Well I got one and fitted it.

All worked well until today. The cat went outside and decided to sunbath
in a neighbours garden. After 3 hours of hard sleeping the cat was taken
by the neighbour to the vets as he deduced it was a stray. Lou got a
call from the vets and the neighbour was told to take the cat home.


--
Adam

On Fri, 23 Aug 2019 20:02:07 +0100
ARW wrote:

Well I got one and fitted it.

All worked well until today. The cat went outside and decided to
sunbath in a neighbours garden. After 3 hours of hard sleeping the
cat was taken by the neighbour to the vets as he deduced it was a
stray. Lou got a call from the vets and the neighbour was told to
take the cat home.


That's a ****ing great idea. Take the furry little bags of **** to the
council pound as 'strays' and, I guess, quite a lot of them won't come
back.


Thanks.

On 23/08/2019 21:54, Jim wrote:
On Fri, 23 Aug 2019 20:02:07 +0100
ARW wrote:

Well I got one and fitted it.

All worked well until today. The cat went outside and decided to
sunbath in a neighbours garden. After 3 hours of hard sleeping the
cat was taken by the neighbour to the vets as he deduced it was a
stray. Lou got a call from the vets and the neighbour was told to
take the cat home.


That's a ****ing great idea. Take the furry little bags of **** to the
council pound as 'strays' and, I guess, quite a lot of them won't come
back.


Thanks.

And useless ****s such as yourself could be taken down to the brothel.


--
Adam

On Fri, 23 Aug 2019 22:00:36 +0100
ARW wrote:

On 23/08/2019 21:54, Jim wrote:
On Fri, 23 Aug 2019 20:02:07 +0100
ARW wrote:

Well I got one and fitted it.

All worked well until today. The cat went outside and decided to
sunbath in a neighbours garden. After 3 hours of hard sleeping the
cat was taken by the neighbour to the vets as he deduced it was a
stray. Lou got a call from the vets and the neighbour was told to
take the cat home.


That's a ****ing great idea. Take the furry little bags of **** to
the council pound as 'strays' and, I guess, quite a lot of them
won't come back.


Thanks.

And useless ****s such as yourself could be taken down to the brothel.



What percentage of cats do you think would return? I reckon 10% or
less. It's ****ing infested with cats hereabouts, a 90% reduction would
be 'A very good thing."

On Fri, 23 Aug 2019 20:02:07 +0100, ARW
wrote:

Well I got one and fitted it.

All worked well until today. The cat went outside and decided to sunbath
in a neighbours garden.

Or 'straying' as we would normally call it ... or not being in control
of your animal ... if it was anything other than a cat apparently?

After 3 hours of hard sleeping the cat was taken
by the neighbour to the vets as he deduced it was a stray.

That's the sort of thing that can happen if you allow your animals to
'stray' onto other peoples property. Lucky he was trying to do good
and didn't take it 'somewhere else'. ;-(

Lou got a
call from the vets and the neighbour was told to take the cat home.

If the council were called to remove a stray animal the owner could be
charged to get it back, even if they went to get it themselves.

What I don't get is how someone can get a cat in the knowledge it is
very likely to stray (and defecate) into other peoples gardens and
assume that should be considered normal / acceptable by everyone?

But hey, if we do leave the EU without a deal and chicken is in short
supply, cats might start disappearing all over the place. weg

Cheers, T i m

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

--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"ARW" wrote in message
...
Well I got one and fitted it.

All worked well until today. The cat went outside and decided to sunbath
in a neighbours garden. After 3 hours of hard sleeping the cat was taken
by the neighbour to the vets as he deduced it was a stray. Lou got a call
from the vets and the neighbour was told to take the cat home.


--
Adam

On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 08:56:35 +0100, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:

You can buy readers but I believe only vets have access to the database.

Daughter has access to one and they are quite interesting (to see
where the chips may have migrated to).

Sounds like a daft person to me.

How long would you leave an animal in your garden before you
determined it may be lost / missing?

