how about this one?
Discussion
bloke at work was out with his missus last week. left the german shepherd indoors. when he got back he saw that the downstairs toilet window was open and broken. upon closer inspection there was also blood on the windowsill. he reckons the dog must have had a chew of the arm that came through trying to unlock the window...
he phoned the OB to let them know about the attempted burglary and that there was blood at the scene --
the response was that if the burglar was to complain, it wouldnt be good for him as he didnt have a warning sign regarding the dog.
England - 2008. I kid you not. What the fcuk is going on with this country?
he phoned the OB to let them know about the attempted burglary and that there was blood at the scene --
the response was that if the burglar was to complain, it wouldnt be good for him as he didnt have a warning sign regarding the dog.
England - 2008. I kid you not. What the fcuk is going on with this country?
The police isn't really like this, honest. Most sensible officers have no interest whatsoever pursuing spurioud complaints against decent householders.
Sadly, some muppets like this let the whole side down. If the burglar "wishes to complain" then let him do so, it's not going to get anywhere and the priority is his criminal prosecution... Grr.
Sadly, some muppets like this let the whole side down. If the burglar "wishes to complain" then let him do so, it's not going to get anywhere and the priority is his criminal prosecution... Grr.
There was a case like this on the North West news.
There were two company directors up on firearms charges, and some parents wanting to sue them too.
To protect their warehouse and courtyard in an industrial area, the company owners but up barbed wire on top of high walls and numerous security and keep out signs. After numerous incidents of delinquents and petty theft, they got a security company and they set up a 'scarer' basically some gunpowder in a tube that goes bang. Pretty much the same as what farms have to scare birds from crops.
The kid in question not only got into the compound through the barbed wire, he picked up the scarer and stole it and took it back to near his house and played with it with his mates.
Sure enough it goes off in his hands, and he needs to go to hospital. In the case, there was no mention of the trespass and theft that kid was guilty of, but the parents told the waiting reporter that despite the company owners being completely cleared of the firearms charged quickly and comprehensively, the parents were looking to sue the owners for damages to their kid...
So... the message is, not only must you make sure no-one hurts themselves whilst breaking in, make sure that they can't steal anything that they may later hurt themselves with...
There were two company directors up on firearms charges, and some parents wanting to sue them too.
To protect their warehouse and courtyard in an industrial area, the company owners but up barbed wire on top of high walls and numerous security and keep out signs. After numerous incidents of delinquents and petty theft, they got a security company and they set up a 'scarer' basically some gunpowder in a tube that goes bang. Pretty much the same as what farms have to scare birds from crops.
The kid in question not only got into the compound through the barbed wire, he picked up the scarer and stole it and took it back to near his house and played with it with his mates.
Sure enough it goes off in his hands, and he needs to go to hospital. In the case, there was no mention of the trespass and theft that kid was guilty of, but the parents told the waiting reporter that despite the company owners being completely cleared of the firearms charged quickly and comprehensively, the parents were looking to sue the owners for damages to their kid...
So... the message is, not only must you make sure no-one hurts themselves whilst breaking in, make sure that they can't steal anything that they may later hurt themselves with...
The Tuscan Rat said:
carrotchomper said:
The police isn't really like this, honest. Most sensible officers have no interest whatsoever pursuing spurioud complaints against decent householders.
Sadly, some muppets like this let the whole side down. If the burglar "wishes to complain" then let him do so, it's not going to get anywhere and the priority is his criminal prosecution... Grr.
Seconded, I hate desk jockeys that make us all look bad by giving crap advice like this. Most Bib would have attended, had the Soco take a swab and if a result came back written it up that the burglar must have injured themselves on the broken window.Sadly, some muppets like this let the whole side down. If the burglar "wishes to complain" then let him do so, it's not going to get anywhere and the priority is his criminal prosecution... Grr.
Does the GSD want a job ? Always on the lookout for new recruits with a bit of bite about them....
What evidence is there that the dog bit the burglar anyway?
Shocking.
I bet the district burglary DI would be really impressed. Not.
ukwill said:
Glad to hear that some of you BiB are as shocked as I was when I heard the story. I thought he was pulling my leg. Normally it's the sort of thing I only get to read about, and then still don't believe it.
Nope, when plod came over to see me eventually (just three days) after my car was bricked, he saw the size of the dog and said, you want to put up a warning sign in case that dog gets someone in your garden......But no, my understanding is the warning signs are meaningless in law as well, you still owe a duty of care to someone on your land if they get hurt but the dog doesn't get destroyed.
Still, GSD 1, Burglar 0.
marshalla said:
paoloh said:
If someone climbs over the gates and get bitten by my dogs, I still have to have them destroyed??
Harsh, but fair. If they climb over your gates - destroy them.(but only after the dogs have had a bit of exercise 
)Fer Gwads sake its a family pet - not a Guard Dog?
Guard Dogs Act 1975
Section 1.
