What you said was that the ONLY reason she was in Court was because of her warning signs. All the rest of what you say about it is so vague it means very little. About the prosecution 'making much of it' and 'it seeming to escape them that a 12 yr old had broken in'. If that's just YOUR opinion or what you read into it - so be it. But you state these things as facts and/or law.

Have you by any chance got a link to this story so we can decide for ourselves whether they overlooked the break in or made too much of the signs?

As to whether it should have been the boy in court and not the woman - I can't possibly comment without reading the details of the case but the age of criminal responsibility in the UK was only lowered to 10 a few years ago - before that you had to be 15 to be charged with committing a crime. Current situation is

And that's from a credible source from a link on the UK.gov website.
https://www.gov.uk/age-of-criminal-responsibility

That's it thanks Nippy

Hi The reason behind this thread,was because when I read this womans plight,the whole country was split in two minds re the Norfolk farmer,he discharged a firearm,because he was being constantly trespassed against by some youths,he was alone and they were on his property and he felt threatened,he did end up in prison,but I think what that case did was to make people who thought that there home was their castle and could do what they liked to defend it,and as the case went on,this notion soon became fiction not fact.Gemini54

Totally confused now. You started by citing a case (that I still can't find) of a woman's dog attacking a young lad who broke into her house more or less saying most were ignorant of the law regarding dogs and beware of the dog signs.

You are now talking about a case from almost 15 years ago of a Norfolk farmer SHOOTING an intruder? What's that got to do with DOGS?

To quote your title for this thread - surprise surprise!

*I assume the old case of the Norfolk Farmer refers to Tony Martin. Found guilty by a jury - was in possession of a shotgun illegally as his licence had been revoked some time before for shooting at someones car who was scrumping his apples. Found guilty of lying in court about the circumstances of the shooting too. And who, after serving his 3yr sentence, allied himself to the National Front and the British National Party.

Quite what any of that has to do with the illegality or otherwise of BEWARE OF THE DOG signs baffles me.

As I recall the Norfolk farmer was known in his community by the nickname pitbull, due to his manner. And it came up in court that he used to go round with a tattoo on his head that said "I'm a dog , be warned ". Thus he admitted liability which helped toward the guilty verdict

I think it's a case of failing to win the argument so just chucking anything into the pot to save face. We would be best to step back and away from the thread before hitler is brought in as an example LOL

Hi Though I am not answerable to anyone on here,I was trying to explain what was happening here(the UK) at the time.because as I said people always felt of there home as being there castle and if people got in and trepassed,you could take the law into your own hands,to keep your family safe.But this case of the farmer was on everybodys mind,and would have some bearing on the ladies case because of its similarity,that someone breaks into your home,you end up in court facing charges,because someone got injured who shouldnt have been there in the first place Gemini54

I'm taking your advice Julie.

And don't forget about the tattoo that the Norfolk farmer was wearing I also heard he left his drawbridge down without notifying the sherriff

You seem very young,Tony Martin sentence was reduced to man slaughter I enclose a link but if someone broke into your house,I expect you would find tht amusing as you seem to be having about other peoples misfortunes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_%28farmer%29

Gemini54