Still the cat had a holiday and now you can
do her for theft.

I think you will find 'theft' is where someone intentionally
(typically) intends to permanently deny someone some property, often
for their own gain (to keep, use or sell etc).

Given that in this case the 'stolen object' was immediately handed
into the appropriate authorities, I can't see that sticking.

Nor would the charge of cat-napping. ;-)

In fact I think it's a good idea. If everyone who had a stray cat in
their garden was to take it to the vet / council and the owner had to
go and get it and pay for it, maybe the 'owners' would get the
message? And if they were 'wild animals', don't you have to have a
licence to keep them?

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).

Cheers, T i m

On 24/08/2019 10:02, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 08:56:35 +0100, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:

You can buy readers but I believe only vets have access to the database.

Daughter has access to one and they are quite interesting (to see
where the chips may have migrated to).

Sounds like a daft person to me.

How long would you leave an animal in your garden before you
determined it may be lost / missing?

Still the cat had a holiday and now you can
do her for theft.

I think you will find 'theft' is where someone intentionally
(typically) intends to permanently deny someone some property, often
for their own gain (to keep, use or sell etc).

Given that in this case the 'stolen object' was immediately handed
into the appropriate authorities, I can't see that sticking.

Nor would the charge of cat-napping. ;-)

In fact I think it's a good idea. If everyone who had a stray cat in
their garden was to take it to the vet / council and the owner had to
go and get it and pay for it, maybe the 'owners' would get the
message? And if they were 'wild animals', don't you have to have a
licence to keep them?

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.


--
Adam

On 24/08/2019 00:01, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 23 Aug 2019 20:02:07 +0100, ARW
wrote:

Well I got one and fitted it.

All worked well until today. The cat went outside and decided to sunbath
in a neighbours garden.

Or 'straying' as we would normally call it ... or not being in control
of your animal ... if it was anything other than a cat apparently?

That's the UK law. Get over it. It's the second most common pet in the UK.


--
Adam

On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 18:53:01 +0100
ARW wrote:

On 24/08/2019 10:02, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 08:56:35 +0100, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:

You can buy readers but I believe only vets have access to the
database.

Daughter has access to one and they are quite interesting (to see
where the chips may have migrated to).

Sounds like a daft person to me.

How long would you leave an animal in your garden before you
determined it may be lost / missing?

Still the cat had a holiday and now you can
do her for theft.

I think you will find 'theft' is where someone intentionally
(typically) intends to permanently deny someone some property, often
for their own gain (to keep, use or sell etc).

Given that in this case the 'stolen object' was immediately handed
into the appropriate authorities, I can't see that sticking.

Nor would the charge of cat-napping. ;-)

In fact I think it's a good idea. If everyone who had a stray cat in
their garden was to take it to the vet / council and the owner had
to go and get it and pay for it, maybe the 'owners' would get the
message? And if they were 'wild animals', don't you have to have a
licence to keep them?

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.



Just bung the cat in a microwave for a few minutes, that'll sort the
chip out.

On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 18:56:49 +0100, ARW
wrote:

On 24/08/2019 00:01, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 23 Aug 2019 20:02:07 +0100, ARW
wrote:

Well I got one and fitted it.

All worked well until today. The cat went outside and decided to sunbath
in a neighbours garden.

Or 'straying' as we would normally call it ... or not being in control
of your animal ... if it was anything other than a cat apparently?

That's the UK law.

Currently.

Get over it.

Nope. It's a matter of human rights.

It's the second most common pet in the UK.

Strange use of the word 'pet' in the same way I'm not sure someone
keeping racing pigeons would call them 'pets' (in the traditional use
of the word).

Smoking was once considered 'acceptable' in public places and I
questioned that point at the time. Again, it seemed that the victims
had no rights. How things have changed. ;-)

Hey, if someone like Firage could muster up enough enthusiasm to get
people to vote for something that was a complete unknown, maybe the
majority of the population who supposedly own 'companion animals' but
allow them free reign over the neighbourhood, might will vote for some
sort of control, or a least enforcement over some responsibility.

