What a sad state of affairs Olazz , some of the laws and interpretation of said laws just dumbfound me , how they can make the lowlife crim the victim here is just mindboggling . I hope you get the legal support you need ( may be time to make some waves in the media ) and common sense will prevail . Love the Rottie , had 3 over the years and I wouldn't surrender Any one of mine for defending his and my territory , Good luck Olazz on a righteous outcome ..cheers Mick
Don't like the adverts? Click here to remove them
Police want Him put down!!
- Thread starter Olazz
- Start date
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2013
- Messages
- 16,265
Well you have satisfied your duty of care and the animal was defending his home by the only means available to him . I would make it absolutely clear to the council that you will be going to Court and you will be seeking compensation for your inconvenience and emotional distress because they have no right to order extermination . Can they prove that the injuries happened on your property and it was your dog that bit the burglar , if not they will have to go to court and explain to the judge they want to put your dog down because a self confessed burglar told them to 
Sorry ishe. What a f'wit. Send us his address please ... Eye for an eye
Did that a while ago lc, not intentionally at the time I suppose, but felt very little incentive to return.
All the above sentiments, with bells on. Incredible. You've a fine guard there Lazz, and the law should recognize that. The scumbag got everything he deserved and I would want to sue him for any compensation I could get.
But please do take proper legal advice, this is one that could go nasty if mishandled. It would be a tragedy if He came to any harm.
Don't like the adverts? Click here to remove them
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2012
- Messages
- 2,739
- Country Flag
FFS! I cant believe this...what a shitty country. Get legal advise ASAP. You have to save the good dog!
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2013
- Messages
- 16,265
Its a jumped up little hitler at the council enjoying his "authority" 
police won't give a damn but they have to support gov officials i would be down at hitlers office saying right you cunt where are we going with this because i will tell you right now i will sell my car my house and everything i own to pay for lawyers if i must you are not putting my dog down . Its a sad fact of life that money talks and little hitler will get in trouble if he blows the entire council budget on legal fees . Of course he will never admit being less than perfect so the likelihood is you will get a letter drenched in arrogance saying something like we who are almighty and gracious have reviewed the facts and on this occasion we have decided in our superior wisdom and gracious tolerance to exercise restraint but we will have MI5 and MI6 and the CIA position you under satellite surveillance so we can fine you a million pound and shoot your dog and your mother if it happens again .
police won't give a damn but they have to support gov officials i would be down at hitlers office saying right you cunt where are we going with this because i will tell you right now i will sell my car my house and everything i own to pay for lawyers if i must you are not putting my dog down . Its a sad fact of life that money talks and little hitler will get in trouble if he blows the entire council budget on legal fees . Of course he will never admit being less than perfect so the likelihood is you will get a letter drenched in arrogance saying something like we who are almighty and gracious have reviewed the facts and on this occasion we have decided in our superior wisdom and gracious tolerance to exercise restraint but we will have MI5 and MI6 and the CIA position you under satellite surveillance so we can fine you a million pound and shoot your dog and your mother if it happens again .
Olazz
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2010
- Messages
- 1,428
- Country Flag
Appreciate all the words of support guys.
What astounds me, is that if we all feel this way ( I know this forum is but a microcosm of Britain's society), but the sentiment is echoed not just on this forum, how has this country come to have laws as such.
Someone must have campaigned to enact them, and parliament have duly done so.
So who are these people who believe that these types of rules and law-making is wanted and welcomed by the populace?
What astounds me, is that if we all feel this way ( I know this forum is but a microcosm of Britain's society), but the sentiment is echoed not just on this forum, how has this country come to have laws as such.
Someone must have campaigned to enact them, and parliament have duly done so.
So who are these people who believe that these types of rules and law-making is wanted and welcomed by the populace?
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2010
- Messages
- 6,052
- Country Flag
Aren't they inadvertent?
A law that says you must offer due care to someone on your property.
Burglar gets bitten by dog.
That law gets invoked. Hands are tied.
I was speaking to a friend in SA about it and he laughed. He suggested the police would not have given it a second thought other than "ha ha, dog did good" and move on.
