The message
from contains these words:


But surely if you can only become injured by clambering over said
wall/fence, you cease to be a passer by and become an unwelcome visitor

Unwelcome visitors, thieves and burglars are entitled to go about
their business unmolested by their victims, as Tony Martin discovered.

Janet.

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 16:07:57 -0000, "shazzbat"
wrote:

SNIP
Correct signage and complying with local bye-laws will go some way to
protect your rights, however even if you put up a 30 foot high "beware of
the dog" sign, if an intruder is savaged by the pet poodle you can still
be
sued.... and the court can rightfully force removal of the deterrent - in
that case, destroy the animal.

Unless of course you are a royal personage with a bull terrier.

a pair of bull terriers suffering an identity crisis.
--
Martin

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 16:07:57 -0000, "shazzbat"
wrote:

SNIP
Correct signage and complying with local bye-laws will go some way to
protect your rights, however even if you put up a 30 foot high "beware of
the dog" sign, if an intruder is savaged by the pet poodle you can still
be
sued.... and the court can rightfully force removal of the deterrent - in
that case, destroy the animal.

Unless of course you are a royal personage with a bull terrier.

a pair of bull terriers suffering an identity crisis.
--
Martin

"Heather" wrote in message ...
[...]
Try the Occupiers Liability Act 1984.

Section 2 requires an occupier of premises to take reasonable care to ensure
that trespassers are not injured by a danger on the occupier's land of which
he (the occupier) was aware.

The law in this case (which is clearly an ass) would not consider a row of
nails along a fence to be "reasonable". This not only could the occupier be
prosecuted under this (criminal) law, but it would give the injured
trespasser the right of action in the civil courts. There is some
indication that putting up warning signs may be a suitable defence, however
I'm aware of at least one case (involving a commercial occupier not
domestic) where this defence failed because the trespasser (who was
seriously injured) could not read.......

I never understand when this kind of topic comes up why people think
the law is "an ass" for providing that we should avoid putting
dangerous things in proximity to the public. We could all think of
plenty of ways in which a spiky fence might injure the person or
property of a perfectly innocent passer-by; and it's not much harder
to think of perfectly innocent reasons why one of us might need to
scramble over somebody else's boundary without permission.

Mike.

"Heather" wrote in message ...
[...]
Try the Occupiers Liability Act 1984.

Section 2 requires an occupier of premises to take reasonable care to ensure
that trespassers are not injured by a danger on the occupier's land of which
he (the occupier) was aware.

The law in this case (which is clearly an ass) would not consider a row of
nails along a fence to be "reasonable". This not only could the occupier be
prosecuted under this (criminal) law, but it would give the injured
trespasser the right of action in the civil courts. There is some
indication that putting up warning signs may be a suitable defence, however
I'm aware of at least one case (involving a commercial occupier not
domestic) where this defence failed because the trespasser (who was
seriously injured) could not read.......

I never understand when this kind of topic comes up why people think
the law is "an ass" for providing that we should avoid putting
dangerous things in proximity to the public. We could all think of
plenty of ways in which a spiky fence might injure the person or
property of a perfectly innocent passer-by; and it's not much harder
to think of perfectly innocent reasons why one of us might need to
scramble over somebody else's boundary without permission.

Mike.

"Janet Baraclough" wrote in message
...
The message
from contains these words:


But surely if you can only become injured by clambering over said
wall/fence, you cease to be a passer by and become an unwelcome visitor

Unwelcome visitors, thieves and burglars are entitled to go about
their business unmolested by their victims, as Tony Martin discovered.

Janet.


Tony Martin stood up for his rights & I don't think he was in the wrong,
just a little sloppy with his aim, but, not everyone lives in the middle of
nowhere, would you be happy with loose shots flying about the streets in a
town? Mind you, holding a shotgun in a town centre would probably be
illegal, just as Tony Martins was, not only in the fact he didn't have a
license but by the fact pump action guns were banned some time ago.

"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
om...
"Heather" wrote in message
...
[...]
Try the Occupiers Liability Act 1984.

Section 2 requires an occupier of premises to take reasonable care to
ensure
that trespassers are not injured by a danger on the occupier's land of
which
he (the occupier) was aware.

The law in this case (which is clearly an ass) would not consider a row
of
nails along a fence to be "reasonable". This not only could the
occupier be
prosecuted under this (criminal) law, but it would give the injured
trespasser the right of action in the civil courts. There is some
indication that putting up warning signs may be a suitable defence,
however
I'm aware of at least one case (involving a commercial occupier not
domestic) where this defence failed because the trespasser (who was
seriously injured) could not read.......

