Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Keeping cats out of garden
"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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Keeping cats out of garden
"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? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Keeping cats out of garden
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? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Keeping cats out of garden
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Keeping cats out of garden
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Keeping cats out of garden
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Keeping cats out of garden
On 27/09/13 13:52, Baz wrote:
I think that somewhere one of us, me or you, have grasped the wrong end of the stick. That's you. 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. That "bullshit", its author, and the influence he had on our society will be remembered far longer than you will be remembered. Fortunately. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Keeping cats out of garden
"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 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
keeping cats away from birds' nest? | United Kingdom | |||
keeping my cats out of my garden | Edible Gardening | |||
Keeping the cats out | United Kingdom | |||
keeping cats off the garden | United Kingdom | |||
suggestions on keeping neighborly cats off lawn | Lawns |