MANY people, I am sure, will find it hard to understand why Blackburn pensioner Mary Stanton chooses to turn her tiny terrace home into a mini-menagerie of ten exotic birds, two dogs and a Capuchin monkey called Joe that's she had for 13 years.

But most, I am sure, would say that if that's her liking, then it's up to her. However, suddenly it seems it's not when it comes to her "baby," Joe. The council say he's got to go -- and has even earmarked a new home for him in a monkey sanctuary in Dorset.

Why? Well, he's classed as a dangerous wild animal. When 73-year-old Mary applied to renew the licence she's had for the past five years to keep an animal in that category, she was told there was a serious risk that the monkey might escape and hurt someone -- and, so, had her permit withdrawn. It amounts to an eviction order for Joe. And heartbreak for Mary. And though we do not know how Joe might react to losing his home for 13 years and being transported to a new one at the other end of the country, I would guess that, as monkeys are among the most intelligent creatures of the animal kingdom, the odds on him pining or being upset are quite high -- particularly as Mary says he already cries when she's out shopping for too long.

But if it is bound to be harsh on the old lady -- she says she is unable to eat or sleep with worry over the prospect of him being taken from her -- and, arguably, is likely to be upsetting for the animal too, why is it being contemplated?

Yes, we know what the law says and that the view of senior environmental health officer Colin Clark and a veterinary surgeon, who inspected Mary's home, is that the conditions in which Joe was kept had deteriorated to being "very unsatisfactory" and that they called for work to be carried out on the monkey's cage and internal doors of the house as there was a serious risk of his escape.

But what does common sense say? It tells us that Mary has kept monkeys for 50 years and has had Joe for 13 years with no apparent problem -- most of which time the law did not require her to have a licence anyway. In all those years Joe has been kept in the same house and in the same cage with no problem.

And is he dangerous? The neighbours don't think so -- they have got a petition for him to be allowed to stay.

Mr Clark, we are told, is new to his position and so may have a different outlook from his predecessors who, time and again, licensed Mary to keep Joe in apparently the same conditions that are now disapproved of.

I can only wonder if Mr Clark will be unmoved if, by virtue of his ostensibly different interpretation of the rules, he has to stand by while an old lady and her "baby" pet cry as they are parted, purportedly for the public good.