I never understand when this kind of topic comes up why people think
the law is "an ass" for providing that we should avoid putting
dangerous things in proximity to the public. We could all think of
plenty of ways in which a spiky fence might injure the person or
property of a perfectly innocent passer-by; and it's not much harder
to think of perfectly innocent reasons why one of us might need to
scramble over somebody else's boundary without permission.

Mike.

Go on then.

--
Tumbleweed

Remove theobvious before replying (but no email reply necessary to
newsgroups)

"Tumbleweed" wrote in message
...
"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
om...
"Heather" wrote in message
...
[...]
Try the Occupiers Liability Act 1984.

Section 2 requires an occupier of premises to take reasonable care to
ensure
that trespassers are not injured by a danger on the occupier's land of
which
he (the occupier) was aware.

The law in this case (which is clearly an ass) would not consider a
row
of
nails along a fence to be "reasonable". This not only could the
occupier be
prosecuted under this (criminal) law, but it would give the injured
trespasser the right of action in the civil courts. There is some
indication that putting up warning signs may be a suitable defence,
however
I'm aware of at least one case (involving a commercial occupier not
domestic) where this defence failed because the trespasser (who was
seriously injured) could not read.......

I never understand when this kind of topic comes up why people think
the law is "an ass" for providing that we should avoid putting
dangerous things in proximity to the public. We could all think of
plenty of ways in which a spiky fence might injure the person or
property of a perfectly innocent passer-by; and it's not much harder
to think of perfectly innocent reasons why one of us might need to
scramble over somebody else's boundary without permission.

Mike.

Go on then.

--
Tumbleweed

Remove theobvious before replying (but no email reply necessary to
newsgroups)

Coz your going to rob the house next door?

Threw your stash over coz of a passing plod car?

Ooops, thought it was my garden, got a phobia of doors?

SNIP
Correct signage and complying with local bye-laws will go some way to
protect your rights, however even if you put up a 30 foot high "beware of
the dog" sign, if an intruder is savaged by the pet poodle you can still
be
sued.... and the court can rightfully force removal of the deterrent - in
that case, destroy the animal.

Unless of course you are a royal personage with a bull terrier.

Steve

SNIP
Correct signage and complying with local bye-laws will go some way to
protect your rights, however even if you put up a 30 foot high "beware of
the dog" sign, if an intruder is savaged by the pet poodle you can still
be
sued.... and the court can rightfully force removal of the deterrent - in
that case, destroy the animal.

Unless of course you are a royal personage with a bull terrier.

Steve

In article ,
Janet Baraclough wrote:
The message
from contains these words:

But surely if you can only become injured by clambering over said
wall/fence, you cease to be a passer by and become an unwelcome visitor

Unwelcome visitors, thieves and burglars are entitled to go about
their business unmolested by their victims, as Tony Martin discovered.

So, the next time you get lost and go to the wrong house, the owner
should be entitled to shoot you in the back as you leave?

Yes, Martin's victims were attempting burglary, but that does not
justify shooting them as they fled.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

The message
from contains these words:


But surely if you can only become injured by clambering over said
wall/fence, you cease to be a passer by and become an unwelcome visitor

Unwelcome visitors, thieves and burglars are entitled to go about
their business unmolested by their victims, as Tony Martin discovered.

Janet.

The message
from contains these words:


But surely if you can only become injured by clambering over said
wall/fence, you cease to be a passer by and become an unwelcome visitor

Unwelcome visitors, thieves and burglars are entitled to go about
their business unmolested by their victims, as Tony Martin discovered.

Janet.

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 16:07:57 -0000, "shazzbat"
wrote:

SNIP
Correct signage and complying with local bye-laws will go some way to
protect your rights, however even if you put up a 30 foot high "beware of
the dog" sign, if an intruder is savaged by the pet poodle you can still
be
sued.... and the court can rightfully force removal of the deterrent - in
that case, destroy the animal.

Unless of course you are a royal personage with a bull terrier.

a pair of bull terriers suffering an identity crisis.
--
Martin

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 16:07:57 -0000, "shazzbat"
wrote:

SNIP
Correct signage and complying with local bye-laws will go some way to
protect your rights, however even if you put up a 30 foot high "beware of
the dog" sign, if an intruder is savaged by the pet poodle you can still
be
sued.... and the court can rightfully force removal of the deterrent - in
that case, destroy the animal.

Unless of course you are a royal personage with a bull terrier.

a pair of bull terriers suffering an identity crisis.
--
Martin