Comments by "Tony L" (@tlangdon12) on "Ex Won't Give Your dog Back? | Animal Ownership | BlackBeltBarrister" video.

  1. I'm sure this will be a very useful video to anyone who is separating and needs to decide whether to argue over who takes a pet or animal with them. I would encourage anyone in this situation to think about what is best for the animal in the future. Who will provide them with the love, food, exercise and vetinary care that they need? If both parties can do this equally, but the parties are going to be living a long way apart, a decision is going to have to be made that is ultimately going to be 'unfair' on one party. I would suggest that in this case, that one of you opens your mind to getting a new pet (ideally from a rescue). Of course, it won't be the same as the pet you are giving up, but it is likely to love you with the same intensity and honesty as your current pet (unless it is a cat, in which case all bets are off).
    3
  2. There is no way to find out exactly what he did, so stop thinking about this. It is also not your responsibility to protect someone else, especially if you don't have any evidence that can help. What you do need to do is share your concerns about the person on the life licence with the Police. I would do this in writing, and as per the video, you should provide all the evidence you can. The Police should review the information and add it to anything else they hold, if they think that your evidence is relevant. You can, and probably should, ask for the information to be passed to the person's probation officer. The Police won't tell you what they have done or are doing, so don't ask them or worry about this.
    2
  3. I too was thinking that the Judgement of Solomon was a legal 'precedent' the might be applicable in such cases.
    2
  4. A court will look at the evidence, and it is for the claimant to show that "on the balance of probabilities" that their case is more correct than the defendants. The court is likely to find that the vet's evidence is correct "on the balance of probabilites", the vet having expertise that neither the claimant or defendant has, and no interest in asserting a false claim. If the vet says the dog is between 3 and 6, and the claimant says they have had the dog for 20 (or 6000 years), the court is not going to find for the claimant as they haven't proved this "on the balance of probabilities".
    2
  5. I can't see why it would discrimination - your vaccination status is not a protected characteristic (although a disability that prevents you having a vaccine might be). It's certainly not illegal, as venues can refuse entry for any reason that they decide. You might have a claim under the sections of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 that deals with unfair contract terms, if the fact that they would refuse you entry was not made clear to you before purchasing tickets - you would get your money back, and probably other incidental costs, such as travel to the venue.
    1
  6.  @Droningonuk  I agree. Everyone has the right to believe whatever they want to believe, but they can’t impose their beliefs on others. You can’t make someone accept you into a venue when you believe that there is no point to having a vaccination, and they do. They own the venue, so they get to set the rules.
    1
  7. Thanks for posting this Neil. Not many people will beleive that joint ownership can be made to work, but it sounds like you were able to find a way.
    1
  8. In cases of domestic violence, legal aid can still be obtained. Solicitors will often give some free initial legal advice at an initial meeting with a client, but much of the meetings also needs to be spent ensuring that the client understandings what the solicitor will charge for their services if the client engages them, so you won't get a lot of advice via this route. Some universities offer free legal advice from their law students, supervised by their tutors. Potentially the best sourse of "free" legal help is the legal expenses cover that you have already paid for as part of your home insurance.
    1
  9. I'm not sure this is such a good idea, as the pet probably doesn't know who has been paying for their food and vets bills. The pet could make a very bad decision.
    1
  10.  @unhingedbracket121  I too was wondering why this was different to with cars.
    1