On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 11:43:45 +0100, Robin wrote:

On 26/08/2019 11:04, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 10:42:13 +0100, Robin wrote:

On 26/08/2019 10:09, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 09:25:59 +0100, Robin wrote:

snip

AIUI the courts would look at various
things - including the nature of cats and the impracticability of
fencing them in. And it seems to me significant that no one seems to
know of cases decided in favour of a claimant.

But that doesn't mean they don't exit, however 'difficult / unlikely'?

Yep - just like the absence of photos of unicorns doesn't mean they
don't exist.

No, not like that at all, unless you have access to all legal cases
across the world, however historic?

I was simply agreeing that it is impossible to prove a negative. That
applies equally to the absence of evidence of successful claims for
damages against cat owners and the absence of evidence of unicorns.

Except we know unicorns don't exist and we do know that cat owners are
able to be held legally accountable?

And given you yourself have referenced there are specific scenarios
where a cat owner could be held responsible for their cat causing
damage to property or personal injury, why wouldn't such exist?

Cummon, you are normally better that this Robin!

I don't know about that. I do know that I find your paraphrase above
misrepresents my comments.

As your comment about Unicorns undermines the genuine spirit of my
point?

You were trying to deflect the weight to be attached to the absence of
known cases where cat owners had been held liable with the equivalent of
"just because no one has seen a unicorn doesn't mean they don't exist".

I was? That was never my intention (and I never included any
acceptance of a mythical creature (or any other hypothetical point) as
any counterpoint). The spirit of my focus still stands (not that they
have or haven't ever been held accountable, but that they can and
should be).

And let's assume there is no case law yet on this subject, with the
world becoming more litigious, who is to say there won't be in the
future (given there is law that can already cover such). Not the same
for your reference to unicorns (past or present). ;-)

I did say that I thought you'd be a good person to take such a case.

Maybe with your assistance. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On 26/08/2019 12:24, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 11:42:53 +0100, ARW
wrote:

snip


It's like a traffic warden parking up on double yellow lines and getting
out of their car to ticket a car parked on the same double yellow lines.
I photographed that happening in Watford.

*Except*, whilst they may have done the same thing as you, they are
there specifically to enforce the rules *against* people like you and
for the benefit of the majority who don't behave like you.

Also, the traffic warden will be moving on as soon as they have
ticketed you and got you moving on (where they have no idea how long
you would stay there otherwise) therefore the chances are they are
creating no more of an obstruction than you and are only doing so in
the first place to ensure the road is kept clear for the vast majority
who realise these rules generally exist for the benefit of all (well,
except those who don't feel the rules apply to them of course).

And breaking such rules (no matter how innocent any individual case
may be) costs us all money and even more traffic / pollution.

With the advent and subsequent expansion of CCTV / ANPR systems, the
people who break the rules (without any valid justification, like a
Paramedic parking on double yellows or you stopping in your van on
double yellows to help put out a fire that might save lives or
minimise further traffic flow issues) can be penalised without others
paying the price.

A minority of the population seem to test such things as double
yellows as a game, they knowingly try it on (knowing the risks /
consequences) as a gamble in the hope they will get away with it.

Unfortunately, all of us have to pay for the people and hardware that
has to be put into place to 'manage' a minority who somehow feel they
have rights over the rest of us?

Cheers, T i m

p.s. We went to an event yesterday where they had erected temporary
(unofficial) road signs at the exit, indication that you should only
turn left (and go around the roundabout up the road if you wanted to
go to the right).

I turned right because ... those signs were put there for when the
traffic was busy and when it's very difficult to turn right there,
potentially then holding up all the traffic that was behind you,
wanting to turn left or right.

However, when we left there was little traffic on the main road and no
one behind us and I was able to pull straight out and inconvenience no
one. Had it been 'busy' I would have happily turned left.

These were not official signs. They were just a request from the
organisers of the event to try to prevent people not applying common
sense when the roads were busy (I often go left and will turn round
elsewhere at junctions that are known to be difficult. We have such
locally where there is an office 'Left turn' sign and a roundabout no
more than 10m away but 'some' will turn right, even when it's busy and
they will cause flowing traffic to have to stop).

I have not read past your *Except* sentence.
Perhaps you need to apply to become one of the moronic hypocritical
jobsworth ****wits illustrated in Adam's two posts as you appear to be
well qualified.

On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 12:29:01 +0100, Richard
wrote:

snip

Here's a starting point for him as the 'offence' falls under this law:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_o...in_English_law

Yup, although that is difficult to pin on a cat owner.

Also,
https://catsaway.org/cat-law/

That pretty well sums it all up from the POV of someone who never
wanted a cat in the first place but has ended up with the negative
consequences of them.

Good luck Tim.