Like, get the cat DNA tested and registered, along with the microchip,
and any cat waste found in a garden that doesn't have a cat can be
sent off for testing (the cost born by the cat owner) and they are
then made to clean it up or pay compensation.

I wonder how many fewer cat owners there would be if they were held
responsible, like the owners of most other pets / livestock?

Cheers, T i m

On Saturday, 24 August 2019 19:53:46 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
I wonder how many fewer cat owners there would be if they were held
responsible, like the owners of most other pets / livestock?

You might find out whether allegations that cats are witches' familiars are true ;-)

Owain

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.

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

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

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

Cheers, T i m

p.s. I'll have to ask daughter if she checks for chips when she
shovels cats off the road and if she does, how many have them ... and
if they did, 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).

On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 19:19:27 +0100, Jim
wrote:

snip

The microchip would still give the same home address.



Just bung the cat in a microwave for a few minutes, that'll sort the
chip out.

Much as though I question the social responsibility of those who allow
their 'pet' to become a nuisance to others (be that cat fouling or dog
barking etc), I have no issues with cats as an animal and certainly
wouldn't like to think of one being harmed, especially because of a
lack of control / social responsibility (irrespective of the 'law'
etc).

Just because you can often get away with something, doesn't mean doing
so is right. If it's illegal to fly tip, or drop a fag end or litter,
or not clean up after your dog in public places, how could it possibly
be acceptable just for cats?

If I find cat sh1t, an empty beer can or any other rubbish in my
garden, I consider the people who cause it equally.

The cat owners may be otherwise socially responsible people, except
when it comes to (their) cats it seems ... ?

Cheers, T i m

"Jim" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Aug 2019 22:00:36 +0100
ARW wrote:

On 23/08/2019 21:54, Jim wrote:
On Fri, 23 Aug 2019 20:02:07 +0100
ARW wrote:

Well I got one and fitted it.

All worked well until today. The cat went outside and decided to
sunbath in a neighbours garden. After 3 hours of hard sleeping the
cat was taken by the neighbour to the vets as he deduced it was a
stray. Lou got a call from the vets and the neighbour was told to
take the cat home.


That's a ****ing great idea. Take the furry little bags of **** to
the council pound as 'strays' and, I guess, quite a lot of them
won't come back.


Thanks.

And useless ****s such as yourself could be taken down to the brothel.



What percentage of cats do you think would return? I reckon 10% or
less.

It's ****ing infested with cats hereabouts,

If that's the case its more likely to be infested with ****ing cats.

a 90% reduction would be 'A very good thing."

With you and your ilk in spades.

In article ,
T i m wrote:
On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 19:19:27 +0100, Jim
wrote:

snip

The microchip would still give the same home address.



Just bung the cat in a microwave for a few minutes, that'll sort the
chip out.

Much as though I question the social responsibility of those who allow
their 'pet' to become a nuisance to others (be that cat fouling or dog
barking etc), I have no issues with cats as an animal and certainly
wouldn't like to think of one being harmed, especially because of a
lack of control / social responsibility (irrespective of the 'law'
etc).

Just because you can often get away with something, doesn't mean doing
so is right. If it's illegal to fly tip, or drop a fag end or litter,
or not clean up after your dog in public places, how could it possibly
be acceptable just for cats?

If I find cat sh1t, an empty beer can or any other rubbish in my
garden, I consider the people who cause it equally.

The cat owners may be otherwise socially responsible people, except
when it comes to (their) cats it seems ... ?

I think the point is that cats are not 'owned'. They come and go as the
please.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On Sun, 25 Aug 2019 05:41:09 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH senile troll's troll****

....much better air in here!

--
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 Sat, 24 Aug 2019 12:03:15 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Saturday, 24 August 2019 19:53:46 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
I wonder how many fewer cat owners there would be if they were held
responsible, like the owners of most other pets / livestock?

