Metropol

Gavin Scott wrote:I consider myself to be a thoughtful caring person - but empathic I'm not. Even I would be straining to sense the plight of animals which I can neither see nor hear.
So yes - that is irrelevant to me.

“Out of sight, out of mind”. Hardly the most enlightened attitude. Since I’m sure you are intelligent enough to be aware of the distress caused by fireworks then you are making a conscious effort to ignore the fact.

Gavin Scott wrote:Listen Stu - you chose to look after an animal some *several hundred years* after Guy Fawkes attempted to blow up Parliament. Its not as if you haven't had a bit of notice about this annual tradition. Do you want it to all stop because the animal you keeep doesn't like it? How do you explain that to the children who do? Fireworks have been a part of my childhood (the gala day, at the Scout Hall in summer, end of the Festival, Hogmanay etc), so why should it end now?

I’m not suggesting they do without their fun altogether. Organised events are a perfectly acceptable way for those who enjoy fireworks to do so. They also take place on specified days and last for a fixed period. As such they are easier to avoid with a little planning.

Gavin Scott wrote:You have the opportunity to get in your beloved and well-driven car and pootle off to a kennel in the country, and let your dogs have a break from the whole rigmarole - but instead you'd rather complain about it.

Yes, I could take 2 weeks off around 5 November and again around 31 December each year and stay in the middle of nowhere to avoid the sporadic fireworks at home during those 4 weeks. That may help my dog, but not the multitude of other animals in the wild who have no such protection, of course. However, I’m not aware of any “fun activity” I undertake which causes others any such inconvenience or additional cost.

I’d be more than happy to jump in the car and drive into the country for a few hours to avoid an advertised display; that would be a reasonable compromise, don't you think?

Stuart* wrote:However, I’m not aware of any “fun activity” I undertake which causes others any such inconvenience or additional cost.

How about that time you had a fun time drinking and then jumped in your car? There was an additional cost to the taxpayer wasn't there?

I've often wondered if the amount taxed on a heavy drinker would pay for the later treatment he or she would need later on the NHS.

Stuart* wrote:Yes, I could take 2 weeks off around 5 November and again around 31 December each year and stay in the middle of nowhere to avoid the sporadic fireworks at home during those 4 weeks. That may help my dog, but not the multitude of other animals in the wild who have no such protection, of course. However, I’m not aware of any “fun activity” I undertake which causes others any such inconvenience or additional cost.

Animals in the wild? Do you have many zebra or pygmy marmosets in Plymouth then?

Besides, animals "in the wild" run away from noise. The domesticated ones kept as pets can't do that.

Who's fault is that?

I understand that many animals really don't like the noise of fireworks - but I can honestly say anyone I know that has a dog, their animals don't at all mind the noise around Bonfire night.

I cannot explain why that is - but I know that many of those people wouldn't be accused of "mollycoddling" their canine companions and perhaps might be a bit more resistant to the terrible man made faux pas' we are forced to live with.

The fireworks don't bother my cats and neither do thunderstorms. Mouse likes to sit on the windowsill watching it all happening.

Hymagumba wrote:

Stuart* wrote:However, I’m not aware of any “fun activity” I undertake which causes others any such inconvenience or additional cost.

How about that time you had a fun time drinking and then jumped in your car? There was an additional cost to the taxpayer wasn't there?

Not that I am aware of.

Gavin Scott wrote:Animals in the wild? Do you have many zebra or pygmy marmosets in Plymouth then?

Not that I am aware of, if they are not widespread in Scotland then common sense would tell you that they probably aren't in the rest of the UK.

Stuart* wrote:

Hymagumba wrote:

Stuart* wrote:However, I’m not aware of any “fun activity” I undertake which causes others any such inconvenience or additional cost.

How about that time you had a fun time drinking and then jumped in your car? There was an additional cost to the taxpayer wasn't there?

Not that I am aware of.

Gavin Scott wrote:Animals in the wild? Do you have many zebra or pygmy marmosets in Plymouth then?

Not that I am aware of, if they are not widespread in Scotland then common sense would tell you that they probably aren't in the rest of the UK.

You've already pointed out my lack of enlightenment, so I think its safe to conclude that I have no common sense either.

Perhaps then you could answer the point of the question rather than obfuscating on the minutiae?

Sput wrote:I've often wondered if the amount taxed on a heavy drinker would pay for the later treatment he or she would need later on the NHS.

Almost certainly, yes. Incidentally, I understand the same is true of smokers. Indeed, over their lifespan, smokers tend to incur lower health costs than non-smokers, largely due to the fact they have a nasty habit of dying younger. I suspect this would be the case with heavy drinkers, owing to the ritual bombardment of their livers and kidneys with alcohol.

But that's all highly off topic, and I want to hear more about zebras wandering the Scottish countryside.

Mr Q wrote:But that's all highly off topic, and I want to hear more about zebras wandering the Scottish countryside.

Delicious, if a little gristly.