Forum menu
Really. so you do not have to keep your dog under control then?
Now you're twisting his words. He didn't say that.
Fascinating. It's like watching the slowest, most boring car crash in the world.
Fascinating. It's like watching the slowest, most boring car crash in the world over and over again.
Relatively new here, are we?
Do not fear though, progress has been made.
Even by STW standards, this is quite bad.*
.
.
.
.
*(understatement).
[quote=Me]
A dog owner has No Legal Obligation Whatsoever to stop their dog wandering over to you and having a sniff.
[quote=TJ]
Really. so you do not have to keep your dog under control then?
You have repealed the various animals acts?
OK TJ.
Now is your chance............
Prove me wrong.
Which LAW would they be obligated by, to stop there dog wandering over to you and having a sniff.
.
.
(no criticism, or waffle, just the LAW please)
Many thanks.
The tags are particularly unimaginative
some quality rating from Neal tho with creative use of bold which was a minor highlight is a sea of drivel.
some nice comparisons of dogs to children and far fetched claims that dogs have rights and some nice understanding from some dog owners as well.
Oh TJ, that's weak, even by your standards.
Oops -= he is off again. 🙄
Are you really that hard of thinking?
me? Yes, I am, now you can show the law and how it would apply to sniffy dogs
Not you charlie
Can you answer my question then TJ ?
Or can you not find the LAW that relates to the situation you described.
(I did say no waffle, just the relevant law please ?!)
.
.
It's a mystery really because normally you LOVE quoting laws at people, like on the "big man" threads ?!
Actually, this reminds me of a (true) dog-related story. Whilst walking Kasper the lurcher over the fields, I saw a dog in the distance tearing after something. It managed almost a whole field before giving up and returning to its owner. At this point, a nearby dalmation took over and chased the still invisible would-be prey round a field twice, before coming to within 50 yards of Kasper and I.
At this point I could see the object of interest was a large hare. Kasper saw it and took over where the dalmation left off, so really, that (crap but true story is quite like this thread, if you substitute the hare for TJ). The hare was unharmed by the way.
As an aside, can anyone tell me the phrase used to describe a hare crouched down hiding in grass? It's got a rather lovely name, but can't remember it. TIA.
Said dog has wandered up to TJ and is about to take a sniff, when the victim reaches for his phone to make a formal complaint.
How do you think the police would react?
How do you think the courts would react?
I suppose I'll have to assume that these are not being answered because you know that common sense prevails in the real world and you'd be told by the police to simply mtfu.
Always good fun on these, but at least we've gone from fear to dislike and 1st person to 2nd person or passive.
No user-removed, neal has the baton firmly clenched here, we're just along for the ride
The reality is.
TJ will never answer the question.
Because to do so will prove him wrong (heaven forbid)
There is no Law that requires dog owners to stop their pets wandering up to people and having a sniff.
TJ will soon deny he ever said there was (again) and accuse me of making it up (again) 🙄
And no doubt accuse me of "Ranting" (again) In an effort to divert attention from his made up laws.
Neal
@re you really this dim? can you read?
Its a mix of differnt statute, and case law. some civil and some criminal. it varies depending where you are .
Some links to some of the more obvious laws.
http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/1052
TrainingA well trained dog is a happy dog and, he will not be a nuisance to others if he's under control.
Stray dogsYou must keep your dog under control at all times.
http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/quality/local/dogs/owner.htm
@re you really this dim? can you read?
*giggles*
I think you should ask this family what they think about dogs sniffing around people
I really hope she recovered and maintained her sight
Also the kennel club again
Do
# Keep your dog under control at all times.
# Train your dog to use the kerb correctly.
# Always clean up after your dog.
# Keep your dog close to you when walking it on a lead.
# Respect the Countryside Code.
Don’ts
* Don’t allow your dog to foul footpaths, parks or public places. Local authorities have the power to make it an offence punishable by a fine. [Dogs (Fouling of Land) Act 1996].
