You are given the power to make three things illegal. What would you choose?

@SpringSunshineanddaffodils You must be such fun at parties.. seriously, give it a rest.

I’d make the following illegal:

1. surrogacy
2. egg “donation”
3. men in women’s single sex spaces

Enough with the cat hate.. it's really boring.

So are chickens. They hate being kept cooped up. But it’s what I had to do with mine because the neighbours’ Maine coons (which arrived after the hens) wouldn’t stop harassing them. I also was really not a fan of having to clean other people’s cat crap out of my garden when I was pregnant.

More
. Look at screen of mobile phone when crossing roads
. To ride motorbikes and mopeds for business use without passing test. 99% of food courier riders are this
. Charging people to take their old white goods away. This is why they are fly tipped.

Baby showers. Social media hype. My friend got grief when she decided not to have a baby shower.

Retired people shopping on Saturday mornings then complain how busy is it.

Parents that park their cars outside DC's school all day. They get a lift from a friend or a fellow parent living nearby, then the process is reversed at home time. Make road around schools no waiting during school days and hours.

Oh my goodness.

Birds... flying... is also "completely unnatural?"

Wow. That's... special.

I'm not sure I know how to talk to you, but I'll give it one more go.

Cats are not a native species anywhere. They are a domesticated species. We have been domesticating them for thousands of years but their native ecosystem is... nowhere. Their natural prey is... nothing. We feed them because they are a domesticated species, bred by us, for domestication.
If domesticated cats go outside unsupervised, they are an unnatural component to an already evolved and developed ecosystem that has a natural balance and has taken a very long time, millions of years, to get there.
And alongside that, all living things, animals and plants, have evolved in order to fit into these naturally balanced ecosystems. So throwing ANY unnatural and non-native predator into the mix is going to cause serious disruption. Even more so if this is a predator that is being professionally cared for by vets, fed as much food as it needs by humans, and cared for in a warm and safe home that it doesn't need to fight for or build itself. It's going to have a hugely unfair advantage over other large predators at the top of the food chain so that carefully balanced ecosystem is going to be seriously threatened.
This is not the same as birds having wings, it's not the same as foxes having claws and sharp teeth, it's not the same as hedgehogs having spikes. Those are biological traits that have evolved over a very long time that the ecosystem has managed to fit into the balance of things.

All parts of developed ecosystems and food webs are connected, and inter-balanced, as I am sure you learnt in primary school.
For example, if a local fox population is decreased or wiped out, this will likely increase the number of their natural prey, such as rabbits, which will likely have an impact on the local vegetation which rabbits eat.
If a bird or bat population is decreased or wiped out, this means there will be less predators to keep insects in check and also less seed distributors (because birds distribute seeds), which again will have an impact on vegetation, which might effect animals which eat the vegetation such as rabbits, and if there are less of those then there's less food for the animals at the top of the food chain and so on and so forth.. it is all connected. You've seen the lion king, right? We are all connected in the great circle of life, Simba. Even Disney gets it.

So, quite frankly, claiming "animals are animals, none is more important that an other" is definitely bonkers batshit crazy at best, and shockingly ignorant and short-sighted at worst.

If we just chose what animals we wanted everywhere all the time, the world would be a very different place. And not in a good way.

Hope that helps.

Every species is just a species. 'Invasive' or not, animals are animals. All with strengths and weaknesses. All your batshit catastrophising is irrelevant. Birds can fly to escape ground prey, and have a 'completely unnatural advantage' too. No species is more deserving than the other.

OMG, the ones with the long leads that stretch across the entire pavement while they amble along with their face in their phones 🙄

Cats are not on an equal playing field with wildlife. They are an invasive species with a huge and completely unnatural advantage over wildlife and occur in much greater numbers than they would if they occurred naturally because we feed, house them and take care of their medical needs. It's not about who's more deserving. It's about the damage they do. They are an absolute menace to the ecosystem.
This has already been explained many times on this thread.
But as usual, cat owners are trotting out the same old excuses in order to justify their lack of any responsibility for their pet because their little fluffy friend makes them happy without them having to put in any effort.
Everyone else is, of course, the batshit ones.

Likewise dog walkers who weave all over the pavement or let their dogs randomly run from side to side on long leads tripping up people trying to pass them and causing havoc for cyclists who don't know which side to pass. We definitely need to make spatial awareness a legal requirement to be let out in public.

After a trip into town today, slow walkers that weave rather than walking in a fairly straight line on the pavement.

Postbox toppers
Any clothing that makes a fashion feature out of a bottom. Scrunch bum leggings and teenage boys with their trousers halfway down their legs spring to mind.
Private Education

It means “not a cat”.

• Lorries using anything other than the slow lane on a motorway.
• Eating on public transport.
• Using a second home to generate income.

Dogs?

Dogs
Deliveroo etc
people wearing pj’s outwith their bedroom.

We have gone over this enough now. I won't repeat myself.

You please stop.

No there are not.
The right of absolute freedom of speech is restricted everywhere, in different ways.
The default is no laws, and full freedom of speech. But nobody does this.
You are arrested for breaking the laws of the country which restrict freedom of speech by saying "you can't say x" , not for "freedom of speech".
Please stop.

Yes there are. Have a quick Google if you like.

I think we can agree this has got beyond exasperating.

There aren't.

There are different limits.

If freedom of speech is an absolute why are their different definition of what freedom of speech is by country!

God you are hard work.

"People are being arrested for breaking hate speech laws.' This is the issue isn't it. People are being arrested under the guise of 'hate speech' or some other such law and are later found to have done no such thing. So what have they actually been arrested for? Suspicion of hate speech that wasn't actually hate speech we just called it that at the time when in fact it was just you exercising your freedom of speech but we didn't like the contents of it? Do you see how loosely these things can be applied.

So I stand by people are getting arrested because they have exercised their right to freedom of speech, regardless of legislation that is misused in order to silence people.