Cat attacks woman, she is scarred for life.

And yet no one is held responsible.
Neither the RSPCA or the owner of the cat is interested in the fact the ferocious cat has left a woman with deep gashes to her head and face.

If this was a dog it would be a very different matter.

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/oldham-cat-attack-adele-milles-11168219

Perfect for a lawsuit. Homeowner's coverage.

I don't think cat owners are responsible for the things their cat gets up to here Quill.
If they were they would be forever in my garden cleaning the shite that several of the local cats leave on a daily basis.

Cats who attack other pets (as this one did before it attacked the woman) are a menace.

Im not keen on cats and they shit everywhere but their own gardens.
If someone's dog went and took a crap in someone else's garden there'd be uproar!

Just found this. In extreme cases a cat owner can be held responsible....it sounds a bit hit and miss though.
They can repeatedly foul and trespass, hunt and kill wild life, and even cause road traffic  accidents, and the owners, unlike owners of other animals are not deemed responsible.
Attacking other animals and even people, cat owners are usually not responsible unless they do it repeatedly.

http://www.thecatgroup.org.uk/pdfs/Cats-law-web.pdf

eddie wrote:Im not keen on cats and they shit everywhere but their own gardens.
If someone's dog went and took a crap in someone else's garden there'd be uproar!

We don't often see dogs roaming free nowadays, but when we first moved here there were several owners who let their dogs roam ...and they would come into my open plan garden at the front and do their business on my newly planted lawn and flower beds.
Amazingly none of the owners I spoke to would take responsibility.

A couple of the more ridiculous responses was..."My dog is a pedigree, it doesn't like being taken out on the lead"...and..."Dogs shit in my garden...what can you do?"

I didn't resort to slapping anyone...but I came very close.

Hahahahaha what idiots!! Pedigree dogs are dogs, the same as other dogs....

People are plain weird.

WHEN A DOG is allowed to roam freely, it will crap in a front yard two yards away from where it lives...

A FARM dog will look for a spot around a minimum of 30 metres/100 feet from where it sleeps, if it can..

AT LEAST most cats bury their turds.
THOSE who don't are probably letting a particular neighbour know what they are thinking of them ! 

AS FOR the OP,  was does a cat attack on a person have to do with the RSPCA, anyway ?      

I know Eddie....it was even dafter because it was a scruffy mongrel  anyway:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

WHEN A DOG is allowed to roam freely, it will crap in a front yard two yards away from where it lives...

A FARM dog will look for a spot around a minimum of 30 metres/100 feet from where it sleeps, if it can..

AT LEAST most cats bury their turds.
THOSE who don't are probably letting a particular neighbour know what they are thinking of them ! 

AS FOR the OP,  was does a cat attack on a person have to do with the RSPCA, anyway ?      

She went for advice I think. Like she says if the cat has not been neutered the RSPCA could have advised the owner about getting it done.....the owners obviously took no notice when she went.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

WHEN A DOG is allowed to roam freely, it will crap in a front yard two yards away from where it lives...

A FARM dog will look for a spot around a minimum of 30 metres/100 feet from where it sleeps, if it can..

AT LEAST most cats bury their turds.
THOSE who don't are probably letting a particular neighbour know what they are thinking of them ! 

AS FOR the OP,  was does a cat attack on a person have to do with the RSPCA, anyway ?      

From experience I could dispute the first two of those comments.
And cats do not bury their poo round here, they leave it on show....my OH takes it personally.

Perhaps the cat knew she was about to chuck a load of water at it ...

Syl wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

WHEN A DOG is allowed to roam freely, it will crap in a front yard two yards away from where it lives...

A FARM dog will look for a spot around a minimum of 30 metres/100 feet from where it sleeps, if it can..

AT LEAST most cats bury their turds.
THOSE who don't are probably letting a particular neighbour know what they are thinking of them ! 

AS FOR the OP,  was does a cat attack on a person have to do with the RSPCA, anyway ?      

From experience I could dispute the first two of those comments.
And cats do not bury their poo round here, they leave it on show....my OH takes it personally.

MAYBE those dogs in your neighbourhood aren't as well mannered, personal hygiene wise, as those around here...

AND SO your hubby should be offended by those rude cats -- they've probably declared war on him !

Chucking water on a cat wont hurt it and it's usually an instant deterrent.

Of course as soon as your backs turned it'll come back and probably bring a mate just for spite.

Syl wrote:Chucking water on a cat wont hurt it and it's usually an instant deterrent.

Of course as soon as your backs turned it'll come back and probably bring a mate just for spite.

