Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
what are they going to kill and eat now?
THE NEW RULES
BANNED: Wild animals such as crocodiles, tigers or wolves, livestock such as cows, sheep, horses or pigs; poisonous spiders, snakes and dangerous dog breeds such as Rottweilers.
They needed a law to ban crocodiles, tigers and wolves as pets?
Frankly this sounds reasonable to me.
No. In fact it's one of the most sensible things I've heard. And you'll understand if I don't shed a tear because now a bunch of northerners only now get to imprison a maximum of two animals in their small council-owned flats.
Speaking of which, if you can afford to keep seven large dogs in food and water for the duration of their lives, should you even be allowed to have a council house? I thought they were for the underprivileged?
People consider pets members of the family. Now some uptight, red-faced beauracrat in a sweatstained suit is going to take one of them away.
And it isn't just for flats, it's for houses too. Would it make it better if it was a bunch of southerners?
And why target only council-owned property? Why not all property full stop?
Something about the whole shebang stinks worse than the vomit of a dying AIDS victim.
I really, deeply, truly, truly, seriously hate this country with every fibre of my being.
"But he said no existing tenants will be made to get rid of their animals unless they are found to be a nuisance."
And I'd guess that only council-owned property is being targeted because the council only has jurisdiction over property that they own.
If you own your own house, you can continue to fuck it up however you like.
They'll only do that if the animals are proved to be a nuisance and frankly if they are then they deserve to be removed.
But something about it seems a bit...unseemly. Can't quite put my finger on what it is.
too many pets = minging flat
hair, emdeeded stink, piss etc
= more expenditure for council to bring it up to acceptable standard for say a new family to move in
I'm with NationalStealthService on this one - no good just being reactionary soon as anything is asked of tenants in social housing. If you want to live with seven alsatians, it's pretty fair to ask you do it in your own property.
and think that this whole shebang stinks worse than the vomit of a dying AIDS victim, because it seems a bit... unseemly?
Wow, i can't imagine what your reaction to government corruption would be.
They're still cleaning the bloodstains out of the carpets at the mayor's office.
Boy, that was a right day.
seems perfectly reasonable to me.
it's lovely here, we've got coconut beers and monkey butlers.
Reckon there should have been a provision in place for people who already had more than two pets though. And Stealthy's point about the costs of pets is pretty valid too.
The whole "outrage" bit seemed to be based on people thinking their pets are being taken away. But they've been told its ok for existing tenants. So, its a bit of a non-arguement really.
These are all good subjects.
Which we need more of.
Along with chairs.
to distract you, then go back to the original two. Extra pets also means you can make them fight in different ways, you could have a royal rumble with cats if you wanted to.
I could give more reasons if you like.
pure local journalism punning gold