You might find out whether allegations that cats are witches' familiars are true ;-)

I don't think they are g, just that the legislation hasn't been
changed to deal with them (or more accurately, their owners) properly
, now the technology is available.

Not just DNA but fenceless barriers (buried wires and vibrating
collars) / whatever.

Cheers, T i m

p.s. To the people who own cats and dogs ... does their dog get on
with all cats or just theirs? I ask because we have never had a cat
(anywhere in the family) but talking to someone the other day, she
said their dog get's on fine with their cat but 'hates' all other
cats? I imagined that if a dog was cat friendly that would apply
across the board?

Similarly, I let the dogs out into Mums back garden earlier where
daughters two rabbits were out in their (open topped) run. Both dogs
rushed down there and barked once or twice at the rabbits laying out
in the sun right by the wire but the rabbits hardly moved. One rabbit
did get up and was nose to nose with the dog though the wire before
both got on with doing their own thing. However, take a 'different'
dog round there and the rabbits behave very differently, running for
cover (initially anyway).

Whilst out walking the dogs we have come across the odd cat that
stands it's ground if the dogs go for it barking etc (on their leads)
and I wonder if that's down to the cat being stupidly brave (the
terrier probably wouldn't hold back) or was familiar with cat friendly
dogs?

"T i m" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 23 Aug 2019 20:02:07 +0100, ARW
wrote:

Well I got one and fitted it.

All worked well until today. The cat went outside and decided to sunbath
in a neighbours garden.

Or 'straying' as we would normally call it ... or not being in control
of your animal ... if it was anything other than a cat apparently?

After 3 hours of hard sleeping the cat was taken
by the neighbour to the vets as he deduced it was a stray.

That's the sort of thing that can happen if you allow your animals to
'stray' onto other peoples property. Lucky he was trying to do good
and didn't take it 'somewhere else'. ;-(

Lou got a
call from the vets and the neighbour was told to take the cat home.

If the council were called to remove a stray animal the owner could be
charged to get it back, even if they went to get it themselves.

What I don't get is how someone can get a cat in the knowledge it is
very likely to stray (and defecate) into other peoples gardens and
assume that should be considered normal / acceptable by everyone?

But hey, if we do leave the EU without a deal and chicken is in short
supply, cats might start disappearing all over the place. weg

Not when all the asians and romanians are kicked out on 30-Oct

On Sun, 25 Aug 2019 06:23:11 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH senile asshole's latest troll****

....and better air in here!

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

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 08:56:35 +0100, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:

You can buy readers but I believe only vets have access to the database.

Daughter has access to one and they are quite interesting (to see
where the chips may have migrated to).

Sounds like a daft person to me.

How long would you leave an animal in your garden before you
determined it may be lost / missing?

Forever with a cat. The local cats love my jungle and love
basking in the sun outside my passive solar house in winter.
Its much warmer on that side of the house than with any of
their owners houses.

On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 21:01:28 +0100, charles
wrote:

snip

The cat owners may be otherwise socially responsible people, except
when it comes to (their) cats it seems ... ?

I think the point is that cats are not 'owned'.

Well they are (legally), just that the owners don't have to be as
responsible as most other pet owners have to be.

They come and go as the
please.

Not all. Some are 'house cats' and as long as they are happy that's
fine (preferred solution by most gardeners quite probably). Others may
go into their own garden but rarely roam any further.

The ones who become such a nuisance to others is those who just use
their owners house for food and / or shelter. Those aren't 'companion
animals' by the accepted use of the phrase, in the same way a hedgehog
or tortoise generally isn't.

The pigeon I rescued and befriended did actually like my attention /
company and would go round with me locally (often sat on my shoulder
like a pirates parrot). ;-)

When we went on a family holiday and I had to leave it at home (it was
flying again by then). On our return I was told it came looking for me
in the regular local places. I'm not sure many cats would even do
that. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On Sun, 25 Aug 2019 07:24:21 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


Forever with a cat. The local cats love my jungle and love

Wanne bet that even those cats think you are a senile despicable asshole,
you senile troll****?