Thanks. I'll not be doing anything now, just like to express what
could be the beginning of a groundswell in 'equal rights' for all of
us who don't own cats but are obliged to keep *our* non-cat pets /
livestock under control.

Like I said, smoking was once considered socially acceptable in public
/ enclosed areas but now it isn't in many places / countries.

Similarly, there was less social pressure (now legal duty) to clean up
after your dog but now many people do.

As always though, there will be some who don't understand why they
should also act like a good citizen and have social responsibility.

Given that pre cat owning, most cat owners appear to be perfectly
reasonable people, it's my belief that whilst at the first visit to
the vets or breeders / cattery with their cat, the owners are hit
with a Neuralyzer type tool (see M.I.B.) that turns their common sense
and rational brain to mush, particularly where cats are concerned. ;-(

"Aww, Mr Tibbles, you have just come indoors and walked across the
area where we prepare food and knocked a can of Cola over into my
brand new MacBook Pro ... what are you like ... now come here for a
cuddle so we can share those fleas ... then go back out and cr*p in
someone else's garden, scratch their car and kill some indigenous
wildlife, just for fun ..." ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 12:35:06 +0100, Richard
wrote:

snip

I have not read past your *Except* sentence.

No one there to help?

Perhaps you need to apply to become one of the moronic hypocritical
jobsworth ****wits illustrated in Adam's two posts as you appear to be
well qualified.

Perhaps the next time you are stuck in traffic because of someone
parking where they shouldn't you 'get it' when you finally drive past?

Cheers, T i m

On 26/08/2019 12:35, Richard wrote:

I have not read past your *Except* sentence.

A pity you have not read it. Basically he was saying that he will abide
by the rules only when it suits him.

Perhaps you need to apply to become one of the moronic hypocritical
jobsworth ****wits illustrated in Adam's two posts as you appear to be
well qualified.

BTW I have never attacked a park warden or parked on double yellow lines
in Watford.

The park warden threw the first punch. He was happy to start a fight and
even happier to call the police after he had been given a bloody nose
and claim that he had been assaulted. The police had none of it after
collecting about 10 witness statements - although I was warned about my
language.

In Watford I was just pointing out that traffic wardens are ****s. It
was not my car or van that was ticketed.

--
Adam

On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 13:16:42 +0100, ARW
wrote:

On 26/08/2019 12:35, Richard wrote:

I have not read past your *Except* sentence.

A pity you have not read it. Basically he was saying that he will abide
by the rules only when it suits him.

Nope. I said I will (typically, unless circumstances dictate it's
sensible to do otherwise, like going up on the pavement to allow an
emergency vehicle past) abide to the formal rules, but won't apply
informal 'rules' unilaterally.

Perhaps you need to apply to become one of the moronic hypocritical
jobsworth ****wits illustrated in Adam's two posts as you appear to be
well qualified.

BTW I have never attacked a park warden or parked on double yellow lines
in Watford.

;-)

The park warden threw the first punch.

Then he was very much in the wrong (even if provoked).

He was happy to start a fight and
even happier to call the police after he had been given a bloody nose
and claim that he had been assaulted.

I guess how potentially rational people react in those circumstances
can be a function of if / how they were provoked.

The police had none of it after
collecting about 10 witness statements - although I was warned about my
language.

;-)

In Watford I was just pointing out that traffic wardens are

snip

I'd say some can be more unreasonable than others but in many cases
they are just doing their job [1] ... that we pay them to do to keep
the traffic flowing and the parking spaces used as intended.

. It
was not my car or van that was ticketed.

It was probably safely parked in a garage being repaired. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

[1] If you ever had to deal with 'the public' on such matters on a
regular / daily basis you would probably have heard it all and be
little different to most of them in time.

p.s. I was issued 3 PCN's (ANPR) in quick succession in a Hospital
carpark and a call to the Parking Co had them immediately squashed.

I got a ticket for not displaying a ticket (for free parking for up to
20 mins, after 10 mins there) and got the fine dropped because of poor
signage (along with many others later on). It's all down to intent and
what's reasonable.

On neither occasion did I intentionally intend to park without
following the rules or try to escape the fees.

On 26/08/2019 13:32, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 13:16:42 +0100, ARW
wrote:

On 26/08/2019 12:35, Richard wrote:

I have not read past your *Except* sentence.

A pity you have not read it. Basically he was saying that he will abide
by the rules only when it suits him.

Nope. I said I will (typically, unless circumstances dictate it's
sensible to do otherwise, like going up on the pavement to allow an
emergency vehicle past) abide to the formal rules, but won't apply
informal 'rules' unilaterally.

Perhaps you need to apply to become one of the moronic hypocritical
jobsworth ****wits illustrated in Adam's two posts as you appear to be
well qualified.

