On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 23:48:29 +0100, Fredxx wrote:

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.

Nearly as many who expressed a preference of leaving, hardly grounds
to change the status quo eh?

Had it been conducted fairly it wouldn't have been *******ised into
being decisive, rather than just advisory. It wouldn't have included
blatant lies, used to convince the great unwashed of a future that
couldn't possibly be promised and so far seems unlikely. It wouldn't
have dragged on for so long with no reasonable assurance that things
actually will be better for most people and that's ignoring the fact
that was no mandate for no deal, should we leave without one.

Two prime ministers, two 'Brexit secretaries', numerous ministers and
the need to create a coalition with ministers on a different island
for the government to remain in power ... and currently to be hanging
onto power by a thread.

Do you really think this all indicates that everyone thinks it's a
'good thing' or want's to carry on with it?

snip

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

Abuse, the typical sign of a lost argument.

Then why are you still trying? Don't bother, I know the answer. You
really don't understand this whole Brexit farce is as welcome by the
majority of the electorate as a fart in a lift.

You 'won' and that's all you care about in your black and white world,
not real democracy or what's best for anyone other than you (and your
fellow Brexiteers). ;-(

Many people now saying 'let's just get on with it' aren't doing so
because they want it, it's just to try to minimise any further damage
and the laughing stock the UK has become ... and all for what (that
will benefit 'most people')?

It really is a clusterfcuk and my real concern is that's it's going to
cost a whole generation or more. ;-(

Cheers, T i m

On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 18:40:01 +0100, Andrew
wrote:

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 ...

That doesn't seem to be supported here (even if it is a bit out of
date).

https://www.sibleyguides.com/conserv...ird-mortality/

Or a bit more recent, he

https://www.carbonbrief.org/bird-dea...t-the-evidence

Whilst wind turbines may kill large birds, cats definitely kill the
smaller ones and in vastly greater number.

And they are fairly unique amongst companion animals re the
(detrimental) impact they have on other / wild animals.


Cheers, T i m

On 26/08/2019 21:37, T i m wrote:
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?

I did, at around 18:40


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 Tue, 27 Aug 2019 05:41:01 +0100, Richard
wrote:

On 26/08/2019 21:37, T i m wrote:
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?

I did, at around 18:40

Where your 2014 link looks more like 1997 ... and as pointed out by
others, only reflects a very selective (and not typically
representative) stretch of road.

And I have posted some links that indicate *way* more birds are killed
by cats than cars.

But that's not really the point. If you wanted to make one from that
the chances are that many cat owners also drive so are going to be
killing more birds than the owners of most (if not all) other pets.

Cheers, T i m

On Saturday, 24 August 2019 20:04:03 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 18:53:01 +0100, ARW
wrote:

snip

Gotta be better than taking them miles away and dumping them off as
the cat is likely to become the same problem somewhere else (to other
people).

The microchip would still give the same home address.

1) Assuming the cat owner ever bothered to have it chipped.

Well it;s not currently the law as it is with dogs but it would be a good idea if it became law. I'd like the same to apply to kids too.


2) Assuming it was handed in anywhere, rather than just 'adopted' as
most stray cats seem to be.

If they are adobted they aren't strays.


If you feed and offer shelter to a stray animal, are there any (legal)
obligations / requirement to have it check for a chip?

No, but it could be seen as theft, but there is alos those that atempt to remove such chips or put a new one in. Some animals do loose their chips as they can migrate through the body.


3) How many cat owners bother to update the registered information if
they pass their cat onto someone else or it moves home elsewhere?

I did and most do if they officailly adopt a cat, but as cats can also adopt a new memebr of staff who isn't chipped and cats find it difficult report it when they wish to change staff.


Cheers, T i m

p.s. I'll have to ask daughter if she checks for chips when she

The average person can't check for these chips you need a special scanner and these are only really avaible at vets and animal rescue centres.
SO if you see a dead animal it;s best just to report it to a vet.

shovels cats off the road and if she does, how many have them ... and
if they did,

What happens if you find a dead body can yuo ID them ?, a frienbd of mine found one such body near the Thamses about 25 years ago.

How many times to the police find bodies they can't ID.



if the chip survived the experience. The latter might be
good to learn, 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).

That would make sense, but I don't know how yuo could tell whether it was the animals fault of not. You'd then have to have some idea of what happened.