--
"Anonymous" to trolling senile Rot Speed:
"You can **** off as you know less than pig **** you sad
little ignorant ****."
MID:

On 24/08/2019 20:04, T i m wrote:


p.s. I'll have to ask daughter if she checks for chips when she
shovels cats off the road and if she does, how many have them ... and
if they did, 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).


You understandings are, as normal, incorrect.

--
Adam

On 25/08/2019 15:42, ARW wrote:
On 24/08/2019 20:04, T i m wrote:


p.s. I'll have to ask daughter if she checks for chips when she
shovels cats off the road and if she does, how many have them ... and
if they did, 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).


You understandings are, as normal, incorrect.


Yes and no.

Owners of cats who cause personal injury or property damage could
certainly be sued on the basis that they (the owners) failed in their
duty of care.

On the other hand it's not enough to show the owners knew such injury or
damage was /possible/. They have to be shown to have been negligent -
i.e. they both knew it was reasonably foreseeable and failed to take
reasonable steps to prevent it. 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.

On the third hand, someone has to set the first precedent. I can't
think of anyone better than T i m to fund such a case or to take it
himself on a DIY basis.



--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 24/08/2019 21:20, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 12:03:15 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Saturday, 24 August 2019 19:53:46 UTC+1, T i m wrote:
I wonder how many fewer cat owners there would be if they were held
responsible, like the owners of most other pets / livestock?

You might find out whether allegations that cats are witches' familiars are true ;-)

I don't think they are g, just that the legislation hasn't been
changed to deal with them (or more accurately, their owners) properly
, now the technology is available.

Not just DNA but fenceless barriers (buried wires and vibrating
collars) / whatever.

Cheers, T i m

p.s. To the people who own cats and dogs ... does their dog get on
with all cats or just theirs? I ask because we have never had a cat
(anywhere in the family) but talking to someone the other day, she
said their dog get's on fine with their cat but 'hates' all other
cats? I imagined that if a dog was cat friendly that would apply
across the board?

Similarly, I let the dogs out into Mums back garden earlier where
daughters two rabbits were out in their (open topped) run. Both dogs
rushed down there and barked once or twice at the rabbits laying out
in the sun right by the wire but the rabbits hardly moved. One rabbit
did get up and was nose to nose with the dog though the wire before
both got on with doing their own thing. However, take a 'different'
dog round there and the rabbits behave very differently, running for
cover (initially anyway).

Whilst out walking the dogs we have come across the odd cat that
stands it's ground if the dogs go for it barking etc (on their leads)
and I wonder if that's down to the cat being stupidly brave (the
terrier probably wouldn't hold back) or was familiar with cat friendly
dogs?


I trained my dog to walk at heel and never used a lead unless I had to.

The lack of a lead once caused a very good fight with a park warden when
I was about 19 years old.

--
Adam

On Sun, 25 Aug 2019 19:04:17 +0100, ARW
wrote:

snip

Whilst out walking the dogs we have come across the odd cat that
stands it's ground if the dogs go for it barking etc (on their leads)
and I wonder if that's down to the cat being stupidly brave (the
terrier probably wouldn't hold back) or was familiar with cat friendly
dogs?


I trained my dog to walk at heel and never used a lead unless I had to.

The dog I got from a rescue as a pup was equally well trained and
obedient. The other two came to us older (as have the current pair)
and are therefore more difficult to train.

The lack of a lead once caused a very good fight with a park warden when
I was about 19 years old.

They didn't consider your dog sufficiently 'Under control', as stated
in the bylaws?

Cheers, T i m

On Sun, 25 Aug 2019 17:16:09 +0100, Robin wrote:

On 25/08/2019 15:42, ARW wrote:
On 24/08/2019 20:04, T i m wrote:


p.s. I'll have to ask daughter if she checks for chips when she
shovels cats off the road and if she does, how many have them ... and
if they did, 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).


You understandings are, as normal, incorrect.


