Some Common Sense At Last?

September 13, 2013 2 Comments

Finally, a welcome u-turn:

Dog owners will be safe from prosecution under revised dangerous dogs laws if their pet attacks someone trespassing in their home – even if the “intruder” is doing a good turn.

Ministers say dogs cannot be expected to “ascertain the intentions” of those entering a property before reacting.

Quite. But the actual boundary of the property is, it seems, flexible:

In a response to MPs on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee – which has made a number of recommendations to ministers – the government rejected the idea of a similar exemption in relation to attacks on people trespassing in gardens or outhouses.

“A child retrieving a ball from a garden, or a neighbour retrieving garden cuttings, should be protected from dog attacks,” officials said.

And also a burglar testing the security of the dwelling or having it away on his toes with your garden tools, by these conditions!

“Such a distinction reflects the higher likelihood of a trespasser inside or entering a dwelling having malign intent,” the response added.

So your home is your castle, but not your shed or garage…

Tags: , ,

2 Responses to Some Common Sense At Last?

  1. September 13, 2013 at 8:49 am

    Does the law say anything about dangerous snakes, though :twisted:

  2. September 13, 2013 at 1:17 pm

    In that case, does the trespassing child get compensation if they injure themselves in another way, say tripping over a loose flag or something.

    A child retrieving a ball should not be on someones property without their permission. Period.


Email us at contact orphansofliberty at gmail dot com ... if response is tardy, try nourishingobscurity at gmail dot com .

Orphans logo

Feel free to take this for your sidebar.