On Tuesday, 27 August 2019 11:50:57 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 05:41:01 +0100, Richard
wrote:

On 26/08/2019 21:37, T i m wrote:
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?

I did, at around 18:40

Where your 2014 link looks more like 1997 ... and as pointed out by
others, only reflects a very selective (and not typically
representative) stretch of road.

And I have posted some links that indicate *way* more birds are killed
by cats than cars.

But that's not really the point. If you wanted to make one from that
the chances are that many cat owners also drive so are going to be
killing more birds than the owners of most (if not all) other pets.

Cheers, T i m

Reduced habitate and lower number of insects is what's 'killing' birds
The reduction of nesting sites is the result of intensive farming and pesticides. Even then most birds killed by cats are those birds that are ill or fallen out their nests so wouldn't survive anyway.
One of the biggestes killers of owls are cars that drive too fast down country roads creating 'wakes' which owls being very light in weight can;t escape from.

if you look at the bird species in decline you'd have to be pretty stupid to claim it's due to the rise in the number of cats which hasn't risen that much in the last 20 years and if anyhting has been in decline.

Over the last five years the number of pets in the UK has declined. The pet population peaked in 2013 at 71 million, but as of 2018 is estimated to be around 51 million. ... The United Kingdom is a nation of pet lovers, with 45 percent of the population owning some sort of animal.
€¢ Pet population in the UK 2009-2018 | Statista

https://www.statista.com ۼ estimated-pet-population-in-the-united-kingdom-uk

On 26/08/2019 21:39, T i m wrote:
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 ...

No evidence for that though, just your mistaken belief


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?

Cats are free agents. They roam at will unless locked in and
there are no legal consequences for the 'owner'. They simply
take up residence where food is provided but will quite
happily take up residence elsewhere if the food is 'better'.

Cheers, T i m

On 27/08/2019 11:54, whisky-dave wrote:
If they are adobted they aren't strays.

cats adopt people, not the other way round.

On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 15:12:39 +0100, Richard
wrote:

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.


You do realise this is a 'discussion group' don't you Dicky, not
****ter or a peanut gallery?

Cheers, T i m

On Tuesday, 27 August 2019 14:06:14 UTC+1, Andrew wrote:
On 27/08/2019 11:54, whisky-dave wrote:
If they are adobted they aren't strays.

cats adopt people, not the other way round.

So true, sometimes they can adopt many people and will go to the bhome that most suites them at that time, especailly true if a family has kids that annoy the cat it will go off and find another home, until it suits them to return.
My parents had 5 cats that visted them from time to time at one time they had 4 cats who'd come and go as they pleased.

On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 14:05:08 +0100, Andrew
wrote:

On 26/08/2019 21:39, T i m wrote:
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 ...

No evidence for that though, just your mistaken belief

There is plenty of evidence out there in the form of 'Laws'. Look them
up and learn something for a change.


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?

Cats are free agents.

Some can be.

They roam at will unless locked in

Nope. Some won't roam (outside their own property) even if they could.

and
there are no legal consequences for the 'owner'.

You are an idiot.

They simply
take up residence where food is provided but will quite
happily take up residence elsewhere if the food is 'better'.

Quite possibly but completely irrelevant to the duty of care and
responsibility a cat owner has under *Law*.

This is particularly the case when a cat owner is aware that their car
roams and can be aggressive (towards other animals or people) or is
likely to cause damage to other peoples property.

Cheers, T i m

On Tuesday, 27 August 2019 14:57:47 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 14:05:08 +0100, Andrew
wrote:

On 26/08/2019 21:39, T i m wrote:
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 ...

No evidence for that though, just your mistaken belief

There is plenty of evidence out there in the form of 'Laws'. Look them
up and learn something for a change.

I bet you can't show us that evidence, probaly because it doesn't exist.

Liability For Cat Damage

This is a tricky area of the law with no universal answer. It can be said that cat owners have a duty of care to take reasonable steps to prevent their cat causing harm to others or damage to property but unlike dogs and livestock, cats have the €˜right to roam meaning that they do not have to be securely confined by their owners. If a cat is causing a nuisance through noise or fouling a neighbours garden, then steps should be taken to prevent this. Failure to do so may force the neighbour to contact the council who will assess the level of nuisance and have the power to issue anti social behaviour orders (ASBOs) which carry a criminal offense if not complied with.


