Quick Question Thread

[Bairnardo]

11 minutes ago, Bigmouth Strikes Again said:

FFS. I'll be looking at a ten to fifteen stretch.

Double murder along with some cruel and unusual (by the look it the scene) fir me this week

Will be finding that fucking bell of his tonight

[The Moonster]

13 minutes ago, Mr. Alli said:

I'm advocating cat owners should be prosecuted when their cats are going around eating what their basic hunting instinct compels them to eat, yes. Much the same as is being put towards dog owners when their own hunting instinct kicks in. 

Edit : the evidence is clear for all to see, read the "Show us your pussy" where folk are saying they just leave their cat to roam and fend for itself. People on this very topic saying "cats can't be trained". 

Well no, if a dog caught and munched a wild rabbit nobody would be pressing charges, unless of course you were partaking in some illegal lamping. You seem to want cat owners done for things dog owners wouldn't be done for. 

People saying cats can't be trained are clearly idiots and I'm not aware of anyone celebrating the kill of an infant or another pet in the cat thread. Cats can be left to roam for themselves because they damage they cause to property is minimal and they are independent animals, dogs are not. This doesn't equate to people not really bothering about cats though, if cats enjoyed being walked by humans more folk would do it.

[jimbaxters]

7 minutes ago, The Moonster said:

Well no, if a dog caught and munched a wild rabbit nobody would be pressing charges, unless of course you were partaking in some illegal lamping. You seem to want cat owners done for things dog owners wouldn't be done for. 

People saying cats can't be trained are clearly idiots and I'm not aware of anyone celebrating the kill of an infant or another pet in the cat thread. Cats can be left to roam for themselves because they damage they cause to property is minimal and they are independent animals, dogs are not. This doesn't equate to people not really bothering about cats though, if cats enjoyed being walked by humans more folk would do it.

Kind of with Mr. Alli on this. Cats are not pets IMO but if people want them to be then they have to take responsibility for them. Posting a picture of a disemboweled pigeon on the SYP thread isn't responsible (sorry @Bairnardo ).

Edited February 23, 2021 by jimbaxters

[Bairnardo]

1 minute ago, jimbaxters said:

Kind of with Mr. Alli on this. Cats are not pets IMO but if people want them to be then they have to take responsibility for them. Posting a picture of a disemboweled pigeon on the SYP thread isn't responsible (sorry Bairnado).

Wot?

[jimbaxters]

Just now, Bairnardo said:

Wot?

Given the independent nature and the fact that they are allowed to roam anywhere.

[Derry Alli]

9 minutes ago, The Moonster said:

Well no, if a dog caught and munched a wild rabbit nobody would be pressing charges, unless of course you were partaking in some illegal lamping. You seem to want cat owners done for things dog owners wouldn't be done for. 

I never once said the rabbit was wild, nor I wouldn't want a dog owner charged. I was using what I would perceive as an immediate food chain as an example. 

[die hard doonhamer]

4 hours ago, The Moonster said:

There's no difference in law. You're responsible for your pet whether it's a cat, dog, snake or bearded dragon.

Is this really the case, given that the prosecution would be under the dangerous dogs act? Is there an equivalent for other animals?

[Bairnardo]

I think this argument is being made on an emotional level and I don't blame Mr Alli one bit for that. I just cant really get serious about me being prosecuted for my cat nailing a pigeon. I can accept perhaps that the pic of it wasn't in the best taste, but that's not someones pigeon so even that's a stretch.

Other peoples pets aren't part of the food chain and appropriate control of your own pet is needed on that basis

[NotThePars]

A cat killing a wild animal that doesn’t belong to anyone isn’t the same as a dog killing someone’s pet cat that seems so incredibly obvious that I’m sure I must be misreading posts

[Robin.Hood]

18 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:

I think this argument is being made on an emotional level and I don't blame Mr Alli one bit for that. I just cant really get serious about me being prosecuted for my cat nailing a pigeon. I can accept perhaps that the pic of it wasn't in the best taste, but that's not someones pigeon so even that's a stretch.

Other peoples pets aren't part of the food chain and appropriate control of your own pet is needed on that basis

Can a cat tell the difference between a racing pigeon and a non racing pigeon. Didnt realise someone I know races pigeons. A bit different but he seems to have did it for a number of years. 

[Robin.Hood]

4 minutes ago, NotThePars said:

A cat killing a wild animal that doesn’t belong to anyone isn’t the same as a dog killing someone’s pet cat that seems so incredibly obvious that I’m sure I must be misreading posts

A pet cat that does whatever the f**k it wants... if cats stayed indoors we wouldn't have messages up every day on Facebook ( Mrs tells me ) of how somebody's cat has went missing for a few days when in reality the cat has just fucked off for a while and will return or it's been hit by a car.

[DiegoDiego]

So the update is that the dogs' owner often takes them to the park and encourages them to kill the rabbits there.

[The Moonster]

44 minutes ago, jimbaxters said:

Kind of with Mr. Alli on this. Cats are not pets IMO but if people want them to be then they have to take responsibility for them. Posting a picture of a disemboweled pigeon on the SYP thread isn't responsible (sorry @Bairnardo ).

Cats are pets as much as dogs are, we domesticated them so if you're arguing cats shouldn't be kept then neither should dogs. 

