Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: massifheed Jun 21 2012, 03:08 PM

I know that this all comes down to evidence, but the outcomes of the following two stories from the BBC website have annoyed me...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-18536940

^ This guy gets three years for saying something stupid on Facebook.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-18539160

^ Nothing happens to the owner of a dog who attacks a five-year-old girl.

Posted by: andy1979uk Jun 21 2012, 03:41 PM

Abit of a joke I agree, if a dog attacked my child I would be getting done for gbh myself I think and killing the bloody dog.

Posted by: Timbo Jun 21 2012, 03:47 PM

I think the sentances should have been reversed, as in the dog man goes to jail. Everyone writes things online they don't necessarily mean, and since when do you blindly follow what anyone else says?

I think with those riots, the Government and police wanted to try and assert their autoritah' by making a show of those they DID catch..... not actually punishing them for the offense. If that makes sense..

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 21 2012, 03:49 PM

What do you think that would do to your child. As if getting attacked isn't bad enough, dad goes to prison.

Posted by: andy1979uk Jun 21 2012, 04:08 PM

I would'nt though, the justice system is crap. You would'nt need to put the dog down by the time I finished with it.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Jun 21 2012, 04:18 PM

Unless it had torn your throat out first. I have been attacked by a dog. I froze whilst it was chomping on my leg. I could not actually believe it was happening. You don't know how you will react until it happens to you.

Posted by: andy1979uk Jun 21 2012, 04:20 PM

yes true, given the chance I'd stamp on its head till it stopped moving. Then hand it back the owner.

Posted by: Rowley Birkin Jun 21 2012, 04:33 PM

kicking an angry dog in the face is not a wize thing to do

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 21 2012, 04:44 PM

In most cases GBH would mean prison. It certainly will mean explaining to your child that dad has to go to court. This assumes of course that your administering summary justice doesn't involve accidentally killing the 'victim'.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 21 2012, 04:46 PM

That should cheer your child up a little while they see to their wounds.

Posted by: Strafin Jun 21 2012, 04:50 PM

I actually agree with both outcomes, I don't really see how the owner of a dog could be charged if it attacks somebody in his home. It is a terrible thing to happen, but what real offence is there? Perhaps the dog should be destroyed, but you can't go round prosecuting people just for having pets. As far as the Facebook guy goes, he incited violence, not once, twice or thrice but four times publicly, including saying "do dome coppers in".

Posted by: NWNREADER Jun 21 2012, 07:35 PM

http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-pets/pets/dangerous/ makes it apparent there has been no offence that can be prosecuted. The dog could not be shown to be in public, nor in an unauthorised private location. The assessment is there has been no offence committed, not that it is not known who committed it.
Take away the understandable emotion and the question has to be whether we want people prosecuted (convicted) for being involved with something that is not illegal?
The plans to stiffen sentencing are separate from any extension of the Primary legislation to include any injury caused wherever it might be. Dogs and children can be an unsatisfactory mix, and sad cases like this may be the outcome ....

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 21 2012, 08:31 PM

My take was that there was insufficient evidence to prove where the attack took place, not that there was no offence committed.

I understand that if an unauthorised intruder injures themselves in your home because of you having installed something dangerous, that the intruder can sue. In this case, could the child's guardians sue for the neighbour harbouring a dangerous item?

Posted by: Strafin Jun 21 2012, 08:34 PM

I don't think any of that is true in the UK, or anywhere else for that matter. The child's guardians should be aware of any dangers where they are sending their kids at that age, however dogs don't always look like a risk.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 21 2012, 08:38 PM

I read this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/outdoors/8318985/Shed-owners-warned-wire-on-windows-could-hurt-burglars.html

Perhaps the incident happened a bit too soon!

http://www.animalfriends.org.uk/blog/new-dangerous-dogs-prosecution-guidelines/5447/

"All dog owners are to be held fully accountable for their dogs at all times, including on their own property. Whereas previous attacks were only severely dealt with if they happened in a public place, it is important to note that an attack inside your own home could be enough grounds for criminal prosecution. The onus is on all dog owners to maintain full control over their pets at all times – from ensuring the dog is kept in a secure location when answering the front door to allowing all visitors to know you have a dog and to approach with full care."

Of course, the insurance company would be 'eager' to worry dog owners!

Posted by: Strafin Jun 21 2012, 09:38 PM

I have read a lot of similar stories, but haven't ever seen a story where there is a real conviction. Fred Barras and Tony Martin was probably the most high profile case that ended up with a conviction, but that was an intentional shooting, rather than incidental injuries.

Posted by: Bloggo Jun 22 2012, 07:44 AM

Yep, I agree.

Posted by: lordtup Jun 22 2012, 08:30 AM

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/outdoors/8318985/Shed-owners-warned-wire-on-windows-could-hurt-burglars.html

I am afraid this advice is not a recent development. 40 years ago I was advised by the local plod that putting barbed wire along the top of my garden fence could leave me open to prosecution should someone become impaled ,inadvertently or otherwise.His recommendation was to plant a pyracantha hedge along the boundary which is just as lethal but legally acceptable.
My only update is to take care when pruning.

Posted by: Timbo Jun 22 2012, 09:35 AM

The law is just a joke.

Posted by: On the edge Jun 22 2012, 11:09 AM

No, in this case 'the plod' are wrong. If you want legal advice see a real lawyer!

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 22 2012, 12:13 PM

That's right. Sometimes you have to force the old bill to do things, although the CPS isn't strictly the police.

Posted by: Exhausted Jun 22 2012, 08:53 PM

Didn't we have a similar case closer to home only he got a community service sentence but wouldn't do it bcause he would have to have his phone switched off. What happened in the end, anybody know ?