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?

Cats are free agents.

Some can be.

All are in law presently.


They roam at will unless locked in

Nope. Some won't roam (outside their own property) even if they could.

true mine doesn't, but eh problem can be that a cat gets scared and once it leaves their know property they get lost.


and
there are no legal consequences for the 'owner'.

You are an idiot.

But you're a bigger one.



They simply
take up residence where food is provided but will quite
happily take up residence elsewhere if the food is 'better'.

Quite possibly but completely irrelevant to the duty of care and
responsibility a cat owner has under *Law*.

complete rubbish.



This is particularly the case when a cat owner is aware that their car
roams and can be aggressive (towards other animals or people) or is
likely to cause damage to other peoples property.

Only in extreme cirumstancies that are so few and far between it;s virtually unknown.

When was the last time a dometci cat was put down because it was a danger to someone. How often have you heard of peole keeping cats to have cat fights like they do with dogs.


Cheers, T i m

On 27/08/2019 11:50, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 05:41:01 +0100, Richard
wrote:

On 26/08/2019 21:37, T i m wrote:
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?

I did, at around 18:40

Where your 2014 link looks more like 1997 ... and as pointed out by
others, only reflects a very selective (and not typically
representative) stretch of road.

And I have posted some links that indicate *way* more birds are killed
by cats than cars.

But that's not really the point. If you wanted to make one from that
the chances are that many cat owners also drive so are going to be
killing more birds than the owners of most (if not all) other pets.

Cheers, T i m

Oh, now it is the cat *owners* who do all the killing.
Fair enough.

On 27/08/2019 14:22, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 15:12:39 +0100, Richard
wrote:

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.


You do realise this is a 'discussion group' don't you Dicky, not
****ter or a peanut gallery?


Still managing to keep the word count down.
Good boy.

On 26/08/2019 21:54, T i m wrote:
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 ... ;-)

Keep it going. There was no way it was a council owned dog, for a start
it was not wearing a hi viz vest..

If it was a council dog it would have done the two day course and been
taught to wear a lead.


--
Adam

On 26/08/2019 18:41, Andrew wrote:
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.


I have had 3 pigeons this year. And you know when one of them hits your
windscreen at 90MPH.

--
Adam

On Tuesday, 27 August 2019 19:44:26 UTC+1, ARW wrote:
If it was a council dog it would have done the two day course and been
taught to wear a lead.

If it was a council dog it would take longer than two days to learn how to wear a lead.

Owain

On 27/08/2019 14:41, whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 27 August 2019 14:06:14 UTC+1, Andrew wrote:
On 27/08/2019 11:54, whisky-dave wrote:
If they are adobted they aren't strays.

cats adopt people, not the other way round.

So true, sometimes they can adopt many people and will go to the bhome that most suites them at that time, especailly true if a family has kids that annoy the cat it will go off and find another home, until it suits them to return.
My parents had 5 cats that visted them from time to time at one time they had 4 cats who'd come and go as they pleased.


The vet has suggested that I put my cat on a diet.

I would be delighted to once I found out who else was feeding him when I
am at work. But even if I found out who else was feeding him and stopped
them he would find someone else to feed him.


--
Adam

On 27/08/2019 19:47, wrote:
On Tuesday, 27 August 2019 19:44:26 UTC+1, ARW wrote:
If it was a council dog it would have done the two day course and been
taught to wear a lead.

If it was a council dog it would take longer than two days to learn how to wear a lead.


Worked in some council offices a few years ago. I was called in as a sub
contractor for another firm to second fix the fire alarm.

Now all the lads said "watch yourself with her in that office she is a
right bitch, always making complaints and causing trouble"

I went into the office and she was very nice, asked how I was and made
me a coffee"

She was not like that when I lived with her 3 years previous (well only
for the first 3 weeks, I ****ed off after the fourth week).




--
Adam

On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 19:25:59 +0100, Richard
wrote:

snip

But that's not really the point. If you wanted to make one from that
the chances are that many cat owners also drive so are going to be
killing more birds than the owners of most (if not all) other pets.


Oh, now it is the cat *owners* who do all the killing.

If you want to twist my words because you are so desperate then go
ahead ... but in a way you are right in that the domestic cat isn't
native to the UK and like with guns, it's not the gun itself that
kills people.

Fair enough.