BTW I have never attacked a park warden or parked on double yellow lines
in Watford.

;-)

The park warden threw the first punch.

Then he was very much in the wrong (even if provoked).

He was happy to start a fight and
even happier to call the police after he had been given a bloody nose
and claim that he had been assaulted.

I guess how potentially rational people react in those circumstances
can be a function of if / how they were provoked.

The police had none of it after
collecting about 10 witness statements - although I was warned about my
language.

;-)

In Watford I was just pointing out that traffic wardens are

snip

I'd say some can be more unreasonable than others but in many cases
they are just doing their job [1]

They are just doing their job. But it's a ****'s job and only a ****
would do that job. Hence why it has been suggested that you apply for
the job.

--
Adam

On 26/08/2019 13:03, T i m wrote:

"Aww, Mr Tibbles, you have just come indoors and walked across the
area where we prepare food and knocked a can of Cola over into my
brand new MacBook Pro ... what are you like ... now come here for a
cuddle so we can share those fleas ... then go back out and cr*p in
someone else's garden, scratch their car and kill some indigenous
wildlife, just for fun ..." ;-)

Cheers, T i m


I thought that the correct thing to do if you find a stray animal is to
take it to the rspca or cat protection place so they can attempt to find
the owner.

On Monday, 26 August 2019 13:03:02 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
"Aww, Mr Tibbles, you have just come indoors and walked across the
area where we prepare food and knocked a can of Cola over into my
brand new MacBook Pro ... what are you like ... now come here for a
cuddle so we can share those fleas ... then go back out and cr*p in
someone else's garden, scratch their car and kill some indigenous
wildlife, just for fun ..." ;-)

Cats can be asked not to go on food surfaces.

Serves humans right for having cola near a MacBook Pro ... serves them right for having a MacBook ;-)

Cat fleas don't go on humans anyway.

The RSPB admits that cats don't harm wildlife.


Mr Tibbles.

On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 13:41:02 +0100, ARW
wrote:

snip

I'd say some can be more unreasonable than others but in many cases
they are just doing their job [1]

They are just doing their job.

snip

Good, we are in agreement then. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 13:55:03 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

On 26/08/2019 13:03, T i m wrote:

"Aww, Mr Tibbles, you have just come indoors and walked across the
area where we prepare food and knocked a can of Cola over into my
brand new MacBook Pro ... what are you like ... now come here for a
cuddle so we can share those fleas ... then go back out and cr*p in
someone else's garden, scratch their car and kill some indigenous
wildlife, just for fun ..." ;-)


I thought that the correct thing to do if you find a stray animal is to
take it to the rspca or cat protection place so they can attempt to find
the owner.

Which is what the person did apparently (to the local Vets), or so
Adam told us?

The problem was, it wasn't 'stray', it was just not under his full
control (because it doesn't have to be, many cat owners seem to think
(incorrectly)).

Cheers, T i m

On 26/08/2019 14:11, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 13:41:02 +0100, ARW
wrote:

snip

I'd say some can be more unreasonable than others but in many cases
they are just doing their job [1]

They are just doing their job.

snip

Good, we are in agreement then. ;-)


Only if you agree that you are a ****.



--
Adam

On 26/08/2019 13:55, wrote:
On Monday, 26 August 2019 13:03:02 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
"Aww, Mr Tibbles, you have just come indoors and walked across the
area where we prepare food and knocked a can of Cola over into my
brand new MacBook Pro ... what are you like ... now come here for a
cuddle so we can share those fleas ... then go back out and cr*p in
someone else's garden, scratch their car and kill some indigenous
wildlife, just for fun ..." ;-)

Cats can be asked not to go on food surfaces.

Serves humans right for having cola near a MacBook Pro ... serves them right for having a MacBook ;-)

Aren't machines that expensive spill proof?
My windows laptop is and its half the price.


Cat fleas don't go on humans anyway.

The RSPB admits that cats don't harm wildlife.

They lie then, I have seen plenty of cats hunting and catching wildlife.
The neighbours cat brought them a rat about 15" from nose to tail.
They weren't impressed.
It wasn't dead, I did remind them that they couldn't release it as its
vermin and that they had to kill it humanely.

Does hitting it with a spade count?



Mr Tibbles.

On 26/08/2019 13:10, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 12:35:06 +0100, Richard
wrote:

snip

I have not read past your *Except* sentence.

No one there to help?

Are you unwell? Took less than two hundred words there, mate.


Perhaps you need to apply to become one of the moronic hypocritical
jobsworth ****wits illustrated in Adam's two posts as you appear to be
well qualified.

Perhaps the next time you are stuck in traffic because of someone
parking where they shouldn't you 'get it' when you finally drive past?

