Regulation Order in place that legally requires that you do not exceed 30mph. Everybody ignores it, and it generally does little harm, but if you take the piss and are caught you may be prosecuted and fined... but it will take more than some interfering little busybody who doesn't like cars to enforce it.
HTH
Hi Sam,Translation: there is a Traffic Regulation Order in place that legally requires that you do not exceed 30mph. Everybody ignores it, and it generally does little harm, but if you take the piss and are caught you may be prosecuted and fined... but it will take more than some interfering little busybody who doesn't like cars to enforce it.
HTH
Yes I think that is the case,
It's ambiguous.
The main headline says 'Dogs on lead when asked by an authorised officer'
To me that means - 'put your dog on a lead when asked to do so'. The inference is that when not asked to do so, you don't have to.
Underneath it says 'You are required by law to keep your dog on a lead in this area.' That conflicts with the above. Do you have to keep your dog on a lead at all times, or only when asked to do so?
Thirdly, the lead in the illustration is picked out in red. Does that mean you must have a lead, or a lead is banned?
What really bugs me is that probably 10 incompetent non-job swivel servants spent days if not weeks in meetings working out that sign, and still cocking it up.
The main headline says 'Dogs on lead when asked by an authorised officer'
To me that means - 'put your dog on a lead when asked to do so'. The inference is that when not asked to do so, you don't have to.
Underneath it says 'You are required by law to keep your dog on a lead in this area.' That conflicts with the above. Do you have to keep your dog on a lead at all times, or only when asked to do so?
Thirdly, the lead in the illustration is picked out in red. Does that mean you must have a lead, or a lead is banned?
What really bugs me is that probably 10 incompetent non-job swivel servants spent days if not weeks in meetings working out that sign, and still cocking it up.
Simpo Two said:
It's ambiguous.
The main headline says 'Dogs on lead when asked by an authorised officer'
To me that means - 'put your dog on a lead when asked to do so'. The inference is that when not asked to do so, you don't have to.
Underneath it says 'You are required by law to keep your dog on a lead in this area.' That conflicts with the above. Do you have to keep your dog on a lead at all times, or only when asked to do so?
Thirdly, the lead in the illustration is picked out in red. Does that mean you must have a lead, or a lead is banned?
What really bugs me is that probably 10 incompetent non-job swivel servants spent days if not weeks in meetings working out that sign, and still cocking it up.
I think you hit the nail on the head there Simpo.The main headline says 'Dogs on lead when asked by an authorised officer'
To me that means - 'put your dog on a lead when asked to do so'. The inference is that when not asked to do so, you don't have to.
Underneath it says 'You are required by law to keep your dog on a lead in this area.' That conflicts with the above. Do you have to keep your dog on a lead at all times, or only when asked to do so?
Thirdly, the lead in the illustration is picked out in red. Does that mean you must have a lead, or a lead is banned?
What really bugs me is that probably 10 incompetent non-job swivel servants spent days if not weeks in meetings working out that sign, and still cocking it up.
Sam_68 said:
Translation: there is a Dog Control Order in place that legally requires your dog to be on a lead. Everybody ignores it, and it generally does little harm, but if you take the piss and are caught, you may be prosecuted and fined... but it will take more than some interfering little busybody who doesn't like dogs to enforce it.
Translation: there is a Traffic Regulation Order in place that legally requires that you do not exceed 30mph. Everybody ignores it, and it generally does little harm, but if you take the piss and are caught you may be prosecuted and fined... but it will take more than some interfering little busybody who doesn't like cars to enforce it.
HTH
hmmmmmmmmm...Translation: there is a Traffic Regulation Order in place that legally requires that you do not exceed 30mph. Everybody ignores it, and it generally does little harm, but if you take the piss and are caught you may be prosecuted and fined... but it will take more than some interfering little busybody who doesn't like cars to enforce it.
HTH
but it does say "dog on lead when asked by officer"
where as the 30mph speed limit sign does not say "when asked" lol
Mrs Grumpy said:
It is ambiguous, yes. However there will be a DCO in place for this particular area, which means dogs on leads. If your dog is off lead and you ignore whatever officer catches you without a lead and you fail to comply with the request to put the dog on a lead, then you get fined.
A sign saying 'Dogs must be kept on leads at all times' would appear to be the answer.Well that was easy :rubshands: Now where's my index-linked pension and early retirement?
AdamT said:
Simpo Two said:
What really bugs me is that probably 10 incompetent non-job swivel servants spent days if not weeks in meetings working out that sign, and still cocking it up.
I think you hit the nail on the head there Simpo.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wac3aGn5twc
Oh and looking at that sign i would keep the dog on a lead.
Sam_68 said:
Everybody ignores it, and it generally does little harm, but if you take the piss and are caught, you may be prosecuted and fined...
You could be issued with a fixed penalty by an authorised warden but you won't be prosecuted and fined unless you fail to pay the penalty.Hi guys,
I just spoke to the council, and described what happened.
They were very clear, basically the dog must be on a lead in this park and furthermore if it attacks another dog when off the leash you should call the police immediately.
The council are really trying to have a crack down on a$$hole dog owners.
I just spoke to the council, and described what happened.
They were very clear, basically the dog must be on a lead in this park and furthermore if it attacks another dog when off the leash you should call the police immediately.
The council are really trying to have a crack down on a$$hole dog owners.
Gassing Station | All Creatures Great & Small | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff