"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)

"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?

"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?

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.

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.

In article ,
(Mike Lyle) wrote:

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.

No, I never understand why ordinary plebs think they are allowed to
defend their property in the same way as government bodies do.

Steve Harris - Cheltenham - Real address steve AT netservs DOT com

Subject: Boundary crossing deterrents(was tree cat damage)
From: (Nick Maclaren)
Date: 31/12/2003 16:41 GMT Standard Time
Message-id:

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.

Ok, can I just point out, before the flames get too high, that Martin's guilt
was decided by a jury. A collection of ordinary people much like us, with
their own prejudices and ideas about the law and those people like us decided
what he did amounted to murder.

They sat and listened to all sides and saw all the evidence. Most of us
probably only got what was reported by the media and judging by some of the
reports it was a horribly slanted view.

My point is that somewhere in all that evidence they saw something which
justified to these ordinary people finding him guilty.

Ok, carry on with the flames.
--
Rhiannon
http://www.livejournal.com/users/rhiannon_s/
Q: how many witches does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: depends on what you want it changed into!

"Rhiannon S" wrote in message
...
Subject: Boundary crossing deterrents(was tree cat damage)
From: (Nick Maclaren)
Date: 31/12/2003 16:41 GMT Standard Time
Message-id:

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.


Yes, he should have shot them before they were fleeing.

Steve

Mike Lyle typed

Please tell me WHY you would need to.

scramble over somebody else's boundary without permission.

Mike.

The message
from "Synaptic Flow" contains these words:

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.

Hmmmm. Teacher is here.

Holding a shotgun, meaning keeping it, is not illegal in a town centre
providing the proper certificate is held and the conditions adhered to.

The Apostrophe Protection Society will be paying you a visit in the New Year.

Tony Martin didn't have a licence, or to be exact, a certificate.
License is a verb.

Pump action shotguns are not banned.

Pump action shotguns which have a magazine which will only hold (IIRC)
two cartridges may be held on a normal shotgun certificate.

Pump action shotguns with a magazine which will hold more than (IIRC)
two cartridges require a firearm certificate.

Happy new year from Teech.

--
Rusty Hinge http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/tqt.htm

Dark thoughts about the Wumpus concerto played with piano,
iron bar and two sledge hammers. (Wumpus, 15/11/03)

Mike Lyle typed

Please tell me WHY you would need to.

scramble over somebody else's boundary without permission.

Mike.

The message
from "Tumbleweed" contains these words:

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.

Being attacked by a Royal Bull Terrier?

Seeing a group of thugs approaching?

Being in the path of a runaway vehicle?

being in fact, Father Christmas?

--
Rusty Hinge http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/tqt.htm

Dark thoughts about the Wumpus concerto played with piano,
iron bar and two sledge hammers. (Wumpus, 15/11/03)