A woman given an Asbo for annoying neighbours claims she is not a nuisance, but the victim of a bitter row.Oh, this’ll be good. Talk about getting given enough rope to hang yourself..
*gets popcorn*
OK, continue!
… Mrs Quinney, who has lived in the street for 18 years, denied she had been tormenting neighbours and said it all flared from a row about her labrador.Ah. Someone else who doesn’t think the leash laws apply to them, and that their mutt should roam at will, terrorising the neighbourhood.
She said: “We had been taking the dog for a walk when the dog chased a cat out of the front garden. The owner jumped out of the back of his vehicle, kicked the dog and swore.
“They said they thought the dog could hurt a child.”
Describing herself as a thoughtful and caring person…SNORK!
Mrs Quinney said the court case related to incidents over the past seven months and did not include anything before then. She said: “My side wasn’t put across in court. I have suffered for the past three years from torment from neighbours.You came prepared with all this stuff, yet didn’t use it? I do have to wonder why….
“I had character references, statements and details. My solicitor didn’t read anything out and I didn’t read anything out.”
22 comments:
Comments on the original article are enlightening, to say the least ..
I know who I believe ..
"Comments on the original article are enlightening, to say the least .."
I think kuky_54's comment -and mastery of English- along with the other comment "i bet these people making the abusive comments are not the actual owners off the properties" probably tell us the background to this story.
I would have kicked/killed her dog too if it had come on my land unleashed/unmuzzled and growled or even looked funny at my kids.
Can anyone give a good reason why cats are allowed to roam free. It's not dogs that get into my garden it's cats and I see no reason why I should have to accept it. If anyone has a cat then they should accept responsibility for the vicious and antisocial feline thugs.
"Can anyone give a good reason why cats are allowed to roam free."
Because, strictly, speaking you don't 'own' a cat, it 'owns' you. Cats are still, legally, pretty much 'wild animals'.
Regardless of the story, any events stemming from falling-out over a labrador will always have such a reassuringly Home Counties twang.
"Because, strictly, speaking you don't 'own' a cat, it 'owns' you. Cats are still, legally, pretty much 'wild animals'."
But in reality the owners think that they can let their animals roam free and we all have a duty to look after them.
Not that I would let it happen but if my dog savaged a cat I don't think that the owner would take the view that its only a wild animal.
There are too many cats around. People should show some responsibility.
"but if my dog savaged a cat I don't think that the owner would take the view that its only a wild animal."
No I doubt they would and AFAIK Cat 'owners' have a 'duty of care' and are liable for their pet's actions but that's bout as far as it goes. Putting a leash on a cat would probably result in prosecution for mistreatment by the RSPCA Tatical Firearms Division.
"Can anyone give a good reason why cats are allowed to roam free."
When did you last hear of anyone being killed, disfigured or traumatised by an unprovoked domestic cat attack? You will find that large cats, lions, tigers and the like which can cause injury are not allowed to roam free.
Is it just me?
This sounds like a witch hunt. (And I don't mean that she's a witch.)
An ASBO is a way of punishing someone who hasn't been found guilty of breaking an actual law. Otherwise it wouldn't need to exist.
Those neighbours wouldn't like me, either. (Some of mine don't, but I was here first.)
Most people imagine that when the pay a solicitor a lot of money, they will defended with vigour, by an expert. This turns out to be horribly untrue. It only happens in fiction, and in celebrity cases.
Maybe one percent of lawyers are fighters, the rest are very unimaginative rule-worshippers. How else would they get a law degree?
The differences between dogs & domestic cats being allowed to roam free is an historical one ..
In medieval times, dogs were passed through a hoop to establish their size .. if the dog fitted through the hoop, the owner was required to pay a fee & control the dog .. if the dog failed the test, it was killed ..
This was done to ensure than no dog belonging to the majority of the populace was large enough to "worry" or kill the King's deer ..
Which eventually paved the way for dog licences ..
Paul ...
I think you'll find that the reasons why domestic cats are permitted to roam free is an historic one ..
In medieval times, dogs were measured by being passed through a hoop, if the dog fitted, the owner was charged a fee & was required to control the dog .. if it failed, it died ..
This was so that no dog, belonging to the majority of the populace was ever large enough to "worry" or kill the King's deer .. eventually this paved the way for dog licences ..
As I understand it, cats have never been regarded as being part of a man's "chattels" .. unlike pig, dog, goat, sheep, ass or ox .. therefore have never been mentioned in the Road Traffic Act & there is no legal requirement to report a road accident involving a cat ..