I'm quite happy for people not to post pictures of their cats wild kills online, but at the same time I'd question why a guy who clearly doesn't like cats would go onto a thread specifically dedicated to cats. 

 

[Mark Connolly]

10 minutes ago, The Moonster said:

Cats are pets as much as dogs are, we domesticated them so if you're arguing cats shouldn't be kept then neither should dogs. 

I'm quite happy for people not to post pictures of their cats wild kills online, but at the same time I'd question why a guy who clearly doesn't like cats would go onto a thread specifically dedicated to cats. 

 

You've been on here for 16 years FFS.

[The Moonster]

56 minutes ago, die hard doonhamer said:

Is this really the case, given that the prosecution would be under the dangerous dogs act? Is there an equivalent for other animals?

Yes, it's a bit different for cats as they have a right to roam under the Animal Act 1971 but if they cause damage/noise nuisance or continually foul in someone else's property you need to take steps to stop that or you'll face an ASBO. I can't see any examples of a cat owner being prosecuted due to their cat murdering a pet/person. 

2 minutes ago, Mark Connolly said:

You've been on here for 16 years FFS.

True, naïve of me.  

[tamthebam]

5 hours ago, The Moonster said:

There's no difference in law. You're responsible for your pet whether it's a cat, dog, snake or bearded dragon.

well...

Animals (Scotland) Act 1987

New provisions as to strict liability for injury or damage caused by animals.

(1)Subject to subsection (4) and (5) below and section 2 of this Act, a person shall be liable for any injury or damage caused by an animal if—

(a)at the time of the injury or damage complained of, he was a keeper of the animal;

(b)the animal belongs to a species whose members generally are by virtue of their physical attributes or habits likely (unless controlled or restrained) to injure severely or kill persons or animals, or damage property to a material extent; and

(c)the injury or damage complained of is directly referable to such physical attributes or habits.

(2)In this section “species” includes—

(a)a form or variety of the species or a sub-division of the species, or the form or variety, identifiable by age, sex or such other criteria as are relevant to the behaviour of animals; and

(b)a kind which is the product of hybridisation.

(3)For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) above—

(a)dogs, and dangerous wild animals within the meaning of section 7(4) of the M1Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976, shall be deemed to be likely (unless controlled or restrained) to injure severely or kill persons or animals by biting or otherwise savaging, attacking or harrying; and

 

This is Scots Civil Law legislation.

From background reading (i.e. google) the English Civil Law of tort actually says it would have to prove the aforesaid dug would be capable of causing severe injury. This actually makes a bit more sense as there's a difference between being savaged by a chihuahua and being savaged by a Japanese Toza. 

[The Moonster]

3 minutes ago, tamthebam said:

well...

Animals (Scotland) Act 1987

New provisions as to strict liability for injury or damage caused by animals.

(1)Subject to subsection (4) and (5) below and section 2 of this Act, a person shall be liable for any injury or damage caused by an animal if—

(a)at the time of the injury or damage complained of, he was a keeper of the animal;

(b)the animal belongs to a species whose members generally are by virtue of their physical attributes or habits likely (unless controlled or restrained) to injure severely or kill persons or animals, or damage property to a material extent; and

(c)the injury or damage complained of is directly referable to such physical attributes or habits.

(2)In this section “species” includes—

(a)a form or variety of the species or a sub-division of the species, or the form or variety, identifiable by age, sex or such other criteria as are relevant to the behaviour of animals; and

(b)a kind which is the product of hybridisation.

(3)For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) above—

(a)dogs, and dangerous wild animals within the meaning of section 7(4) of the M1Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976, shall be deemed to be likely (unless controlled or restrained) to injure severely or kill persons or animals by biting or otherwise savaging, attacking or harrying; and

 

This is Scots Civil Law legislation.

From background reading (i.e. google) the English Civil Law of tort actually says it would have to prove the aforesaid dug would be capable of causing severe injury. This actually makes a bit more sense as there's a difference between being savaged by a chihuahua and being savaged by a Japanese Toza. 

"A person shall be liable for injury or damage cause by an animal...if they were the keeper of the animal"

I think that's what I've said.

[jimbaxters]

1 hour ago, The Moonster said:

Cats are pets as much as dogs are, we domesticated them so if you're arguing cats shouldn't be kept then neither should dogs. 

I'm quite happy for people not to post pictures of their cats wild kills online, but at the same time I'd question why a guy who clearly doesn't like cats would go onto a thread specifically dedicated to cats. 

 

 

1 hour ago, Mark Connolly said:

You've been on here for 16 years FFS.

So you should know how forum browsing goes.

ETA- if they’re domesticated they should be kept in the hoose or at least supervised at all times

Edited February 23, 2021 by jimbaxters

[BFTD]

1 hour ago, DiegoDiego said:

So the update is that the dogs' owner often takes them to the park and encourages them to kill the rabbits there.

I'm guessing that somebody who takes their dug out to do that for kicks isn't going to take responsibility for anything else it does. And is also a ghoul.

[Bigmouth Strikes Again]

11 minutes ago, BFTD said:

I'm guessing that somebody who takes their dug out to do that for kicks isn't going to take responsibility for anything else it does. And is also a ghoul.

I'd smear the chunt with bacon, and then put him in a room with half a dozen starving attack dogs, see how he liked it.

Spoiler