Cheers, T i m

On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 14:28:18 +0100, ARW
wrote:

On 26/08/2019 14:11, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 13:41:02 +0100, ARW
wrote:

snip

I'd say some can be more unreasonable than others but in many cases
they are just doing their job [1]

They are just doing their job.

snip

Good, we are in agreement then. ;-)


Only if you agree that you are a c

snip

Why would I agree with that, just because I choose to abide by the
rules we are all supposed to be guided by and try to act like a
responsible citizen?

I have been witness to 'the general public' many times, specifically
when being a volunteer helper at a community event and that included
doing a spate on the gates of the car park.

'Most people' are very reasonable and will be advised re the limited /
restricted spaces and gratefully take advice as given re the
alternative parking arrangements.

A minority think they are above everyone else and will double park,
blocking innocent parkers in, damage the grass or other property or
insist (with some BS 'excuse') that they just *have* to drive in and
park (again, often impacting someone else in the process).

So, if you feel that wanting to uphold the rights of the many for the
selfishness of a few makes me that, then so be it. shrug

But you should hear them bleat when they come back from their BS
reason and find *themselves* blocked in by someone (like them).

Cheers, T i m

p.s. I used to fly power kites in many local parks but don't any more
because the rules have changed (public liability etc) and it's no
longer allowed. I haven't changed and have never hit anyone or damaged
any property with my kites [1] but I respect the rules and don't fly
there any more.

[1] A reasonably hench mate was flying one of my kites when he was
pulled off his feet and ended up breaking his collar bone. Luckily,
no-one had parked along the single lane that led up to the field so
the ambulance could get fairly close. He did get some (much deserved)
ribbing from the nurses in the hospital though (I had clearly told him
several times that 'letting go' was perfectly acceptable survival
option). ;-)

On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 14:42:34 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:

On 26/08/2019 13:55, wrote:
On Monday, 26 August 2019 13:03:02 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
"Aww, Mr Tibbles, you have just come indoors and walked across the
area where we prepare food and knocked a can of Cola over into my
brand new MacBook Pro ... what are you like ... now come here for a
cuddle so we can share those fleas ... then go back out and cr*p in
someone else's garden, scratch their car and kill some indigenous
wildlife, just for fun ..." ;-)

Cats can be asked not to go on food surfaces.

Serves humans right for having cola near a MacBook Pro ... serves them right for having a MacBook ;-)

Aren't machines that expensive spill proof?

The one I stripped and washed an entire cup of sweet tea out of
certainly wasn't.

My windows laptop is and its half the price.

weg


Cat fleas don't go on humans anyway.

The RSPB admits that cats don't harm wildlife.

They lie then, I have seen plenty of cats hunting and catching wildlife.

And I have taken many things off of cats and set them free (when
uninjured).

There are loads of facts supporting the impact of cat predation on
much of our native wildlife.

The neighbours cat brought them a rat about 15" from nose to tail.

Nice.

They weren't impressed.

I bet.

It wasn't dead, I did remind them that they couldn't release it as its
vermin and that they had to kill it humanely.

Lovely.

Does hitting it with a spade count?

And long as it was killed humanely, yes and certainly better than
trapping one in a barrel and then filling it up with water from a
hose, meaning it drowned fairly slowly and from exhaustion. ;-(

Cheers, T i m

On 26/08/2019 15:18, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 14:28:18 +0100, ARW
wrote:

On 26/08/2019 14:11, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 13:41:02 +0100, ARW
wrote:

snip

I'd say some can be more unreasonable than others but in many cases
they are just doing their job [1]

They are just doing their job.

snip

Good, we are in agreement then. ;-)


Only if you agree that you are a c

snip

Why would I agree with that, just because I choose to abide by the
rules we are all supposed to be guided by and try to act like a
responsible citizen?

I did not expect you to agree with that.


I have been witness to 'the general public' many times, specifically
when being a volunteer helper at a community event and that included
doing a spate on the gates of the car park.

Getting ready for a hard on?

'Most people' are very reasonable and will be advised re the limited /
restricted spaces and gratefully take advice as given re the
alternative parking arrangements.

A minority think they are above everyone else and will double park,
blocking innocent parkers in, damage the grass or other property or
insist (with some BS 'excuse') that they just *have* to drive in and
park (again, often impacting someone else in the process).


Approaching the Billy Mill Roundabout?


So, if you feel that wanting to uphold the rights of the many for the
selfishness of a few makes me that, then so be it. shrug

But you should hear them bleat when they come back from their BS
reason and find *themselves* blocked in by someone (like them).


Get a tissue and clean it up.



--
Adam

On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 05:55:25 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Monday, 26 August 2019 13:03:02 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
"Aww, Mr Tibbles, you have just come indoors and walked across the
area where we prepare food and knocked a can of Cola over into my
brand new MacBook Pro ... what are you like ... now come here for a
cuddle so we can share those fleas ... then go back out and cr*p in
someone else's garden, scratch their car and kill some indigenous
wildlife, just for fun ..." ;-)

Cats can be asked not to go on food surfaces.