Isn't it just. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 19:44:23 +0100, ARW
wrote:

On 26/08/2019 21:54, T i m wrote:
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 ... ;-)

Keep it going.

Thanks?

There was no way it was a council owned dog, for a start
it was not wearing a hi viz vest..

Who said it was?

If it was a council dog it would have done the two day course and been
taught to wear a lead.

Yeah ... shrug

Cheers, T i m

"Andrew" wrote in message
...
On 27/08/2019 11:54, whisky-dave wrote:
If they are adobted they aren't strays.

cats adopt people, not the other way round.

Not always, most obviously with kittens and cats from the pound etc.

On 27/08/2019 23:11, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 19:25:59 +0100, Richard
wrote:

snip

But that's not really the point. If you wanted to make one from that
the chances are that many cat owners also drive so are going to be
killing more birds than the owners of most (if not all) other pets.


Oh, now it is the cat *owners* who do all the killing.

If you want to twist my words because you are so desperate then go
ahead ... but in a way you are right in that the domestic cat isn't
native to the UK and like with guns, it's not the gun itself that
kills people.

Oh ****ing yawn. How many of the birds are not native?



Fair enough.

Isn't it just. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On Wednesday, 28 August 2019 00:38:53 UTC+1, jeikppkywk wrote:
cats adopt people, not the other way round.
Not always, most obviously with kittens and cats from the pound etc.

Or stolen.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/s...thian-19002894

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/s...leged-19008759

Owain

On Wed, 28 Aug 2019 05:49:28 +0100, Richard
wrote:

snip

How many of the birds are not native?

Pass. But given the domestic cat isn't native and if even one of the
bird species it prays on is, that's enough eh?

Like all good Brexiteers you continue to try to defend the
indefensible but well done for even trying.

Cheers, T i m

On Wed, 28 Aug 2019 09:30:58 +1000, jeikppkywk, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:


cats adopt people, not the other way round.

Not always, most obviously with kittens and cats from the pound etc.

In auto-contradicting mode again, you abnormal 85-year-old senile idiot?
tsk

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 85-year-old trolling senile
cretin from Oz:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

On Wednesday, 28 August 2019 09:24:44 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
Pass. But given the domestic cat isn't native

Imported by the Romans in the first century AD, so more British than, um, potatoes.

And we've had wildcats for millennia (and they hybridise with domestics).

Owain

On 27/08/2019 19:47, wrote:
On Tuesday, 27 August 2019 19:44:26 UTC+1, ARW wrote:
If it was a council dog it would have done the two day course and been
taught to wear a lead.

If it was a council dog it would take longer than two days to learn how to wear a lead.

Owain



And it would have to be a lesbian or gay dog too.

On 27/08/2019 19:46, ARW wrote:
On 26/08/2019 18:41, Andrew wrote:
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.


I have had 3 pigeons this year. And you know when one of them hits your
windscreen at 90MPH.


Next doors ginger cat (the one that is good at fishing), was
washing behind his ears. Early today before I got up it was raining
in Sussex, so he's as accurate as a bit of seaweed at forecasting.

On Wednesday, 28 August 2019 09:24:44 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
On Wed, 28 Aug 2019 05:49:28 +0100, Richard
wrote:

snip

How many of the birds are not native?

Pass. But given the domestic cat isn't native and if even one of the
bird species it prays on is, that's enough eh?

The wildcat is Britain's only remaining native cat species.

And how many people that live in the UK are native to the UK.


Like all good Brexiteers you continue to try to defend the
indefensible but well done for even trying.

So you'd throw out everyone and everything that wasn't native to the UK ?
Is this really someone that wanted to remain ?

Even spuds? as they aren't native to the UK either.



Cheers, T i m

On Wed, 28 Aug 2019 02:38:57 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Wednesday, 28 August 2019 09:24:44 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
Pass. But given the domestic cat isn't native

Imported by the Romans in the first century AD,

Ok ...?

so more British than, um, potatoes.

And therefore (by your scale) less native / British than dogs. shrug

How many potatoes kill birds though? ;-)

And we've had wildcats for millennia (and they hybridise with domestics).

Yes, the pollute the bloodline of wildcats. ;-(

Cheers, T i m

On Wednesday, 28 August 2019 21:36:53 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
How many potatoes kill birds though? ;-)

Not many, with my aim.

Owain