Paperboy ramming his bike into my gates.

[N0bodyOfTheGoat]

Waiting for thread update where paperboy rides into chained gate and gate falls off its hinges.

 

[wiggydiggy]

View: https://youtube.com/shorts/IwkwUsQtX_Y?si=ybH5TFVBAArDjhtM

 

[spen666]

Be sensible for you to actually read his posts, rather than responding to things he has not said, while ignoring things he has.

You could do with taking your own advice as your post claims I've said things I have not said. Who for example other than you have mentioned a "small child". I certainly never did.
A 16/17 year old is a child in law and I correctly used the term child. The basic point however is that making threatas as to what someone is going to do is not going to resolve anything.

Simply lock the gate and the problem is solved

 

[Kingfisher101]

You have already said that you have locked the gate so it shouldn't be a problem anymore. And sorry to say you have also admitted that the gates are on the old side so they could just say it was your fault for not maintaining them if the gates did give way and they could end up suing you.

Personally I would cut my losses. Keep the gate shut and he can't do it again. Sorted.

No they couldn't because they are just old, not totally falling to bits. Also he shouldn't be on my property in the first place because I don't get a paper.

 

[DRM]

Its for the shop to do as they employ him. End of story.

If you don't get the little sh*t told, it'll never stop, also he must be there at roughly the same time everyday, tell him it's trespass, as the gates are shut, therefore no implied right of access, so get a solicitor on to him if it bothers you that much, to get a civil case against them

 

[welsh dragon]

No they couldn't because they are just old, not totally falling to bits. Also he shouldn't be on my property in the first place because I don't get a paper.

Okey dokey

 

[Alex321]

You could do with taking your own advice as your post claims I've said things I have not said. Who for example other than you have mentioned a "small child". I certainly never did.
A 16/17 year old is a child in law and I correctly used the term child. The basic point however is that making threatas as to what someone is going to do is not going to resolve anything.

I never suggested you did say anything about small chi9ld.

But using the phrase "a properly constructed gate would not be destroyed by a child riding his bike into it" there implied something small, while a 16-17 year old is most likely adult sized.

Simply lock the gate and the problem is solved

Which he has said several times, is what he will now be doing.

Though I disagree that it really "solves" the problem, because it adds the time taken to unlock and lock every time he wants to use the gate himself.

 

[spen666]

I never suggested you did say anything about small chi9ld.

But using the phrase "a properly constructed gate would not be destroyed by a child riding his bike into it" there implied something small, while a 16-17 year old is most likely adult sized.

No, my phase implied only that a properly constructed gate would not be destroyed by a child, because the OP was complaining about the actions of a child.

Any reference to size implied or not is a complete figment of your imagination to try to twist my post into saying something it didn't.

Even after I have pointed out the fact that the person was described as a child because they are a child, you still keep on trying to invent a reference to size that does not exist in my post.

A 16 or 17 year old is legally a child.

Which he has said several times, is what he will now be doing.

Though I disagree that it really "solves" the problem, because it adds the time taken to unlock and lock every time he wants to use the gate himself.