Bwhahaha. 'Asked' ... ;-)

Ever heard the phrase, 'It's like herding cats'. ;-)

Serves humans right for having cola near a MacBook Pro ... serves them right for having a MacBook ;-)

Well, quite, and whilst some dogs do jump / get up on surfaces, they
aren't as likely to do so as most cats. I have seen our dogs up on the
arms of the chair and even front paws up on a shelf / unit to look out
of the window. I've never seen them up on *any* surface in the kitchen
(I'm not sure they could even get up there).

Cat fleas don't go on humans anyway.

Don't they?

"Cat flea (Ctenocephalides felis)

While cat fleas do not prefer to feed on humans, a cat flea bite on
human skin can result in a number of diseases including plague,
cat-scratch disease and typhus."

https://www.terminix.com/pest-contro.../bites/humans/

The RSPB admits that cats don't harm wildlife.

Of course they do, every time they grab some and kill it. The RSPB
only suggest that cats aren't uniquely responsible for any decline in
bird numbers in general but without a doubt there would be more birds
about if cats weren't.

As I have said before, I have nothing against cats as an animal, I
just don't like the issues they caused in many urban (especially)
environments. Twice now we have had a cat splashing about in our
downstairs toilet because they have climbed into our house (!) though
an open window and fallen into it, then ripped the wallpaper up in
their (failed) efforts to get out. No ones dog has ever climbed into
our window or fallen into (or drunk out of for that matter) our
toilet. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 15:28:04 +0100, ARW
wrote:

snip

I have been witness to 'the general public' many times, specifically
when being a volunteer helper at a community event and that included
doing a spate on the gates of the car park.

Getting ready for a hard on?

No (thanks)? Is it likely to give you one then?

'Most people' are very reasonable and will be advised re the limited /
restricted spaces and gratefully take advice as given re the
alternative parking arrangements.

A minority think they are above everyone else and will double park,
blocking innocent parkers in, damage the grass or other property or
insist (with some BS 'excuse') that they just *have* to drive in and
park (again, often impacting someone else in the process).


Approaching the Billy Mill Roundabout?

Nope. Local Park, small / community event.


So, if you feel that wanting to uphold the rights of the many for the
selfishness of a few makes me that, then so be it. shrug

But you should hear them bleat when they come back from their BS
reason and find *themselves* blocked in by someone (like them).


Get a tissue and clean it up.

You can clean up yer own mess mate!

In my case I just laughed inside whilst pretending I was sympathetic
to their self induced predicament. Like when someone undertakes a
Police car at speed, get's a ticket on double yellows whilst *just*
'popping in the shop for some fags' or puts themselves into a concrete
post whilst driving like a cnut. 'You reap what you sow' sorta thing.
;-)

Cheers, T i m

p.s. A mate runs a service garage that fronts directly on the road.
People pull up outside, parking *across his doors* and when
confronted, often think 'I'll only be a minute mate' (they are often
much longer of course) is an acceptable reply?

If they needed to get somewhere in a hurry and someone was blocking
them in there, I wonder if they would just take it on the chin?

On 26/08/2019 15:18, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 14:28:18 +0100, ARW
wrote:

On 26/08/2019 14:11, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 13:41:02 +0100, ARW
wrote:

snip

I'd say some can be more unreasonable than others but in many cases
they are just doing their job [1]

They are just doing their job.

snip

Good, we are in agreement then. ;-)


Only if you agree that you are a c

snip

Why would I agree with that, just because I choose to abide by the
rules we are all supposed to be guided by and try to act like a
responsible citizen?

When it comes to observing the outcome of a referendum, ie the will of
the people, you act irresponsibly in trying to overturn the result. Any
responsible citizen would tell parliament to get on with it.

You only abide by the rules when it suits you.

On 26/08/2019 15:56, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 15:28:04 +0100, ARW
wrote:

snip

I have been witness to 'the general public' many times, specifically
when being a volunteer helper at a community event and that included
doing a spate on the gates of the car park.

Getting ready for a hard on?

No (thanks)? Is it likely to give you one then?

'Most people' are very reasonable and will be advised re the limited /
restricted spaces and gratefully take advice as given re the
alternative parking arrangements.

A minority think they are above everyone else and will double park,
blocking innocent parkers in, damage the grass or other property or
insist (with some BS 'excuse') that they just *have* to drive in and
park (again, often impacting someone else in the process).


Approaching the Billy Mill Roundabout?

Nope. Local Park, small / community event.


