"Baz" wrote in message
...

Yes, but they foul in someone elses garden. Burying it makes it 100 times
worse. There are no cat shit detectors. You only know it when it's
disgusting odour is on your hand or your tool (no remarks please).

so what's your idea?





Baz

"Christina Websell" wrote in
:


"Baz" wrote in message
...

Yes, but they foul in someone elses garden. Burying it makes it 100
times worse. There are no cat shit detectors. You only know it when
it's disgusting odour is on your hand or your tool (no remarks
please).

so what's your idea?





Baz




My idea is to change the law. I have been actively lobbying the government
for a long time now. Deaf ears. So it seems the cat louts/owners have won.
They can shit all over my garden and there is nothing legaly that I can do
about it.
Is this OK for you?

Baz

"Baz" wrote in message
...
"Christina Websell" wrote in
:


"Baz" wrote in message
...

Yes, but they foul in someone elses garden. Burying it makes it 100
times worse. There are no cat shit detectors. You only know it when
it's disgusting odour is on your hand or your tool (no remarks
please).

so what's your idea?





Baz




My idea is to change the law. I have been actively lobbying the government
for a long time now. Deaf ears. So it seems the cat louts/owners have won.
They can shit all over my garden and there is nothing legaly that I can do
about it.
Is this OK for you?

Baz

the fact remains that it is recognised in law that you are able to train and
control a dog and are responsible for what it does, but not a cat.
I do recognise that they can be a nuisance to gardeners, but also that
anyone is as much entitled to have a cat as to garden and long may it be so.
Or where will it end?

Your dog barks a few times, it annoys your neighbours. You have an aviary
of budgies that chirp annoyingly but it's your interest and you show them.
Should that all be banned?

On 26/09/13 20:07, Christina Websell wrote:

the fact remains that it is recognised in law that you are able to train and
control a dog and are responsible for what it does, but not a cat.

There was the old AP Herbert "Misleading Case" where a neighbour
sued because snails were being thrown over the fence into his
garden and were damaging his prize vegetables.

The case depended on the concept that unless legislation
specifically states otherwise, animals are classed as either
"tame and domesticated" or "wild and ferocious". Which would
be the right classification for snails?

Tom Gardner wrote in
:

On 26/09/13 20:07, Christina Websell wrote:

the fact remains that it is recognised in law that you are able to
train and control a dog and are responsible for what it does, but not
a cat.

There was the old AP Herbert "Misleading Case" where a neighbour
sued because snails were being thrown over the fence into his
garden and were damaging his prize vegetables.

The case depended on the concept that unless legislation
specifically states otherwise, animals are classed as either
"tame and domesticated" or "wild and ferocious". Which would
be the right classification for snails?



Well, wild, as they are wild, and ferocious because they are ferocious to
plants. I would think that is obvious.
I think that as a point of law that the "thrower" could be seen to
criminaly damage propety that does not belong to him. His intent is to
throw an object, with the intent of damaging property not beloning to him.
That is criminal damage. Hard to prove though. However more and more people
install security cameras. As we all should.

Baz

On 27/09/13 12:32, Baz wrote:
Tom Gardner wrote in
:

On 26/09/13 20:07, Christina Websell wrote:

the fact remains that it is recognised in law that you are able to
train and control a dog and are responsible for what it does, but not
a cat.

There was the old AP Herbert "Misleading Case" where a neighbour
sued because snails were being thrown over the fence into his
garden and were damaging his prize vegetables.

The case depended on the concept that unless legislation
specifically states otherwise, animals are classed as either
"tame and domesticated" or "wild and ferocious". Which would
be the right classification for snails?



Well, wild, as they are wild,

So nobody has, or is assumed to have, any control over
them - and hence there's no problem with them being
displaced. After all, they could easily have wandered
over there on their own and no complaint could have
been made.

and ferocious because they are ferocious to
plants. I would think that is obvious.

It is obvious but irrelevant in law.

I think that as a point of law that the "thrower" could be seen to
criminaly damage propety that does not belong to him. His intent is to
throw an object, with the intent of damaging property not beloning to him.
That is criminal damage.

OK, so he very gently deposited them on the
other side of the fence. No criminal damage
resulted from that deposition. (ho ho)

But of course AP Herbert, a distinguished lawyer,
would have got such details right. IANAL.

Hard to prove though. However more and more people
install security cameras. As we all should.

Written in 1930, so even cameras would have
been uncommon

Tom Gardner wrote in
:

On 27/09/13 12:32, Baz wrote:
Tom Gardner wrote in
:

On 26/09/13 20:07, Christina Websell wrote:

the fact remains that it is recognised in law that you are able to
train and control a dog and are responsible for what it does, but
not a cat.

There was the old AP Herbert "Misleading Case" where a neighbour
sued because snails were being thrown over the fence into his
garden and were damaging his prize vegetables.

The case depended on the concept that unless legislation
specifically states otherwise, animals are classed as either
"tame and domesticated" or "wild and ferocious". Which would
be the right classification for snails?



Well, wild, as they are wild,

So nobody has, or is assumed to have, any control over
them - and hence there's no problem with them being
displaced. After all, they could easily have wandered
over there on their own and no complaint could have
been made.

and ferocious because they are ferocious to
plants. I would think that is obvious.

It is obvious but irrelevant in law.

I think that as a point of law that the "thrower" could be seen to
criminaly damage propety that does not belong to him. His intent is
to throw an object, with the intent of damaging property not beloning
to him.
That is criminal damage.

OK, so he very gently deposited them on the
other side of the fence. No criminal damage
resulted from that deposition. (ho ho)

But of course AP Herbert, a distinguished lawyer,
would have got such details right. IANAL.

Hard to prove though. However more and more people
install security cameras. As we all should.

Written in 1930, so even cameras would have
been uncommon




I think that somewhere one of us, me or you, have grasped the wrong end
of the stick.
Let me say that i am only interested in how the law, as a means to an
end, is aplicable today.
Some bullshit written in the 1930's is hardly apt.

Baz

"Christina Websell" wrote in
:


"Baz" wrote in message
...
"Christina Websell" wrote in
:


"Baz" wrote in message
...

Yes, but they foul in someone elses garden. Burying it makes it 100
times worse. There are no cat shit detectors. You only know it when
it's disgusting odour is on your hand or your tool (no remarks
please).

so what's your idea?





Baz




My idea is to change the law. I have been actively lobbying the
government for a long time now. Deaf ears. So it seems the cat
louts/owners have won. They can shit all over my garden and there is
nothing legaly that I can do about it.
Is this OK for you?

Baz

the fact remains that it is recognised in law that you are able to
train and control a dog and are responsible for what it does, but not
a cat. I do recognise that they can be a nuisance to gardeners, but
also that anyone is as much entitled to have a cat as to garden and
long may it be so. Or where will it end?

Your dog barks a few times, it annoys your neighbours. You have an
aviary of budgies that chirp annoyingly but it's your interest and you
show them. Should that all be banned?




It is already illegal to noise pollute. Dogs, budgies, cockerals, car
alarms, home alarms, hi-fi, people partying. In fact any noise nuisance
is banned.
There was a chap locally a couple of years ago who used to strike up his
very loud motorbike every morning at 5:30am to go to work. I could hear
it and I must live 500metres away. It didn't bother me much because I
would be getting up about 6:00am anyway. His immediate neighbours however
were very bothered. The chap was warned several times, caught in the act,
but one morning he ran out of luck. The council came with the police and
a truck to take the bike away. He didn't have his bike confiscated, but
we never heard that bike at 5:30am again.

Baz