Why isn't spiked fencing illegal?

[ben280489 10]

Anybody who gets hurt while climbing over spiked fencing on somebody elses property is either:

 

- A stupid criminal who deserves to get hurt

 

- Some idiot who knows there are spiked there but decides to climb over anyway

 

I think people should be able to set what ever traps they want on their own land. Razor wire for example, will teach criminals a lesson that they will never learn in jail. Unless they get an unlucky bar of soap of course.

[danot 10]

Find it hard to understand what you are getting at Danot.

Do you think it is wrong to put up spiked fencing to stop thieves from entering school grounds, or should we make it easier for them.

I think the primary function is deterrent and the fact that it is spiked adds to that deterrent.

This type of fencing tends to deter theives more than any other undesirables.

Nicking stuff and then trying to climb back over the same spiked fencing can't be easy.

They move on and look for another target.

I personally don't think it's wrong, I'm not overly concerned about the welfare of thieves climbing barbed wire, or spiked fencing. I'm just interested in hearing other views on the implementation of such fences.

[Dogs Of War 10]

Ah yes, the old "the law doesn't apply to me on my own property" argument. Totally untrue of course.

 

my razor wire is 8ft off the ground on my garage roof ,so clearly anyone who was badly cut by it would either have to be a giant or a thief.

 

im breaking NO law, the razor wire is legal ,and clearly visable , and is there as a deterent to stop scum trying to break into my property.

[Mutts Nutts 10]

I think the installation of spiked fencing happens because of the high equipment value risk from theiving and, maybe arsonists.

If the problem is vandalism then I dont think the need for spiked fencing is valid.

A lot of vandalism is done by males/boys trying to impress girls, espscially in schools with no fencing or inadequate fencing.

If the fence is eight feet high as most are, the attraction for the males/boys goes away.

The reason for that is the girls are very reluctant or will not climb the fencing just to watch show offs destroying property....especially with short skirts on....the girls that is.

[L00b 441]

(...) The Highways Act 1980:

Section 164. Power to require removal of barbed wire

(1) Where on land adjoining a highway there is a fence made with barbed wire, or having barbed wire in or on it, and the wire is a nuisance to the highway, a competent authority may by notice served on the occupier of the land require him to abate the nuisance within such time, not being less than one month nor more than six months from the date of service of the notice, as may be specified in it.

For the purposes of this section -

(...)

(b) 'barbed wire' means wire with spikes or jagged projections, and barbed wire is to be deemed to be a nuisance to a highway if it is likely to be injurious to persons or animals lawfully using the highway.

(...)

Highlighted the most relevant part, for the benefit of readers.

 

Ah yes, the old "the law doesn't apply to me on my own property" argument. Totally untrue of course.

Seems true enough in DoW's case, however, since his 8ft-high wire is "unlikely to be injurious to persons or animals lawfully using the highway" adjacent his garage. Edited July 27, 2010 by L00b

[danot 10]

Anybody who gets hurt while climbing over spiked fencing on somebody elses property is either:

 

- A stupid criminal who deserves to get hurt

 

- Some idiot who knows there are spiked there but decides to climb over anyway

 

I think people should be able to set what ever traps they want on their own land. Razor wire for example, will teach criminals a lesson that they will never learn in jail. Unless they get an unlucky bar of soap of course.

Isn't that what spiked fencing does?, isn't that the sole purpose of it?. Once again, I'm not saying I'm against it, I'm just amazed, that in spite of this country's mamby-panmby attitude towards everything health & safety, we're still allowed to use it.

[L00b 441]

isn't that the sole purpose of it?

If barbed wire (or equivalent) was to have a sole purpose, then I would argue that it is deterring, rather than injuring.

 

Fortunately, it has both purposes: enforcing, if deterrence is not sufficient.

 

The difference is down to the perp's own volition, as I don't imagine anyone forces a perp to try and climb on it.

 

Perhaps the "country" is not so "namby-pamby" after all, eh, danot?

Edited July 27, 2010 by L00b

[danot 10]

I think the installation of spiked fencing happens because of the high equipment value risk from theiving and, maybe arsonists.

If the problem is vandalism then I dont think the need for spiked fencing is valid.

A lot of vandalism is done by males/boys trying to impress girls, espscially in schools with no fencing or inadequate fencing.

If the fence is eight feet high as most are, the attraction for the males/boys goes away.

The reason for that is the girls are very reluctant or will not climb the fencing just to watch show offs destroying property....especially with short skirts on....the girls that is.

I agree with the majority of that, although, not all spiked fences are fitted for security, some are simply for ornamental feature.

[danot 10]

If barbed wire (or equivalent) was to have a sole purpose, then I would argue that it is deterring, rather than injuring.

No, because if the fence is only 6ft high, then it's still scalable, which in my opinion isn't adequate security, therefore the intended purpose of the spikes would be to injure the trespasser, which I find find utterly amazing:hihi:

[Dogs Of War 10]

No, because if the fence is only 6ft high, then it's still scalable, which in my opinion isn't adequate security, therefore the intended purpose of the spikes would be to injure the trespasser, which I find find utterly amazing:hihi:

 

The spikes would only hurt someone trying to enter the property illegally, therefor would be no danger to law abiding members of the public , only criminals intent on breaking the law and commiting crime.

 

seems very reasonable to me to use spiked fencing to protect property.

[danot 10]

The spikes would only hurt someone trying to enter the property illegally, therefor would be no danger to law abiding members of the public , only criminals intent on breaking the law and commiting crime.

 

seems very reasonable to me to use spiked fencing to protect property.

But you will have injured them with intent, aren't we advised not to do that?

[HeadingNorth 11]

Are you saying that having permission to errect lethal looking spiked fencing to deter any would-be trespassers, doesn't seem the slightest bit odd to you?. Also, are you saying that it's primary function is to deter those would-be trespassers?.

 

I believe that to be its primary function, yes. The idea is not to inflict hideous injury on trespassers, but rather, to stop them from trespassing because they don't want hideous injuries.

 

On a much vaster scale, the purpose of nuclear weapons in the hands of the superpowers has always been, to not get used. The fact that they would invoke utter annihilation on the enemy, means that the enemy does not attack to begin with as the chance of victory is nil.