Maybe it's because there is relatively nothing really to do that they have the time for stuff like this? Once the precedent is set then it has to be upheld.
Hope it all works out!!!
A law that says you must offer due care to someone on your property.
Burglar gets bitten by dog.
That law gets invoked. Hands are tied.
I was speaking to a friend in SA about it and he laughed. He suggested the police would not have given it a second thought other than "ha ha, dog did good" and move on.
Maybe it's because there is relatively nothing really to do that they have the time for stuff like this? Once the precedent is set then it has to be upheld.
Hope it all works out!!!
It varies, there are the goody goodies who get a warm fuzzy feeling from thinking they are helping others to the types who say "Do as I say, not as I do" to those who are afraid to be accused of not having done something when a problem arises.
Problem is that you are dealing with two types of law here. Criminal and civil. Criminal law is the law of the state and enforced by the authorities. Civil law is the law of precedent and what has gone before as being generally 'right'. When the two run together it can get very confused at times. If a person is bitten by a dog, in effect an assault, the fact that the person should not have been there isn't always taken into consideration. Did the dog bite the man? That is the question surrounding criminal law. Has a crime been committed? Righteousness has nothing to do with it. Now was it fair that the man was bitten by the dog? Hah, a very different question.
Thing is that in a case such as this, the Police can be very understanding, sympathetic and as they hate all scrotes might just say, nothing to see, move along. No crime committed. It's natural justice. In order to prosecute someone, the Police (via CPS) must be able to demonstrate that it is in the public interest. Ie that the tax payer would like to see justice served. In this case I think we have asked the people's jury and they have said, no. So the law isn't really a silly law here, it's a law that says people must control their dogs. Correct application of the law is what is questionable.
Now where that can go awry is if the Police have a particular beef or if the dog owner has overstepped the mark. Let's say there is a break in and the dog scares the scum bag off but then the owner send the dogs after them even though the threat has now gone. This is what really happened in the Tony Martin case. He was safe but still went after Fred Barras and killed him. Reasonable force is really about using just enough more force as needed to come out on top. Which in a life and death situation is why you can kill the other guy and it still be reasonable. Of course sometimes the cops HAVE to investigate because someone kicks up enough fuss to force their hand. Can't imagine this being the case here unless it's the council for some reason.
Anyhoo, that duty of care that we have had mentioned as being owed is a CIVIL duty. Not a Police matter. They don't enforce that. You cannot be charged and prosecuted for failure to provide that duty of care. Look at a car crash. The Police turn up and as long as they don't see that a crime has been committed - speed, maintenance, distraction, drugs etc = they drive away. They are only interested in an offence. Not blame. Injury is not a crime, it's a result of a crime. If they can't see a crime then they aren't interested in the injury. It's that simple.
So criminal law judged against a book of strict rules. You can appeal of course if you think that the rule has been misapplied or misunderstood etc.
Civil law judged against a history of what we decided the last time something like this happened. This can be changed though. Precedents are set but can be overturned and reversed which becomes the new precedent
Criminal cases usually take precedent over civil matters and historically if found guilty of a crime then being sued is easier as the duty of care bit is sort of proven by the criminal case. Not always though. If no criminal action is taken, this can strengthen the defendant's case against being sued, but again not always.
For there to be a civil case, it must be proven that there was a duty owed, that this duty was breached in a knowing, wilful, negligent manner and that any injury or loss was as a direct result of that breach. There is the impression that you can sue for just about anything and win, well you can't and lots of people fail but it doesn't hit the headlines. Sometimes the plaintiff wins the case (say a burglar) but the court indicates 100% contributory negligence. In other words it wouldn't have happened if they hadn't been there. But the facts of the case were that someone else who was not a thieving shit could have suffered the same fate. Let's say a child retrieving a football from a garden. So yes they can win but get nothing.
Anyway, all that aside, I truly hope this goes away mate. I have met your dog and he's soft as shite. Well he was with us that's for sure and frankly I'd like to see the law changed in favour of the home owner. There are too may softies out there who say oh but if you could batter theiving scrotes to death with bat with nails in it, you could entrap someone you don't like, invite them in then claim they were really scum and it was all a terrible misunderstanding. Right. So that's going to happen MORE than real break ins, is it? Bring back the death penealty - oh no what if you hang someone innocent? Sure, but what about the other genuinely guilty scutters that we execute and improve the world?
