Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I was just talking to a client of mine the other day about this! The way in which people choose to handle their infestations could ultimately lead to injury, poisoning or even the death of our felines. This worries me. I'm relieved to hear he's okay - just keep an eye on his walking. Make sure he's not limping & avoiding pressure; that there's no puncture wounds that could lead to infection - otherwise it'll be worth getting his paw checked over by the vets, just to be on the safe side.

bcam Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Looks like the kind of trap this nasty piece of

> work - Mahoody - is selling. You should send him

> your vet bill.

>

> https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?30,2096886,2097838#msg-2097838


It does not, and there are no grounds for asserting that it might have been sold or set by him. If you look at his trapbarn.com website, mentioned in the thread you link to and have also contributed to, it's clear to see that the Fenn traps are made in Redditch. It's also clear to see that the Kness trap was made in the USA, and looks different from the Fenn one.


It's also a clear matter of law that the Spring Traps Approval (England) Order 2018, SI 2018/1190 gives the Fenn traps explicit government approval. That approval has, for all varieties of the trap, the clear condition:The trap must be set in a natural or artificial tunnel which is, in either case, suitable for the purpose.

So, any responsibility for the hurt done to the cat lies clearly with the user rather than the unknown supplier. The trapbarn.com website itself makes it clear at a number of places that it's a legal requirement to have such a tunnel, and supplies artificial ones.


Do you have any evidence that, as you clearly imply, Mahoody has some responsibility for the hurt suffered by the cat?


How do you justify "this nasty piece of work"?

Ian, Mr Rogers said: ?When I was a boy and I would see scary things in the news. My mother would say to me, ?Look for the helpers. You will always find people who are helping.?


That's not you.





ianr Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> bcam Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Looks like the kind of trap this nasty piece of

> > work - Mahoody - is selling. You should send

> him

> > your vet bill.

> >

> >

> https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?

> 30,2096886,2097838#msg-2097838

>

> It does not, and there are no grounds for

> asserting that it might have been sold or set by

> him. If you look at his trapbarn.com website,

> mentioned in the thread you link to and have also

> contributed to, it's clear to see that the Fenn

> traps are made in Redditch. It's also clear to

> see that the Kness trap was made in the USA, and

> looks different from the Fenn one.

>

> It's also a clear matter of law that the Spring

> Traps Approval (England) Order 2018, SI 2018/1190

> gives the Fenn traps explicit government approval.

> That approval has, for all varieties of the trap,

> the clear condition:The trap must be set in a

> natural or artificial tunnel which is, in either

> case, suitable for the purpose.

> So, any responsibility for the hurt done to the

> cat lies clearly with the user rather than the

> unknown supplier. The trapbarn.com website itself

> makes it clear at a number of places that it's a

> legal requirement to have such a tunnel, and

> supplies artificial ones.

>

> Do you have any evidence that, as you clearly

> imply, Mahoody has some responsibility for the

> hurt suffered by the cat?

>

> How do you justify "this nasty piece of work"?

I got the impression that ianr WAS helping.

Helping to highlight someone's accusation as misplaced, vindictive and ill-founded.

The accusation of Mahoody seemed a bit knee-jerk premature, no ?

What would also help is the free accuser answering ianr's questions

Look, the "brand" of trap is irrelevant. The fact is, the guy has been punting these kinds of brutal "industrial" traps across residential areas for quite some time, and I'm sure this isn't the first pet that's been injured, or killed.

And they are pointless. They also rely on inexperienced members of the public setting and locating them properly, which clearly hasn't worked in this instance. So no, the trap in question likely isn't his. But does he punt the same barbaric devices? Yes.


Last post from me as I'm not gonna keep bumping this up. Sure you won't be able to help yourself tho....


Always nice to see a fearless (keyboard) warrior ride valiantly to a maidens aid. I'm swooning!




KidKruger Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I got the impression that ianr WAS helping.

> Helping to highlight someone's accusation as

> misplaced, vindictive and ill-founded.

> The accusation of Mahoody seemed a bit knee-jerk

> premature, no ?

> What would also help is the free accuser answering

> ianr's questions

I'd be fearless in front of you as well, the keyboard is a distraction so don't flatter yourself.

You were directly accusing the poster of being responsible, what he's doing is not illegal (as somebody else [another 'keyboard warrior' ?] pointed out).

You may not like the taste of that, but you need to deal with that rather than insulting people who point it out.

I wasn't insulting you, sunshine. But it seems you need to. Er, OK.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Per Cllr McAsh, as quoted above: “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. " Is anyone au fait with the Clean Air Act 1993, and  particularly with the state of 'Smoke Control' law and practice generally?  I've just been looking  through some of it for the first time and, afaics, the civil penalties mentioned  were introduced into the Clean Air Act, at Schedule 1A, in May 2022.  So it seems that, in this particular,  it's a matter of the enforcement policy trailing well behind the legislation.  I'm not criticising that at all, but am curious.  
    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...