So, if you feel that wanting to uphold the rights of the many for the
selfishness of a few makes me that, then so be it. shrug

But you should hear them bleat when they come back from their BS
reason and find *themselves* blocked in by someone (like them).


Get a tissue and clean it up.

You can clean up yer own mess mate!

In my case I just laughed inside whilst pretending I was sympathetic
to their self induced predicament. Like when someone undertakes a
Police car at speed, get's a ticket on double yellows whilst *just*
'popping in the shop for some fags' or puts themselves into a concrete
post whilst driving like a cnut. 'You reap what you sow' sorta thing.
;-)

Cheers, T i m

p.s. A mate runs a service garage that fronts directly on the road.
People pull up outside, parking *across his doors* and when
confronted, often think 'I'll only be a minute mate' (they are often
much longer of course) is an acceptable reply?

If they needed to get somewhere in a hurry and someone was blocking
them in there, I wonder if they would just take it on the chin?



I almost gave up when you suggested that "the dog might be council
property".

But I let the lead go long enough for you to prove that you were a ****.

--
Adam

On 26/08/2019 15:42, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 05:55:25 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Monday, 26 August 2019 13:03:02 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
"Aww, Mr Tibbles, you have just come indoors and walked across the
area where we prepare food and knocked a can of Cola over into my
brand new MacBook Pro ... what are you like ... now come here for a
cuddle so we can share those fleas ... then go back out and cr*p in
someone else's garden, scratch their car and kill some indigenous
wildlife, just for fun ..." ;-)

Cats can be asked not to go on food surfaces.

Bwhahaha. 'Asked' ... ;-)

Ever heard the phrase, 'It's like herding cats'. ;-)

Serves humans right for having cola near a MacBook Pro ... serves them right for having a MacBook ;-)

Well, quite, and whilst some dogs do jump / get up on surfaces, they
aren't as likely to do so as most cats. I have seen our dogs up on the
arms of the chair and even front paws up on a shelf / unit to look out
of the window. I've never seen them up on *any* surface in the kitchen
(I'm not sure they could even get up there).

Cat fleas don't go on humans anyway.

Don't they?

"Cat flea (Ctenocephalides felis)

While cat fleas do not prefer to feed on humans, a cat flea bite on
human skin can result in a number of diseases including plague,
cat-scratch disease and typhus."

https://www.terminix.com/pest-contro.../bites/humans/

The RSPB admits that cats don't harm wildlife.

Of course they do, every time they grab some and kill it. The RSPB
only suggest that cats aren't uniquely responsible for any decline in
bird numbers in general but without a doubt there would be more birds
about if cats weren't.

Cars kill more birds than cats do. What are you going to do about that?


As I have said before, I have nothing against cats as an animal, I
just don't like the issues they caused in many urban (especially)
environments. Twice now we have had a cat splashing about in our
downstairs toilet because they have climbed into our house (!) though
an open window and fallen into it, then ripped the wallpaper up in
their (failed) efforts to get out. No ones dog has ever climbed into
our window or fallen into (or drunk out of for that matter) our
toilet. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

In message , Richard
writes
The RSPB admits that cats don't harm wildlife.
Of course they do, every time they grab some and kill it. The RSPB
only suggest that cats aren't uniquely responsible for any decline in
bird numbers in general but without a doubt there would be more birds
about if cats weren't.

Cars kill more birds than cats do. What are you going to do about that?

Are you sure? In 48 years of driving I have destroyed one Pheasant , one
Pigeon and one Robin.

--
Tim Lamb

I was expecting a story more along the lines of -
After sleeping in the sun for 3 hours, the microchip
got too hot and refused to allow puss back into Adams
house :-)

Or, a passing raptor detected the microchip and fed puss
to a golden eagle chick.

Andrew

On 24/08/2019 08:56, Brian Gaff wrote:
You can buy readers but I believe only vets have access to the database.
Sounds like a daft person to me. Still the cat had a holiday and now you can
do her for theft.

Brian

On 24/08/2019 20:04, T i m wrote:
should a cat that wasn't under control cause an
accident and the 'owner' was to be traced and held responsible (as I
understand they can under certain circumstances).

BUll****.

There are no circumstances in UK law where that is possible.

cats are free agents.

On 26/08/2019 14:42, dennis@home wrote:
On 26/08/2019 13:55, wrote:
On Monday, 26 August 2019 13:03:02 UTC+1, T i mÂ* wrote:
"Aww, Mr Tibbles, you have just come indoors and walked across the
area where we prepare food and knocked a can of Cola over into my
brand new MacBook Pro ... what are you like ... now come here for a
cuddle so we can share those fleas ... then go back out and cr*p in
someone else's garden, scratch their car and kill some indigenous
wildlife, just for fun ..." ;-)

Cats can be asked not to go on food surfaces.