* Don’t allow your dog to interfere with passers-by in the street.
http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/205
Yep.
The problem being.
None of it says anything about dogs wandering up to people and generally having a sniff and exploring the area though does it ??
And the kennel club stuff is just general advice ? Nothing legal at all.
The Ski Club of Great Britain says I should wear a Helmet.
But it's not a "Legal Responsibility" is it ?
🙄
Alright.. so after some reading... have we decided that allowing a dog to roam around is out of control?
Whilst it is inhumane to keep the animal in a restricted area?
But it is only out of control if it is infringing on someones thought process?
but not if it's a leopard?
Of which, if domesticated, was created by humans?
Can we get back to a point, gents? it's losing momentum.
P.S.
No need to keep it close if it's off a lead... and still deemed in control via the kennel club.Keep your dog close to you when walking it on a lead.
Do
# Keep your dog under control at all times. [b]Even when in my enclosed garden or inside the house?[/b]
# Train your dog to use the kerb correctly. [b]Even in the countryside where I live and the nearest kerb is over a mile away?[/b]
# Always clean up after your dog. [b]Even in a field populated by cows, sheep and horses[/b]
# Keep your dog close to you when walking it on a lead.[b]The lead is 1m long!![/b]
# Respect the Countryside Code.[b]Well duh!![/b]Don’ts
* Don’t allow your dog to foul footpaths, parks or public places. Local authorities have the power to make it an offence punishable by a fine. [Dogs (Fouling of Land) Act 1996]. [b]Sounds reasonable which is why they were avoided. [/b]
* Don’t allow your dog to interfere with passers-by in the street.[b]Interesting as people would cross the street when I came along with my shaved head, tattooes and little on the lead staffy at a distance of 20m+, when is it reasonable to say the dog is posing a threat and when can we say the [i]victim[/i] has overreacted?[/b]
TJ,
I respect you a lot and mostly agree with your stance on this; however, in the broader scheme of things you're demolishing your general credibility here. You're seriously arguing legal issues based on the policies of the Kennel Club?
Always clean up after your dog. Even in a field populated by cows, sheep and horses
[b]yes[/b], toxocanis persists for up to 10 years
yes, toxocanis persists for up to 10 years
Have you told the strays?
Fascinating. It's like watching the slowest, most boring car crash in the world over and over again.
or 2 bald men fighting over a comb?
Have you told the strays?
do you live in eastern europe? not seen a dog without an owner for years around here
Cougar - I have pointed to the law and I thought if the kennel club - that rabidly anti dog organisation - guidance on the law said something then this might be accepted.
they can hardly be accused of an anti dog bias can they 🙂
TJ,
I think it would be more accepted if it didn't backlash everything you were trying to say...
do you live in eastern europe? not seen a dog without an owner for years around here
Eastern? Having a laugh aren't you?
10 years in Spain, do keep up...
Are you equally vociferous about cat crap? Which I do believe exist in the UK and do have a nasty habit of carrying toxoplasmosis (not nice).
Are you equally vociferous about cat crap?
yup, personally I think that there should be a program to remove feral cats from the environment and to limit owned cats being sent out to depopulate the small birds and mammals in locale 🙂
the reduction in the UK's carbon footprint and benefits to a number of vulnerable species will be invaluable
you're demolishing your general credibility her
😆
TJ the simple fact is livestock are better protected than you under law. Whilst i agree that morally dogs shouldnt annoy you legally you have to be reasonably fearful of injury before you can resort to the legal process. Now can you either find the legal wording or give up please.
AA - its been explained many times. Its a civil wrong under common law not to have your dog under control. Many different bits of law both statute and case cover it. It varies if you are on open land or on a right of way, in England and is Scotland, on land covered by access rights
You are liable for any damage your dog causes if it it not under control. that is your legal obligation and there is many bits of guidance as to what is considered "under control" and "under close control" This is general and additional to specific legislation which place requirements on dog owners
You like others on here are confusing the criminal offence of dog dangerously out of control with the civil wrong of failing to keep your dog under control.