Thing is that in a case such as this, the Police can be very understanding, sympathetic and as they hate all scrotes might just say, nothing to see, move along. No crime committed. It's natural justice. In order to prosecute someone, the Police (via CPS) must be able to demonstrate that it is in the public interest. Ie that the tax payer would like to see justice served. In this case I think we have asked the people's jury and they have said, no. So the law isn't really a silly law here, it's a law that says people must control their dogs. Correct application of the law is what is questionable.
Now where that can go awry is if the Police have a particular beef or if the dog owner has overstepped the mark. Let's say there is a break in and the dog scares the scum bag off but then the owner send the dogs after them even though the threat has now gone. This is what really happened in the Tony Martin case. He was safe but still went after Fred Barras and killed him. Reasonable force is really about using just enough more force as needed to come out on top. Which in a life and death situation is why you can kill the other guy and it still be reasonable. Of course sometimes the cops HAVE to investigate because someone kicks up enough fuss to force their hand. Can't imagine this being the case here unless it's the council for some reason.
Anyhoo, that duty of care that we have had mentioned as being owed is a CIVIL duty. Not a Police matter. They don't enforce that. You cannot be charged and prosecuted for failure to provide that duty of care. Look at a car crash. The Police turn up and as long as they don't see that a crime has been committed - speed, maintenance, distraction, drugs etc = they drive away. They are only interested in an offence. Not blame. Injury is not a crime, it's a result of a crime. If they can't see a crime then they aren't interested in the injury. It's that simple.
So criminal law judged against a book of strict rules. You can appeal of course if you think that the rule has been misapplied or misunderstood etc.
Civil law judged against a history of what we decided the last time something like this happened. This can be changed though. Precedents are set but can be overturned and reversed which becomes the new precedent
Criminal cases usually take precedent over civil matters and historically if found guilty of a crime then being sued is easier as the duty of care bit is sort of proven by the criminal case. Not always though. If no criminal action is taken, this can strengthen the defendant's case against being sued, but again not always.
For there to be a civil case, it must be proven that there was a duty owed, that this duty was breached in a knowing, wilful, negligent manner and that any injury or loss was as a direct result of that breach. There is the impression that you can sue for just about anything and win, well you can't and lots of people fail but it doesn't hit the headlines. Sometimes the plaintiff wins the case (say a burglar) but the court indicates 100% contributory negligence. In other words it wouldn't have happened if they hadn't been there. But the facts of the case were that someone else who was not a thieving shit could have suffered the same fate. Let's say a child retrieving a football from a garden. So yes they can win but get nothing.
Anyway, all that aside, I truly hope this goes away mate. I have met your dog and he's soft as shite. Well he was with us that's for sure and frankly I'd like to see the law changed in favour of the home owner. There are too may softies out there who say oh but if you could batter theiving scrotes to death with bat with nails in it, you could entrap someone you don't like, invite them in then claim they were really scum and it was all a terrible misunderstanding. Right. So that's going to happen MORE than real break ins, is it? Bring back the death penealty - oh no what if you hang someone innocent? Sure, but what about the other genuinely guilty scutters that we execute and improve the world?
silvercruiser
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2010
- Messages
- 3,368
Sorry to hear this Olazz i hope you can get this sorted and save the Lovely Dog.
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2013
- Messages
- 16,265
There must be nigh on a thousand coppers out there from my youth that would be astonished to hear me say it , but the law is rarely wrong . The trouble is very few are qualified to interpret the law correctly and assumption often denies justice which is why we have the court system . All laws are written as a guide and none are written in stone because in an ever changing world what is right and good today may not be right and good tomorrow . The people who make these rules do it for the greater good but circumstance is everything .
If it is wrong you are expected to challenge the law - that's how it evolves . Despite being told that i had no chance by every solicitor i asked , and despite being threatened with being sued for tens of thousands in legals fees , i challenged the law and won , not by being clever or aggressive i simply insisted in stating my case before a court because i had been wronged and police and government thought that was ok - so i wanted a judge to tell why it's ok .