Serves humans right for having cola near a MacBook Pro ... serves them
right for having a MacBook ;-)

Aren't machines that expensive spill proof?
My windows laptop is and its half the price.


Cat fleas don't go on humans anyway.

The RSPB admits that cats don't harm wildlife.

They lie then, I have seen plenty of cats hunting and catching wildlife.
The neighbours cat brought them a rat about 15" from nose to tail.
They weren't impressed.
It wasn't dead, I did remind them that they couldn't release it as its
vermin and that they had to kill it humanely.

Does hitting it with a spade count?



Mr Tibbles.



Neighbours Ginger cat seems to have cleaned out all his fish from
the outdoor pond :-)

On 26/08/2019 16:54, Richard wrote:
Cars kill more birds than cats do. What are you going to do about that?

Windmills kill more birds than cars do ...

On 26/08/2019 18:14, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Richard
writes
The RSPB admits that cats don't harm wildlife.
Â*Of course they do, every time they grab some and kill it. The RSPB
only suggest that cats aren't uniquely responsible for any decline in
bird numbers in general but without a doubt there would be more birds
about if cats weren't.

Cars kill more birds than cats do. What are you going to do about that?

Are you sure? In 48 years of driving I have destroyed one Pheasant , one
Pigeon and one Robin.


I guess it's all about how many cars there are on the motorways and A
roads. Pottering about in pheasant littered countryside doesn't add much
to the toll.

From 2014
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...e-1384964.html

https://preview.tinyurl.com/splatter-stats

On 26/08/2019 18:14, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Richard
writes
The RSPB admits that cats don't harm wildlife.
Â*Of course they do, every time they grab some and kill it. The RSPB
only suggest that cats aren't uniquely responsible for any decline in
bird numbers in general but without a doubt there would be more birds
about if cats weren't.

Cars kill more birds than cats do. What are you going to do about that?

Are you sure? In 48 years of driving I have destroyed one Pheasant , one
Pigeon and one Robin.


Reliant ?.

My tally is one pheasant and one grey squirrel.

On Monday, 26 August 2019 18:38:58 UTC+1, Andrew wrote:
Neighbours Ginger cat seems to have cleaned out all his fish from
the outdoor pond :-)

He's a very lucky cat having his own outdoor pond.

Owain

In message , Richard
writes
On 26/08/2019 18:14, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Richard
writes
The RSPB admits that cats don't harm wildlife.
*Of course they do, every time they grab some and kill it. The RSPB
only suggest that cats aren't uniquely responsible for any decline in
bird numbers in general but without a doubt there would be more birds
about if cats weren't.

Cars kill more birds than cats do. What are you going to do about that?
Are you sure? In 48 years of driving I have destroyed one Pheasant ,
one Pigeon and one Robin.


I guess it's all about how many cars there are on the motorways and A
roads. Pottering about in pheasant littered countryside doesn't add
much to the toll.

From 2014
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...n-the-carriage
way-millions-of-birds-and-animals-die-each-year-on-britains-roads-can-th
e-1384964.html

https://preview.tinyurl.com/splatter-stats

Hmm.. I'm not sure I accept those figures. Rural Hertfordshire, where I
live, doesn't match Chessington and the Colonels count.
Partridge and Pheasant poults in September maybe but none of the others.
I have yet to see a single roadkill Magpie for example. Badgers yes,
Foxes rare.
I wonder if his 30 miles is hedge/tree cover tunnel with a 60mph limit.

--
Tim Lamb

In message , Andrew
writes
On 26/08/2019 18:14, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Richard
writes
The RSPB admits that cats don't harm wildlife.
*Of course they do, every time they grab some and kill it. The RSPB
only suggest that cats aren't uniquely responsible for any decline in
bird numbers in general but without a doubt there would be more birds
about if cats weren't.

Cars kill more birds than cats do. What are you going to do about that?
Are you sure? In 48 years of driving I have destroyed one Pheasant ,
one Pigeon and one Robin.


Reliant ?.
:-) The Pheasant nearly destroyed the grill on an early Mini, the Robin
tried to escape by flying through the radiator grill on a series II
Morgan and the Pigeon I forget, something modern.

My tally is one pheasant and one grey squirrel.


--
Tim Lamb

On 26/08/2019 19:24, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Richard
writes
On 26/08/2019 18:14, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Richard
writes
The RSPB admits that cats don't harm wildlife.
Â*Of course they do, every time they grab some and kill it. The RSPB
only suggest that cats aren't uniquely responsible for any decline in
bird numbers in general but without a doubt there would be more birds
about if cats weren't.

Cars kill more birds than cats do. What are you going to do about that?
Â*Are you sure? In 48 years of driving I have destroyed one Pheasant ,
oneÂ* Pigeon and one Robin.