Control of guard dogs.— (1) A person shall not use or permit the use of a guard dog at any premises unless a person ( “the handler”
who is capable of controlling the dog is present on the premises and the dog is under the control of the handler at all times while it is being so used except while it is secured so that it is not at liberty to go freely about the premises.
(2) The handler of a guard dog shall keep the dog under his control at all times while it is being used as a guard dog at any premises except—
(a)
while another handler has control over the dog; or
(b)
while the dog is secured so that it is not at liberty to go freely about the premises.
(3) A person shall not use or permit the use of a guard dog at any premises unless a notice containing a warning that a guard dog is present is clearly exhibited at each entrance to the premises.
“guard dog” means a dog which is being used to protect—
(a)
premises; or
(b)
property kept on the premises; or
(c)
a person guarding the premises or such property
dvd
Guard Dogs Act 1975
Section 1.
Control of guard dogs.— (1) A person shall not use or permit the use of a guard dog at any premises unless a person ( “the handler”
who is capable of controlling the dog is present on the premises and the dog is under the control of the handler at all times while it is being so used except while it is secured so that it is not at liberty to go freely about the premises. (2) The handler of a guard dog shall keep the dog under his control at all times while it is being used as a guard dog at any premises except—
(a)
while another handler has control over the dog; or
(b)
while the dog is secured so that it is not at liberty to go freely about the premises.
(3) A person shall not use or permit the use of a guard dog at any premises unless a notice containing a warning that a guard dog is present is clearly exhibited at each entrance to the premises.
“guard dog” means a dog which is being used to protect—
(a)
premises; or
(b)
property kept on the premises; or
(c)
a person guarding the premises or such property
dvd
Dwight VanDriver said:
Fer Gwads sake its a family pet - not a Guard Dog?
Guard Dogs Act 1975
Section 1.
Control of guard dogs.— (1) A person shall not use or permit the use of a guard dog at any premises unless a person ( “the handler” who is capable of controlling the dog is present on the premises and the dog is under the control of the handler at all times while it is being so used except while it is secured so that it is not at liberty to go freely about the premises.
(2) The handler of a guard dog shall keep the dog under his control at all times while it is being used as a guard dog at any premises except—
(a)
while another handler has control over the dog; or
(b)
while the dog is secured so that it is not at liberty to go freely about the premises.
(3) A person shall not use or permit the use of a guard dog at any premises unless a notice containing a warning that a guard dog is present is clearly exhibited at each entrance to the premises.
“guard dog” means a dog which is being used to protect—
(a)
premises; or
(b)
property kept on the premises; or
(c)
a person guarding the premises or such property
dvd
They are NOT guard dogs but if someone comes onto my property.....Guard Dogs Act 1975
Section 1.
Control of guard dogs.— (1) A person shall not use or permit the use of a guard dog at any premises unless a person ( “the handler”
who is capable of controlling the dog is present on the premises and the dog is under the control of the handler at all times while it is being so used except while it is secured so that it is not at liberty to go freely about the premises. (2) The handler of a guard dog shall keep the dog under his control at all times while it is being used as a guard dog at any premises except—
(a)
while another handler has control over the dog; or
(b)
while the dog is secured so that it is not at liberty to go freely about the premises.
(3) A person shall not use or permit the use of a guard dog at any premises unless a notice containing a warning that a guard dog is present is clearly exhibited at each entrance to the premises.
“guard dog” means a dog which is being used to protect—
(a)
premises; or
(b)
property kept on the premises; or
(c)
a person guarding the premises or such property
dvd
They are not the ones in the wrong, the burglar is!!
paoloh said:
I may have misunderstood you but I meant, would my dogs be at risk of having to be "put down".
I don't think so, a dog is entitled to bite someone (as the law stands at the moment IIRC) on your private property BUT you would still (as I understand the occupiers liability act) be responsible for an injury your dog caused to said burglar... The question is whether or not the sign would negate that liability.. The dogs are your responsibility at all times.
If they bite someone, then either:-
- You were negligent in your responsibility over the dogs; or
- You trained or ordered the dogs to bite that person.
That the person may well be trespassing for reasons unknown is in effect irrelevant. Silly, isn't it?!?
If they bite someone, then either:-
- You were negligent in your responsibility over the dogs; or
- You trained or ordered the dogs to bite that person.
That the person may well be trespassing for reasons unknown is in effect irrelevant. Silly, isn't it?!?
havoc said:
The dogs are your responsibility at all times.
If they bite someone, then either:-
- You were negligent in your responsibility over the dogs; or
- You trained or ordered the dogs to bite that person.
That the person may well be trespassing for reasons unknown is in effect irrelevant. Silly, isn't it?!?
Silly?If they bite someone, then either:-
- You were negligent in your responsibility over the dogs; or
- You trained or ordered the dogs to bite that person.
That the person may well be trespassing for reasons unknown is in effect irrelevant. Silly, isn't it?!?
Well I guess that's one word for it.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff