Cats and Dogs...

A quick glance at the local news section of the Daily Post this morning reveals that society still has its fair share of strange happenings, and often stranger people where animals are concerned.

In the lead item, a dog owner won £450 compensation from Royal Mail after his pet pooch chewed a parcel. The Post says 'Coin and banknotes dealer Bruce Goulborn’s pet spaniel Benny munched through £800 worth of historic fivers after a bungling postman got a neighbour to sign for a special delivery. Mr Goulborn, who should have signed for the precious package, wasn’t in, and it fell into the jaws of his dog. Yesterday a court ordered Royal Mail to pay Bruce, from Rhyl, £450 compensation as the damaged notes are now only worth £350.

Last night the numismatist, who runs Goulborn Collection Ltd from the Rhyl Coin and Stamp Centre in Sussex Street, said Benny, 11, “thought it was his birthday” when he sunk his teeth into the parcel “like a chew toy”.'

This story poses a few questions. Firstly, if this chap routinely deals with valuable post and has a dog known for eating it, then perhaps it might have been circumspect to invest in a dog guard for the mail.  That's what normal folk with mailivorous canines do, anyway.  The second issue is the Post's description of the postman as 'bungling'.  Postmen generally do a great job in often dreadful conditions, and often - in our experience - go out of their way to help their customers. Certainly, following the rules and taking it back to the depot would have been the easy way, but the postman clearly wanted to help the hapless Mr. Goulborn out by getting a neighbour to sign for the parcel.  Well, it's doubtful he'll be getting that help again, anyway.  Curiously,  Mr. Goulborn apparently had no actual proof of the transaction, which is itself rather interesting, if he runs a business dealing exclusively with coins and banknotes. Finally, it's not at all clear from the article who actually posted the item through his door. This is the third time since June he's claimed against the Royal Mail, and one has to wonder - if he finds the service so unsatisfactory - why he continues to use them. 


In a second item, a father of four has apparently suffered the loss of six cats through their being poisoned by antifreeze. Cruelty to animals is nothing new, of course, but it's interesting to learn that cats apparently "like anti-freeze because it is sweet. All it takes is a spoonful to kill them."  Never having tasted the stuff, it's difficult to comment,  but one has to wonder about the motive for such a deed.

There are few subjects like domestic pets which have such a capacity to divide opinion.  Newspapers are regularly inundated by letters complaining about 'dog mess' and 'thoughtless owners', and dog lovers can never comprehend why some people might not like dogs at all.  Cats, of course, exist in a legal limbo, being considered to be 'property', but with a 'right to roam', which can also be a serious concern for the cat-less neighbour who regularly finds their garden being fouled.  However, legal remedies can be sought, such as using the Environmental Health Departments, who have powers under  the Environmental Protection Act, 1990 in respect of nuisance or hazards (eg fouling, smell and noise) caused as a result of too many cats being kept at a single property. Of course, it then comes down to what can be considered as 'too many', but in a closely packed housing development, that can be as few as four.