The cat probably wouldn't agree. Most cats don't really like water.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Syl wrote:

From experience I could dispute the first two of those comments.
And cats do not bury their poo round here, they leave it on show....my OH takes it personally.

MAYBE those dogs in your neighbourhood aren't as well mannered, personal hygiene wise, as those around here...

AND SO your hubby should be offended by those rude cats -- they've probably declared war on him !

Yes they have, he puts up a good fight though. So far it's cost him loads of ££££....nothing seems to work as yet.
If anyone wants any tips on what NOT to waste your money on re cat repellents he is your man.

In law Syl you are responsible for what your dog does, but you are not responsible for what your cat does, because the law recognises that you can't train a cat and they cats wander at will and you can't stop them

Advancing on a cat with a jug of water is a bit silly.  You might not be able to train them, but they aren't stupid and have a very well developed sense of self preservation!

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:Chucking water on a cat wont hurt it and it's usually an instant deterrent.

Of course as soon as your backs turned it'll come back and probably bring a mate just for spite.

The cat probably wouldn't agree. Most cats don't really like water.

Most people don't really like neighbouring cats using their garden as a feline convenience either....so it's a fair response.

sassy wrote:In law Syl you are responsible for what your dog does, but you are not responsible for what your cat does, because the law recognises that you can't train a cat and they cats wander at will and you can't stop them

Advancing on a cat with a jug of water is a bit silly.  You might not be able to train them, but they aren't stupid and have a very well developed sense of self preservation!

The woman in the OP found that to her cost Sassy...did you see the state of her head and face?

I have been known to chuck water on cats who continuously come into our garden to poo......I do it from a distance though.
I actually love cats, the water wont hurt them and it does stop them...at least till I come back inside.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The cat probably wouldn't agree. Most cats don't really like water.

Most people don't really like neighbouring cats using their garden as a feline convenience either....so it's a fair response.

Most people probably have antisocial habits themselves - like noise pollution, so it's a fair swap.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

Most people don't really like neighbouring cats using their garden as a feline convenience either....so it's a fair response.

Most people probably have antisocial habits themselves - like noise pollution, so it's a fair swap.

I agree there are some really anti social people about Rags, but so far none of them have ever come into my garden for a shit.

FGS...ALL you have to do to stop cats comming on your garden is.....


Piss on em......

Shame it doesn't work with some humans.

it does...beleive me

the piss pot out the window works very well with invasive little scrotes.....

Lord Foul wrote:FGS...ALL you have to do to stop cats comming on your garden is.....


Piss on em......

You have the right idea.... lion/tiger poo liberally scattered around the garden is said to work. Sadly it's not as easily accessible as human waste though.

Syl wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:FGS...ALL you have to do to stop cats comming on your garden is.....


Piss on em......

You have the right idea.... lion/tiger poo liberally scattered around the garden is said to work. Sadly it's not as easily accessible as human waste though.

that always makes me laugh...so folks would exchange little cat poo for BIG CAT poo????

and the difference is???? apart from teh fact BIG CAT poo is in general proportionaly "smellier"

When I was a whippersnapper I was told to wee wee near a pheasants nest in the wild as it would deter 'charlie', I did it but never knew if it worked or not.

Syl wrote:I don't think cat owners are responsible for the things their cat gets up to here Quill.
If they were they would be forever in my garden cleaning the shite that several of the local cats leave on a daily basis.

Cats who attack other pets (as this one did before it attacked the woman) are a menace.

Then we've got a much more civilized system than you. There is no reason why a person should be able to bring a dangerous animal into a neighborhood and not be responsible for it.

Syl wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:FGS...ALL you have to do to stop cats comming on your garden is.....


Piss on em......

You have the right idea.... lion/tiger poo liberally scattered around the garden is said to work. Sadly it's not as easily accessible as human waste though.

It's not. Knowsley safari park are not allowed to any more. I asked 

Miffs2 wrote:

Syl wrote:

You have the right idea.... lion/tiger poo liberally scattered around the garden is said to work. Sadly it's not as easily accessible as human waste though.

It's not. Knowsley safari park are not allowed to any more. I asked 

Did you?
I wonder if it does work?
The nearest thing I have come to being in the vicinity was years ago at Chester Zoo. The tigers were behind bars not glass. We were watching them from behind the fence. One of the big ones came up to the railings...turned his back, and squirted us with his wee. It stunk. We had to walk round like that all day.

Syl wrote:And yet no one is held responsible.
Neither the RSPCA or the owner of the cat is interested in the fact the ferocious cat has left a woman with deep gashes to her head and face.

If this was a dog it would be a very different matter.

