I'm not the one who created the topic, nor am I the man whose dogs were barking and running towards people. If the estate in question is as (a) innocent and (b) busy as you seem to think, then it's not sensible for dogs to be (a) there and (b) on the loose.trazor said:No you are being alarmist
I don't know how often it works for you that you tell people that they haven't understood something that they themselves have said or written, but it amuses me to imagine you trying.You obviously did not understand your own post.
Then there's no logical reason for you to raise the implausible postulate that my post was extreme.I totally agree, and never suggested anything other.It doesn't matter how extreme it might be - if there's a risk to wife and child then it isn't a risk that's worth taking.
I don't know, because I've never been there, and notb665 hasn't told us how many other people were challenged.The point being, how many others was he challenging, so bringing even more notice to their "nefarious activities".
Then please go ahead with not recommending it - I'm not stopping you.But realistic assumptions based on my above point. And I never suggested that notb665 carries on regardless.Softus said:Both of those are assumptions, not facts. If you want to recommend that notb665 carries on regardless, on the basis that you're probably right, then please go ahead - I'm not stopping you.This guy saw them as an easy target, and probably did not like the fact that his dogs were set off by their dog.
That's nice.We are talking about an industrial estate here, I do not see the point in expanding the debate to other "No Go" areas.
And no, I have never been threatened on any industrial estate.
Perhaps I,m just lucky in that I have never walked past an open unit where they are smelting gold down......