The denormalisation of dog-owners seems to predate that of the smokers, (and now the drinkers and eaters, etc).
Ever since they were humbled into picking up and bagging, most dog-owners have accepted their apparent filthy inferiority.
Throughout my childhood, most dogs went where and when they wanted. Sometimes you trod in it. (Spit happens.) Nobody I know got savaged, the kids and the dogs shared the streets. We worked out our social dynamics, as group-living carnivores do. Serious aggressors were removed from the scene, somehow. It worked. We were healthy, too.
"I would have kicked/killed her dog too if it had come on my land unleashed/unmuzzled and growled or even looked funny at my kids."
FFS ! It's a Labrador, not a pit bull. They're utter softies.
"unmuzzled !"
The labrador freedom fighters front may well come and poop on your blog.
This is a prime example of how people have lost the skill to communicate without a juvenile shouting fit. It would seem that many English people now learn their emotional responses from EastEnders.
As for kicking a dog for an imagined offence; talk about immature. Anyone doing that deserves to be bitten. Possibly by the owner.
"Comments on the original article are enlightening, to say the least .."
Indeed!
"Can anyone give a good reason why cats are allowed to roam free."
SBC & Capt Haddock beat me to it!
"Regardless of the story, any events stemming from falling-out over a labrador will always have such a reassuringly Home Counties twang."
Hmmmm, I think this is testing that supposition! :)
"Putting a leash on a cat would probably result in prosecution for mistreatment by the RSPCA Tatical Firearms Division."
I know a few owners of Siamese take them out on harnesses, actually.
"Is it just me?
This sounds like a witch hunt."
But possibly we DO indeed have a 'witch' here (by which I mean, perhaps the neighbours are right and she's the cause of most of it)?
I take your point about the ASBO, but then, the normal law seems to prove useless with regards to persistent nuisances.
"Serious aggressors were removed from the scene, somehow. "
That's possibly what doesn't happen now. Plus the rise in 'status' dogs.
"FFS ! It's a Labrador, not a pit bull. They're utter softies. "
Not always. They give a good account of themselves in the stats.
And my local vicar, despite getting an animal so well bred it was a surprise it'd have anything to do with us commoners, ended up having it put down because it was mad, untrainable and, yes, bitey.
"As for kicking a dog for an imagined offence; talk about immature. "
It was loose, in his property, chasing his other property. It's lucky it only got a kick!
"FFS ! It's a Labrador, not a pit bull. They're utter softies. "
Yep they are...99% of the time....but then again so are Rotties.
Labs were bred to attack wolves and bears before they were turned into gun dogs and they still possess an 'attack gene' for want of a better word. I worked with attack dogs and, trust me, a Lab will have your throat out. Like most of the so-called 'softies'....as the guy who tried to break into my parents house and who thought that labradoodles were soppy, soft, useless dogs, and lets be honest- they are, found out.
"When did you last hear of anyone being killed, disfigured or traumatised by an unprovoked domestic cat attack?"
Google child attacked by cat and remember that larger domestic cats can cause a lot of damage including blindness.
And cats are becoming more aggressive now that they no longer are harrased by dogs.
And how many feral cats are there around. If they are not domestic animals then they need to be controlled.
Not always. They give a good account of themselves in the stats.
The stats are meaningless, though, because they are not weighted by the population size of the various breeds.
In other words, because labrador retrievers are a very popular breed. there's every likelihood that they will figure more prominently than a less aimiable but rarer breed of dog.
That said, I was once bitten by a lab. And more recently by a local onan-hound...
Marionette de Chaussette
"The stats are meaningless, though, because they are not weighted by the population size of the various breeds."
No they aren't meaningless, although you're absolutely right about the need to take 'population size' into account. What the stats DO illustrate is that even the 'softest' breeds are capable of attacking someone and do. Now dog-people may argue that it is all 'bad owners' not 'bad dogs' but that doesn't help me if suddenly there is an out of control dog (and if it isn't leashed and muzzled then it isn't 'under control') on my land and growling at my kids.
A Lab is a 40 kilo mutant timber wolf with enough 'torque' to haul ropes and nets (one of their original uses) and if I were the neighbour in question and if the UK didn't have it's obscene gun laws then I'd empty a clip, AND reload, into any aggressive out of control dog that came up to my kids -be it a 'softy' or not.
What the stats DO illustrate is that even the 'softest' breeds are capable of attacking someone and do
Well, I think we're broadly of one mind, aren't we? Perhaps I should more accurately have said that the stats are misleading rather than meaningless since of necessity they distort the relative viciousness of more popular breeds.
Marionette de Chaussette
Post a Comment