Yes and no.

Owners of cats who cause personal injury or property damage could
certainly be sued on the basis that they (the owners) failed in their
duty of care.

Quite.

On the other hand it's not enough to show the owners knew such injury or
damage was /possible/. They have to be shown to have been negligent -
i.e. they both knew it was reasonably foreseeable and failed to take
reasonable steps to prevent it.

Yup.

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'?

On the third hand, someone has to set the first precedent. I can't
think of anyone better than T i m to fund such a case or to take it
himself on a DIY basis.

I would seriously consider it if I was put into such a position by a
negligent cat (specifically as most other pet / livestock owners
already have a clear / defined responsibility to others).

ITRW, most cats simply die under such circumstances and without
causing a major issue for anyone else (even their owners in many cases
who simply go out and get 'another one').

As / when someone swerves to avoid a cat (you shouldn't but it may be
instinctive to) and hits a bunch of kids, things might change. ;-(

But as you don't have to report hitting and killing a cat, the
statistics on how many get killed (that could have lead to a worse
accident) may not be available.

Cheers, T i m

On 25/08/2019 19:04, ARW wrote:
On 24/08/2019 21:20, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 12:03:15 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Saturday, 24 August 2019 19:53:46 UTC+1, T i mÂ* wrote:
I wonder how many fewer cat owners there would be if they were held
responsible, like the owners of most other pets / livestock?

You might find out whether allegations that cats are witches'
familiars are true ;-)

I don't think they are g, just that the legislation hasn't been
changed to deal with them (or more accurately, their owners) properly
, now the technology is available.

Not just DNA but fenceless barriers (buried wires and vibrating
collars) / whatever.

Cheers, T i m

p.s. To the people who own cats and dogs ... does their dog get on
with all cats or just theirs? I ask because we have never had a cat
(anywhere in the family) but talking to someone the other day, she
said their dog get's on fine with their cat but 'hates' all other
cats? I imagined that if a dog was cat friendly that would apply
across the board?

Similarly, I let the dogs out into Mums back garden earlier where
daughters two rabbits were out in their (open topped) run. Both dogs
rushed down there and barked once or twice at the rabbits laying out
in the sun right by the wire but the rabbits hardly moved. One rabbit
did get up and was nose to nose with the dog though the wire before
both got on with doing their own thing. However, take a 'different'
dog round there and the rabbits behave very differently, running for
cover (initially anyway).

Whilst out walking the dogs we have come across the odd cat that
stands it's ground if the dogs go for it barking etc (on their leads)
and I wonder if that's down to the cat being stupidly brave (the
terrier probably wouldn't hold back) or was familiar with cat friendly
dogs?


I trained my dog to walk at heel and never used a lead unless I had to.

The lack of a lead once caused a very good fight with a park warden when
I was about 19 years old.

Did they fine the dog and insist that you were kept you on a lead?
;

On 26/08/2019 00:52, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 25 Aug 2019 19:04:17 +0100, ARW
wrote:

snip

Whilst out walking the dogs we have come across the odd cat that
stands it's ground if the dogs go for it barking etc (on their leads)
and I wonder if that's down to the cat being stupidly brave (the
terrier probably wouldn't hold back) or was familiar with cat friendly
dogs?


I trained my dog to walk at heel and never used a lead unless I had to.

The dog I got from a rescue as a pup was equally well trained and
obedient. The other two came to us older (as have the current pair)
and are therefore more difficult to train.

The lack of a lead once caused a very good fight with a park warden when
I was about 19 years old.

They didn't consider your dog sufficiently 'Under control', as stated
in the bylaws?



Something to that effect. But I was not having a park warden that had a
dog with him that was not on a lead tell me to put my dog on a lead.


--
Adam

On 26/08/2019 01:19, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 25 Aug 2019 17:16:09 +0100, Robin wrote:

On 25/08/2019 15:42, ARW wrote:
On 24/08/2019 20:04, T i m wrote:


p.s. I'll have to ask daughter if she checks for chips when she
shovels cats off the road and if she does, how many have them ... and
if they did, 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).


