On 2009-09-27 10:23:00 +0100, Charlie Pridham
said:

In article ,
says...
In message , Kathy
wrote

Millie took a week and a half to die. The prat [I use that term rather than
*******, as we are still hoping it was accidental] that left the poison
around for her and, it now seems, a number of other pets, to find did not
use anything recognisable. If you think putting a domestic pet - not a
rodent - through that is justified then you are not a neighbour I would wish
for.
Then again, as you haven't got the guts to post under your own name, you
aren't worth knowing anyway.


This is the point I 've been making about double standards! A pet owner
blaming others for their own irresponsible behaviour in not keeping
their pet under control - and then coming to news groups for sympathy.

While it may be a "pet" whilst on your property it often is a pest, and
no different to a rodent, when it roams and is a _constant_ nuisance on
other peoples property.

Why are you so surprised when you cannot be bothered to look after your
animal that it has come to harm?


Give it a rest, the law is quite clear a cats owner is not responsible
for what the cat does.
Indeed you may be shocked to discover that a farmer is not obliged to
keep his animals off your land, that is your responsibility to maintain
the boundry (except the highways where they do have a responsibility to
prevent stock from wandering)

A completly different set of laws says it is illegal to cause harm or
suffering to any animals. a further set of laws says that you may not
cause harm or disturbance to wild animals without a licence, the
exceptions being those animals designated vermine.

should you dissagree with the laws in this country then use your vote to
change them, if you find that you are in the minority and you can not get
them changed either move or shut up about it.

Hooray for you, Charlie - all very well said.
--
Sacha