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/oldham-cat-attack-adele-milles-11168219

I'd have sorted myself a nice pair of fur mittens through the medium of shoe leather.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:I don't think cat owners are responsible for the things their cat gets up to here Quill.
If they were they would be forever in my garden cleaning the shite that several of the local cats leave on a daily basis.

Cats who attack other pets (as this one did before it attacked the woman) are a menace.

Then we've got a much more civilized system than you.  There is no reason why a person should be able to bring a dangerous animal into a neighborhood and not be responsible for it.

They seem to have more freedom because cats are creatures that cant really be contained if you let them out, specially if they are uneutered toms.
There are certain circumstances where you can be held responsible though...I posted the link.

To be honest, though I think cat owners should bear some responsibility if their cats are a real nuisance, I would hate to live in the sort of society that deals with every tiny misdemeanor  with a libel suit....I don't see that as civilised, more looking to make a quick buck.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Then we've got a much more civilized system than you.  There is no reason why a person should be able to bring a dangerous animal into a neighborhood and not be responsible for it.

They seem to have more freedom because  cats are creatures that cant really be contained if you let them out, specially if they are uneutered toms.
There are certain circumstances where you can be held responsible though...I posted the link.

To be honest, though I think cat owners should bear some responsibility if their cats are a real nuisance, I would hate to live in the sort of society that deals with every tiny misdemeanor  with a libel suit....I don't see that as civilised, more looking to make a quick buck.

There's two sides to every question. In this case I think you are wrong. If a jury decides in your favor, that means per se you were right.

People are quick to identify someone as litigious, but if you win it means ipso facto there can be no such criticism...you won that debate.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

They seem to have more freedom because  cats are creatures that cant really be contained if you let them out, specially if they are uneutered toms.
There are certain circumstances where you can be held responsible though...I posted the link.

To be honest, though I think cat owners should bear some responsibility if their cats are a real nuisance, I would hate to live in the sort of society that deals with every tiny misdemeanor  with a libel suit....I don't see that as civilised, more looking to make a quick buck.

There's two sides to every question.  In this case I think you are wrong.  If a jury decides in your favor, that means per se you were right.

People are quick to identify someone as litigious, but if you win it means ipso facto there can be no such criticism...you won that debate.

You may have won the debate but at what cost?
We have to live amongst our neighbours, I think the very last action should be to involve courts when dealing with them.

For eg.....a family moved in nearby over a year ago, they have a yowling howling dog, no doubt if we went to the authorities it could be solved, perhaps by having the dog put down.
Instead we put up with it...why...because the old man who owned the dog has died and his son and wife are looking after it (as the deceased dad hoped they would) it cant settle when it's left alone in the house....hence the howling.

I know which society I would rather live in....a tolerant one where perhaps things irritate but you turn a blind eye...or a shiny pristine one because if your neighbours (or their pets) don't toe the line they are yanked to court.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

There's two sides to every question.  In this case I think you are wrong.  If a jury decides in your favor, that means per se you were right.

People are quick to identify someone as litigious, but if you win it means ipso facto there can be no such criticism...you won that debate.

You may have won the debate but at what cost?
We have to live amongst our neighbours, I think the very last action should be to involve courts when dealing with them.

For eg.....a family moved in nearby over a year ago, they have a yowling howling dog, no doubt if we went to the authorities it could be solved, perhaps by having the dog put down.
Instead we put up with it...why...because the old man who owned the dog has died and his son and wife are looking after it (as the deceased dad hoped they would) it cant settle when it's left alone in the house....hence the howling.

I know which society I would rather live in....a tolerant one where perhaps things irritate but you turn a blind eye...or a shiny pristine one because if your neighbours (or their pets) don't toe the line they are yanked to court.

When you have an insolvable issue that's what courts are for.  

I had a situation very similar to yours, when I was a student at Berkeley.  I had a house in back; the house in front, which I had to pass by every day, had a dog who was protective of his family.  I tried to make friends, but got bit a couple of times for my effort.  

In speaking with the neighbors I learned that he was also a dog left over from a deceased parent.  I had some friends who had a farm out in the boonies, and arranged a meeting for the purpose of getting the dog to a more satisfactory setting.  It worked...the dog was much happier and they went to visit him on the weekends.

Classic pattern: first negotiate; if that doesn't work and someone is being obstinate, bring in the arbitrator. There's always some compromise.

I think that the problem is, people in the west have lost the art of negotiation. We are so used to solo un precio. People in eastern Europe are so much better at being good neighbors...

I also think we have lost the art of being a good neighbour Quill.