If it is wrong you are expected to challenge the law - that's how it evolves . Despite being told that i had no chance by every solicitor i asked , and despite being threatened with being sued for tens of thousands in legals fees , i challenged the law and won , not by being clever or aggressive i simply insisted in stating my case before a court because i had been wronged and police and government thought that was ok - so i wanted a judge to tell why it's ok .
Hmm, not quite Shayne. Criminal law is written in stone. That's why it's called statute law (ha ha not statue. That would be funny). The law says you cannot drive the wrong way up a one way street. It's an offence. An absolute. You cannot own a firearm without a licence. It's not optional or a guide. You can't drive without insurance etc etc. I'd be worried there were few who were qualified to interpret the law correctly. Surely these people have to do some sort of exam don't they?
There is some interpretation at times, but criminal law isn't written as guidance or you wouldn't be able to secure a conviction against is. The law of precedence is, I agree, open to a great deal of interpretation. But an Act is an Act. Approved by Parliament.
Again this sounds like a confusion between civil and criminal law. The case you mention sounds like common law Shayne. I would think you challenged the verdict, or a decision rather than challenge a law. No? Civil laws aren't actually written down anywhere, they are contained in case precedents. Very glad to hear you won though. Mostly criminal law is about evidence where civil law is in the logic of an argument. You must have put your case over very clearly, enough so to make the judge say, hmm, Shayne me boy, on balance, I like your version better.
There is some interpretation at times, but criminal law isn't written as guidance or you wouldn't be able to secure a conviction against is. The law of precedence is, I agree, open to a great deal of interpretation. But an Act is an Act. Approved by Parliament.
Again this sounds like a confusion between civil and criminal law. The case you mention sounds like common law Shayne. I would think you challenged the verdict, or a decision rather than challenge a law. No? Civil laws aren't actually written down anywhere, they are contained in case precedents. Very glad to hear you won though. Mostly criminal law is about evidence where civil law is in the logic of an argument. You must have put your case over very clearly, enough so to make the judge say, hmm, Shayne me boy, on balance, I like your version better.
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2013
- Messages
- 16,265
Yes both are very different types of laws Chris but both are subject to evidence and circumstance , if you drive the wrong way up a one way street you have committed an offence but if you strongly believe you are not guilty of any wrongdoing and you can convince a court of that then case dismissed and no offence was committed despite your being guilty of the act . What i'm trying to promote given the unfortunate situation Olazz finds himself in is that the law civil or criminal supports right over wrong and ultimately plain old common sense usually prevails .
And as for exams i have a one line letter here from a highly qualified solicitor which says and i quote "your case is Doomed to failure" and he was supposed to be on my side
I really must get around to framing it and sending it back one day
And as for exams i have a one line letter here from a highly qualified solicitor which says and i quote "your case is Doomed to failure" and he was supposed to be on my side
I really must get around to framing it and sending it back one day
Last edited:
Shayne, like me you are a principled man. I hate to say that going through the legal system doesn't always deliver justice. You came out on the right side but many don't
Despite the right verdict being obvious there is often some 'rule' that just doesn't allow that right decision to be delivered
I know I am mid case on such an event
It's a frunkin lottery frankly and works both ways
Justice is frankly a bit of a myth a lot of the time and it makes my blood boil quite often
Despite the right verdict being obvious there is often some 'rule' that just doesn't allow that right decision to be delivered
I know I am mid case on such an event
It's a frunkin lottery frankly and works both ways
Justice is frankly a bit of a myth a lot of the time and it makes my blood boil quite often
Sag
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2014
- Messages
- 756
Really sorry to hear about this,but got to say my dog would do exactly the same buddy,she's there to protect my family and house as well as been the most loving dog to the people who aren't scum and think they don't need to work just take off the ones what do.
Get a petition going on Facebook ect every bit of support has got to help,I think you will be amazed how many people will be there for you.
hope it gets sorted in your favour buddy.
Get a petition going on Facebook ect every bit of support has got to help,I think you will be amazed how many people will be there for you.
hope it gets sorted in your favour buddy.
Similar threads