You understandings are, as normal, incorrect.


Yes and no.

Owners of cats who cause personal injury or property damage could
certainly be sued on the basis that they (the owners) failed in their
duty of care.

Quite.

On the other hand it's not enough to show the owners knew such injury or
damage was /possible/. They have to be shown to have been negligent -
i.e. they both knew it was reasonably foreseeable and failed to take
reasonable steps to prevent it.

Yup.

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.



--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

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?

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! ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 08:32:32 +0100, ARW
wrote:

snip

They didn't consider your dog sufficiently 'Under control', as stated
in the bylaws?

Something to that effect. But I was not having a park warden that had a
dog with him that was not on a lead tell me to put my dog on a lead.

Whilst that does sound a little hypocritical, 'he' was the person in
authority in that situation and knew (as much as anyone can) just how
'in control' his dog was, but didn't know anything about yours.

As a representative of the council / authority he probably had a duty
of care to ensure any dog owned by members of the public was on the
lead whereas his dog could have been council property and a tool of
his job?

It's therefore quite possible he has some sort of 'special
dispensation' to have his 'trained' dog off the lead when patrolling
the park.

OTOH, it could have just been his personal pet that he was taking
round the park at lockup time and had no more right to have his dog
off the lead than you with yours. ;-)

Today he would quite likely be wearing a bodycam and have a lone
worker recorder / alarm and had you attacked him, it would have all
been recorded.

Cheers, T i m

On 26/08/2019 10:20, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 08:32:32 +0100, ARW
wrote:

snip

They didn't consider your dog sufficiently 'Under control', as stated
in the bylaws?

Something to that effect. But I was not having a park warden that had a
dog with him that was not on a lead tell me to put my dog on a lead.

Whilst that does sound a little hypocritical, 'he' was the person in
authority in that situation and knew (as much as anyone can) just how
'in control' his dog was, but didn't know anything about yours.

As a representative of the council / authority he probably had a duty
of care to ensure any dog owned by members of the public was on the
lead whereas his dog could have been council property and a tool of
his job?

It's therefore quite possible he has some sort of 'special
dispensation' to have his 'trained' dog off the lead when patrolling
the park.

OTOH, it could have just been his personal pet that he was taking
round the park at lockup time and had no more right to have his dog
off the lead than you with yours. ;-)

Today he would quite likely be wearing a bodycam and have a lone
worker recorder / alarm and had you attacked him, it would have all
been recorded.


Not *a little hypocritical*, 'he' was being a totally clueless knob.

Well done Adam!

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.

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.




--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

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?

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). ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On 26/08/2019 10:36, Richard wrote:
On 26/08/2019 10:20, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 08:32:32 +0100, ARW
wrote:

snip

They didn't consider your dog sufficiently 'Under control', as stated
in the bylaws?

Something to that effect. But I was not having a park warden that had a
dog with him that was not on a lead tell me to put my dog on a lead.

Whilst that does sound a little hypocritical, 'he' was the person in
authority in that situation and knew (as much as anyone can) just how
'in control' his dog was, but didn't know anything about yours.

As a representative of the council / authority he probably had a duty
of care to ensure any dog owned by members of the public was on the
lead whereas his dog could have been council property and a tool of
his job?

It's therefore quite possible he has some sort of 'special
dispensation' to have his 'trained' dog off the lead when patrolling
the park.

OTOH, it could have just been his personal pet that he was taking
round the park at lockup time and had no more right to have his dog
off the lead than you with yours. ;-)

Today he would quite likely be wearing a bodycam and have a lone
worker recorder / alarm and had you attacked him, it would have all
been recorded.


Not *a little hypocritical*, 'he' was being a totally clueless knob.

Well done Adam!

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.

--
Adam

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".

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.


--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

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).

On 26/08/2019 11:43, 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.Â* 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.Â* 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".

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.



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

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

Good luck Tim.