I live next to the most anti social couple (white, middle class, in their 50', keep themselves to themselves) but they are so unaware of their self absorption, which include their 3 cats that use our garden as a toilet (they shoo them off their own garden) burglar alarm going off when they are out...usually when I have a migraine...blocking my driveway with their visitors cars...the list goes on.
When I have spoken to them they act as if I am trying to cause a row....they are impossible.

Would I resort to legal action....nope, I say my piece, they keep out of my way for a bit....then it starts again.

Syl wrote:I also think we have lost the art of being a good neighbour Quill.

I live next to the most anti social couple (white, middle class, in their 50', keep themselves to themselves) but they are so unaware of their self absorption, which include their 3 cats that use our garden as a toilet (they shoo them off their own garden) burglar alarm going off when they are out...usually when I have a migraine...blocking my driveway with their visitors cars...the list goes on.
When I have spoken to them they act as if I am trying to cause a row....they are impossible.

Would I resort to legal action....nope, I say my piece, they keep out of my way for a bit....then it starts again.

So...you are asking to be the victim. Very British...don't cause any noise.

Americans are a bit more persistent. This was actually discussed in Alexis de Toqueville's Democracy in America (1834), speaking of American contentiousness.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:I also think we have lost the art of being a good neighbour Quill.

I live next to the most anti social couple (white, middle class, in their 50', keep themselves to themselves) but they are so unaware of their self absorption, which include their 3 cats that use our garden as a toilet (they shoo them off their own garden) burglar alarm going off when they are out...usually when I have a migraine...blocking my driveway with their visitors cars...the list goes on.
When I have spoken to them they act as if I am trying to cause a row....they are impossible.

Would I resort to legal action....nope, I say my piece, they keep out of my way for a bit....then it starts again.

So...you are asking to be the victim.  Very British...don't cause any noise.

Americans are a bit more persistent.  This was actually discussed in Alexis de Toqueville's Democracy in America (1834), speaking of American contentiousness.

I never see myself as the victim Quill.....I just think I (like many Brits) are just pretty tolerant of other people.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

So...you are asking to be the victim.  Very British...don't cause any noise.

Americans are a bit more persistent.  This was actually discussed in Alexis de Toqueville's Democracy in America (1834), speaking of American contentiousness.

I never see myself as the victim Quill.....I just think I (like many Brits) are just pretty tolerant of other people.

Why do you quietly accept victimhood? Because it's preferable to making noise, such as a lawsuit, right?

In many ways confrontation is the cleanest method.

I don't accept victimhood Quill.
The woman in question acts like the victim though. She trembled and had tears in her eyes the last time I confronted her, and I was very polite in the circumstances....her (workmen had blocked me in again and I had to be somewhere quick) Now that may be her being crafty....but tbh I just think she is so unaware of her actions she is in denial that she is a bad neighbour.

I do make a stand when I feel it's warranted...but I have never used the courts in doing so.

Syl wrote:I do make a stand when I feel it's warranted...but I have never used the courts in doing so.

You just have a different threshold. Brits in general tend not to be as contentious as Americans.

Believe me, you would rely on courts if enough money were involved. Why do you think corporations have legal departments?

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:I do make a stand when I feel it's warranted...but I have never used the courts in doing so.

You just have a different threshold.  Brits in general tend not to be as contentious as Americans.

Believe me, you would rely on courts if enough money were involved.  Why do you think corporations have legal departments?

Well this debate between us started when I said I didn't think running to the courts to sort out misdemeanors was more civilised, it was just a way for people to make money.....and you have now agreed with me.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You just have a different threshold.  Brits in general tend not to be as contentious as Americans.

Believe me, you would rely on courts if enough money were involved.  Why do you think corporations have legal departments?

Well this debate between us started when I said I didn't think running to the courts to sort out misdemeanors was more civilised, it was just a way for people to make money.....and you have now agreed with me.  

That's right. It ended when I agreed that Americans are a lot more contentious than Brits.

Different values. That's probably why y'all have the Pakistani's in East London, and we have Donald Trump. Lol.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

Well this debate between us started when I said I didn't think running to the courts to sort out misdemeanors was more civilised, it was just a way for people to make money.....and you have now agreed with me.  

That's right.  It ended when I agreed that Americans are a lot more contentious than Brits.

Different values.  That's probably why y'all have the Pakistani's in East London, and we have Donald Trump.  Lol.

Hmmmm....but are all Pakistanis as mad as a hatter??

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

That's right.  It ended when I agreed that Americans are a lot more contentious than Brits.

Different values.  That's probably why y'all have the Pakistani's in East London, and we have Donald Trump.  Lol.

Hmmmm....but are all Pakistanis as mad as a hatter??

Only those on the edges.