TJ what is a cival wrong under common law i have no idea. Can you give me some specific laws or examples please? I talking public places not farmland and we are talking about being out of control not causing damage.
Keep wriggling!
Does any of the civil legislation define 'out of control' (like the DDA defines 'dangerously out of control')?
I don't like this thread any more!!
Somebody call my lawyer....
AA - I have done thru this thread - you just don't want to accept it
teh great ape
Its defined by case law and there are accepted definitions which I have posted before.
Enough
Some dog owners make me very, well, astonished really.
One day I was in the park with my dog Sam (dead now, of cancer). He was an exceptionally big lurcher. He was standing next to me, quietly, we were watching some birds on the lake.
A medium sized dog came running towards us, its woman owner puffing and panting along behind it, shouting its name. Medium sized dog totally ignored owner and kept running toward Sam and I, barking and snarling. Woman running and shouting, dog ignoring and advancing on us.
The dog arrived at us. Started dancing round Sam barking and snarling. Sam let out two almighty barks. Woman finally arrives, still cannot capture her dog, shouts at me "YOU SHOULD KEEP YOUR DOG UNDER CONTROL!".
Mental.
It happens a lot with small dogs. My dog is under control (because if it wasn't all hell would break loose - see above - probably the very end of Middle England lol), but small dogs are very often aggressive, they run up to me and my dog barking, snapping and snarling.
The owner invariably find this funny.
I often wonder how funny they would think it was if my dog bit their horrible disobedient f**cking yappy little b8st8rd thing.
😀
[img] 
[/img]
😀
I often wonder how funny they would think it was if my dog bit their horrible disobedient f**cking yappy little b8st8rd thing.
And a Merry Christmas to you to.
[img] http://www.smileys4me.com/getsmiley.php?show=2152 [/img]
Not answering questions not only loses any credibility in this thread TJ, but also in others where you seem to think that simply repeating a question gives you a [i]win[/i].
This, like all legal questions, does not have a clear argument or answer. We have Judges who listen to the most convincing argument and make a decision baswed on the legal framework. The guidelines you provided earlier are just that, guidelines and not law. The law you provide is ambiguous and provokes debate, as it should. But, to blindly go round in circles repeating yourself is not a good strategy.
I think the answer to my previous questions about what the police or courts would do if faced with the legal challenging dilemma of the crotch sniffing dog as a test case, both you and I know the answer is nothing.
Unless you can bring a case of a member of the public who didn't like dogs, not one that had a phobia, who successfully won a legal case against a crotch sniffing dog, then step away and admit that this is an argument that you will never win.
Equally the rolling of eyes and questioning people's ability to read is not a good strategy either.
Good luck and I hope that both you and Wikipedia can do something positive and change the world.
[img] http://www.smileys4me.com/getsmiley.php?show=2152 [/img]<
😆 Solstice Greetings, merry meet
Don - I have answered the questions repeatedly hence the rolling of eyes.
Your example -Its common law - duty of care applies if none of the various specific provisions that apply in certain areas and conditions applied. Damages would be token only tho.
Dogs Act 1871 Section 2:This is a [u]civil[/u] (not criminal) complaint-although heard at a Magistrates’ Court, it therefore operates on a lower standard of proof - on a balance of probabilities It is important to note that the Act can be applied to both public and private places.
Civil proceedings, commenced by way of complaint, can be taken by the police, local authority or individual members of the public.
A complaint can be made to the Magistrates’ Court that a dog is dangerous, and [u]not kept under proper control[/u]. It is the dog’s owner who is proceeded against (as opposed to someone in charge of the dog at the time).
Is that the civil one you mean? (It's from the endangereddogs.com site you linked to earlier)