In message , Sacha
writes
On 2010-10-15 22:56:34 +0100, Baz said:

Sacha wrote in :
snip
In this instance, 'uncontrollable' appears to be interpreted as can't
be confined to one garden. Not as "is a ravening beast intent on
wrecking the lives of others by doing what comes naturally". IOW,
don't blame the cat. Or the wandering child.
Yes, just got a bit carried away.
Not controllable and uncontrollable have 2 different meanings.
Ok. I arent the sharpest knife in the box and have difficulty reading and
writing but I know I have misread the control bit. My mistake.
Baz

;-)) This subject certainly arouses strong feelings, doesn't it?
Perhaps there should be a move towards limiting the number of cats and
dogs per household according to the space for them or where the owner
lives. I suppose everyone would have a natural tendency to worry that
these are somewhat draconian measures but it's obvious that the few
people who really over-do the pet numbers cause a lot of annoyance,
worry and even distress to neighbours. Just the other day a woman who
was keeping 100 dogs had most of them removed. She was terribly
distressed. But her neighbours were driven nearly mad by the constant
barking from her property and finally, the authorities had to act. It
would have been kinder to *everybody* if that situation had never been
able to develop.
There was a thread recently on garden bonfires. They too are annoying
and irritating especially in an urban environment. They can also produce
toxins and smoke which can upset people with respiratory problems.
Perhaps we should ban them as well - a sort of quid pro quo?
--
hugh
"Believe nothing. No matter where you read it, Or who said it, Even if
I have said it, Unless it agrees with your own reason And your own
common sense." Buddha