Grrr, dog owners !

[highlandsflyer]

You still don't understand what you are talking about, both in regards to what material facts are

Rubbish.

and in your assessment my character.

And, um, rubbish.

Very schoolboy.

Well I do have something of a youthful charm - so, um, thanks for that.

Compelling argument.

It seems that disagreeing with you renders one a miserable fellow.

That may be the logical result of an interaction with you for those with a weaker constitution; but I have to report I am far from begging the doctor for Prozac.

Given time you may appreciate I was attempting to have a discussion about the subject and found it odd that you would resort to childish personal attacks.

How about getting to the library? I know it is not fashionable in these days of Wiki and Google, but there really is no substitute for seeing the facts laid out in black and white.

As much as you seem to consider verbal sparring ad nauseam will render you an expert on every subject, it does not. On this issue alone you have indicated a recalcitrant nature.

You obviously have nothing to learn, but everything to say.

Shame.

 

[We_are_Stevo]

Actually there is no substitute for personal experience; and I, unfortunately, have been subjected to more than my fair share and can testify as to the polarized nature of our justice system...

...on the one hand, totally corrupt and self-serving; and on the other like an oasis in the desert to a dying man! :roll:

I applaud Neil for maintaining a dignified stance whilst trying to inject a little commonsense into the all too literal interpretations of the legal minefield hinted at above; without resorting to to the petty character assassination aimed back at him.

When a law is drawn up it is necessarily long-winded and open to interpretation; that is why even the most experienced of Barristers will cart hefty legal tomes into Court to quote/emphasise a precedent. Having, during a long and varied career, been witness to more than one emminent Judges ability to quote chapter and verse from the same pages without referral I had to re-evaluate my opinion of the stuffiness of the profession!

 

[Neil]

You still don't understand what you are talking about, both in regards to what material facts are

Rubbish.

and in your assessment my character.

And, um, rubbish.

Very schoolboy.

Well I do have something of a youthful charm - so, um, thanks for that.

Compelling argument.

Why thank you.

<bows>

It seems that disagreeing with you renders one a miserable fellow.

No, that is incidental.

Being miserable, renders one a miserable fellow.

Given time you may appreciate I was attempting to have a discussion about the subject and found it odd that you would resort to childish personal attacks.

I did no more than you on that score, so: physician, heal thyself.

How about getting to the library? I know it is not fashionable in these days of Wiki and Google, but there really is no substitute for seeing the facts laid out in black and white.

I have plenty of books, thank-you very much.

The problem with your assertion, is cloudy and suspect interpretation and application of theory, to likely real-world scenarios.

Given what you've been saying all along, Steve should have been "bang to rights". Yet he wasn't - despite (I'm guessing...) probably being somewhat abrupt with the visiting police. Now why would that be? You say that the woman would have had "material facts" on her side - surely it would have been an easy win.

As much as you seem to consider verbal sparring ad nauseam will render you an expert on every subject, it does not. On this issue alone you have indicated a recalcitrant nature.

Let me respond in kind - and once again, you resort to misplaced hubris.

You obviously have nothing to learn, but everything to say.

Denial and projection.

Never have I seen so many projections from somebody who really should be spending as much time perusing their flaws in the looking glass, as how much time they spend trying to laud what they perceive as flaws in others.

Shame.

Quite.

Nothing so blind as those who will not see.

 

[Charlieboy28]

would this picture be sufficient for a successful prosecution then?

 

[Neil]

I applaud Neil for maintaining a dignified stance whilst trying to inject a little commonsense into the all too literal interpretations of the legal minefield hinted at above;

Absolutely - that's all I've been saying all along.

Theory about the law and the semantics of what a particular law covers are one thing - it can be an entirely different prospect in practice, though.

All I was seeking to point out, given what was initially stated (which, for the record, I have no issue with) is to just inject some clarity and pragmatism for what really will happen.

It's one thing to suggest what could happen - but doesn't make that in any way likely. In theory, drivers could all be prosecuted for driving 31 mph in a 30 limit - in practice, it's unlikely (that doesn't mean impossible, that doesn't mean never happened - it just means, it's unlikely).

In the same way that saying somebody could make a complaint that they merely thought they were at risk from an owners dog, may result in prosecution and action - but the reality is, that that's quite unlikely, just based purely on the opinions and thoughts of the person making the complaint.

 

[Charlieboy28]

In the same way that saying somebody could make a complaint that they merely thought they were at risk from an owners dog, may result in prosecution and action - but the reality is, that that's quite unlikely, just based purely on the opinions and thoughts of the person making the complaint.

but as you have rightly said that doesnt happen, nothing is taken in isolation,upon receiving a complaint its investigated, context credibility etc etc are all taken into account.

eg. the poleece receive a complaint of a dangerous dog, they go round and find some chav with a pitbull type thing that trys to eat them, good chance of a prosecution

or they go round and find 87 yr old granny grouty with a yorky that licks the poleece to death and that only barked because he got scared by a twig falling , unlikely to proceed

 

[IDB1]

It's one thing to suggest what could happen - but doesn't make that in any way likely. In theory, drivers could all be prosecuted for driving 31 mph in a 30 limit - in practice, it's unlikely (that doesn't mean impossible, that doesn't mean never happened - it just means, it's unlikely)

That has already been agreed but, do you not think that it's important to know the possible risk?

 

[Neil]

It's one thing to suggest what could happen - but doesn't make that in any way likely. In theory, drivers could all be prosecuted for driving 31 mph in a 30 limit - in practice, it's unlikely (that doesn't mean impossible, that doesn't mean never happened - it just means, it's unlikely)

That has already been agreed but, do you not think that it's important to know the possible risk?

Yes - I also think it's important to put it in context.

Theory is one thing - plenty of bookshelf warriors can give you chapter and verse on semantics - but the reality is also important. Whilst the detail can matter, the pragmatic likelihood and practical application needs bearing in mind - else people overreact in the opposite way - scared that their dog even looks at somebody funny for fear of what they might think and then complain about.

People can tell you all sorts of obscure or dramatic aspects of law, based on exactly what's stipulated and some theoretical possibility(ies) - but case history shows the likely application - or not - as the case(s) may be.

 

[IDB1]

I know of many people who have fallen foul of the DDA.. largely through ignorance.

 

[Neil]

I know of many people who have fallen foul of the DDA.. largely through ignorance.

I'm not suggesting people should be ignorant of, or ignore aspects of the DDA. Merely that not being ignorant means something more than simply what's written in the act - what's purely potential - but the practical and real-world implications are germane, too.