I guess it's all about how many cars there are on the motorways and A
roads. Pottering about in pheasant littered countryside doesn't add
much to the toll.

From 2014
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...n-the-carriage
way-millions-of-birds-and-animals-die-each-year-on-britains-roads-can-th
e-1384964.html

https://preview.tinyurl.com/splatter-stats

Hmm.. I'm not sure I accept those figures. Rural Hertfordshire, where I
live, doesn't match Chessington and the Colonels count.
Partridge and Pheasant poults in September maybe but none of the others.
I have yet to see a single roadkill Magpie for example. Badgers yes,
Foxes rare.
I wonder if his 30 miles is hedge/tree cover tunnel with a 60mph limit.


I am not the source, merely quoting from a 'reputable' source.

On 26/08/2019 19:00, wrote:
On Monday, 26 August 2019 18:38:58 UTC+1, Andrew wrote:
Neighbours Ginger cat seems to have cleaned out all his fish from
the outdoor pond :-)

He's a very lucky cat having his own outdoor pond.

Owain


Well he spends a lot of time there, at the corner where
there is a hole in the netting.

Neighbour remarked that his fish were all hiding at the bottom
these days, before draining it and finding no fish.

There used to be a hole in the greenhouse door which he
assumed was the entrance to his personal outdoor toilet.

On Monday, 26 August 2019 20:09:00 UTC+1, Andrew wrote:
He's a very lucky cat having his own outdoor pond.
Well he spends a lot of time there, at the corner where
there is a hole in the netting.

"couldn't hang a dog on that evidence"

Owain

On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 16:54:47 +0100, Richard
wrote:

snip

Of course they do, every time they grab some and kill it. The RSPB
only suggest that cats aren't uniquely responsible for any decline in
bird numbers in general but without a doubt there would be more birds
about if cats weren't.

Cars kill more birds than cats do.

Cite, OOI?

What are you going to do about that?

What am *I* going to do about it? It's not *my* problem, it's *our*
problem, one made worse for no valid reason by some (supposed) 'pet
owners' [1] who probably also drive ...

Cheers, T i m

[1] They aren't 'cat owners' (their pet's being 'free spirits' etc)
when their companion animals are out of control in the neighbourhood
but they suddenly become 'cat owners' when you take their cat away
from them?

On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 18:35:52 +0100, Andrew
wrote:

On 24/08/2019 20:04, T i m wrote:
should a cat that wasn't under control cause an
accident and the 'owner' was to be traced and held responsible (as I
understand they can under certain circumstances).

BUll****.

Nope (I hope you weren't depending on that).


There are no circumstances in UK law where that is possible.

Wrong again ...

cats are free agents.

Till you take one and dump it in the woods somewhere ... then all of a
sudden they are someone's property?

Cheers, T i m

On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 16:15:58 +0100, ARW
wrote:

snip

I almost gave up when you suggested that "the dog might be council
property".


Shame you didn't (for your sake). ;-(

See, there are guard / patrol dogs (for example) that who are actually
owned by companies, allocated to employees and are simply 'tools of
their trade'.

Similar with dogs used by the Army and other K9 services and where
they are often destroyed when retired from service because of their
'search and attack' / 'protection' training. ;-(

But then you knew all that didn't you Adam ... ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 16:09:36 +0100, Fredxx wrote:

snip

Why would I agree with that, just because I choose to abide by the
rules we are all supposed to be guided by and try to act like a
responsible citizen?

When it comes to observing the outcome of a referendum, ie the will of
the people, you act irresponsibly in trying to overturn the result.

I am, how am I doing that then? Did we actually have another
referendum that no one told me about?

And 'will of 1/3rd of the people (able to vote)' you mean and they
were just a few more than who expressly voted against it. That's your
version of 'will of the people' is it?

Any
responsible citizen would tell parliament to get on with it.

Not when the MP's themselves have a duty of care to ensure we don't
vote for something that might harm us?

You only abide by the rules when it suits you.

Aww bless. Nice try but no cigar. ;-)

(Why is it you left brainers constantly confuse 'rules' with
'democracy' in action?)

Cheers, T i m

On 26/08/2019 22:01, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 16:09:36 +0100, Fredxx wrote:

snip

Why would I agree with that, just because I choose to abide by the
rules we are all supposed to be guided by and try to act like a
responsible citizen?

When it comes to observing the outcome of a referendum, ie the will of
the people, you act irresponsibly in trying to overturn the result.

I am, how am I doing that then? Did we actually have another
referendum that no one told me about?

And 'will of 1/3rd of the people (able to vote)'

Only 1/3 expressed a preference of remaining.

snip

(Why is it you left brainers constantly confuse 'rules' with
'democracy' in action?)

Abuse, the typical sign of a lost argument.