Doggy-doo in a neighbour's garden - some people :( - Russian Ukrainian Belarus Travel Music Woman Dating News

	The Russian Meeting Place: A place to meet people and talk about all things Russian... International Discussions about Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Travel, Music, Russian News, Ukrainian culture, Belarusian Dating, Moscow, Saint Petersburg, Kiev and other intelligent topics about life in the former Soviet Union.

Pages: 1

Doggy-doo in a neighbour's garden - some people :(
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: zaniac

Hi,

A neighbour of ours, who is a relative and lives in our court has been getting dog's mess in her back garden recently. We are not 100% sure who it is, but we have an idea. The people we think it could are not the anti-social kind of people you see on TV, but we find it disrespectful if it is them, that they don't come back to clear it up. There are stickers from the local council on every lampost in our area, stating that if a dog's mess is found on the floor or garden of someone elses property, the owner of the animal (when caught) will get a Ł1000 fine. We are thinking about setting up a webcam to catch the culprit's owner. We know it not simply a stray dog either as the mess issue is always a regular on an almost daily basis. However we are keeping an open mind about who the owner could be, as the owner could be from outside of our road.

Once caught a number of times, we are thinking to either:

a) Warn the owner about future repurcussions if more are found, i.e we will tell the council and show them our evidence.

or

b) Tell the owner to give us Ł200 in cash within a time period, to prevent us from telling the council.

or

c) Send the evidence straight to the council and let them fine the owner Ł1000, without even talking t the owner.

I just felt like posting this, as although this does not affect me directly it just annoys me that people will leave the mess on someone else's garden and not bother to clear it up. Has anyone else had a similar issue?

Posted by: Jill

My opinion is to warn to the suspect, but since you are uncertain that he/she is really the culprit say something to the effect of "we've been finding a mess in the yard, we're not sure who it's from, so we just wanted to ask people to please be more careful" and see if that has any effect on the situation. You could also try posting a sign in the yard saying "please clean up after your pets" to discourage others from using the yard as a tiolet....Give it a try first, before getting the council involved.

I think giving some kind of warning is the fair way to go. Some people simply don't realize how annoying it is. I have to admit that my husband is one. I always have to remind him to clean up after the dog when we talk him for a walk--he just doesn't think it's a big deal (since it's "natural" and just goes back into the soil anyway). I have always to explain to him that people don't want to see and/or step in the mess, so it needs to be cleaned up. He does it then, but he really doesn't get it

Guess that's why I'm for giving a warning.

Posted by: Eryk

Quote:

Originally Posted by zaniac

b) Tell the owner to give us Ł200 in cash within a time period, to prevent us from telling the council.

You would have trouble defending against a charge of Blackmail in that scenario. The only credible defence would be one of fair compensation, but since the act causes no independently verifiable damage you'd be out on a limb I would think.

Eryk

Posted by: clever1

How is the dog getting into her back garden ?
Set up the webcam, they can hardly refute it if its on film Zan.
Keep a copy yourself, Tell them if it happens again you will report them.

Then board up all your windows and wait for the retaliation to start ..............
Apply to local authority for an ASBO.
Get them evicted.
Problem solved,

Hope this has helped......LMAO

John

Posted by: zaniac

Thank you all for your opinions

Well the 2 later options was the idea of my father who gets pretty worked up when someone bothers the family. He is a bit of a Victor Meldrew - all you UK guys will know what I mean - and I confess nobody really agrees with him on this.

If it is who we think it is, then I think we should give them a fair warning. I could quite understand the idea of just sending it all to the council, without warning them. They have commited an act already, without trying to clear it up, so they clearly have no intention to sort the issue unless we intervene.

The dog is doing the mess in the front garden and not in a corner either.

Posted by: clever1

There is another way Zan, save up all the mess in bags, get your evidence, then tip it all in their garden, they might think twice then about the consequences and responsibilities of owning a pet.

John

Posted by: martin3030

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eryk

Hmnn.....sounds like something the Dps would say only instead of 200 quid it would be more like 500 roubles and a bottle of Russian Standard !!

Posted by: martin3030

There is also another issue here.
By the book and under the Data protection act its illegal to film another person without their consent unless notices are posted to advise on this !!

However there are many ways the offending dog owner can be brought to account,I dont think most people would be thinking twice about putting a stop to it by using the powers and legislation thats been put in place in recent years under local council bye-laws.

Posted by: Texas Proud

I know that the laws of England is a bit strange.... (as an example, you can not defend yourself with a weapon even if someone breaks into your house!!!)..

BUT, why can you not film your own garden??? Is it not a crime for someone to trespass?

ALSO, you might approach the person who you think it the culprit in a different way... say to them: We have been having a bit of a problem with some dog owner. They are not cleaning up after their dog and you know it is a 1,000 pound (no symbol for me...) fine... If you see someone that is not cleaning up, please let me know so I can report them to the authorities.. this way, you are 'getting them on your side' sort of... making it seem like someone else is doing it and they are there to help you as a good pet owner would...

Posted by: Eryk

>>I know that the laws of England is a bit strange.... (as an example, you >>can not defend yourself with a weapon even if someone breaks into your >>house!!!)..

Incorrect. You can use any degree of 'reasonable force' to defend yourself if you are under attack - what you can't do is blow someone away "just in case" they might have been about to attack you. The crucial point of difference being that it cannot be "defence" unless you have already been "attacked" - or have compelling grounds to conclude that an attack was imminent. 'Weapons' only factor into the calculation of 'reasonableness' ...guns, explosives, bottles of acid, poisons are all perfectly legal to use if it can be judged reasonable under the circumstances.

>>BUT, why can you not film your own garden??? Is it not a crime for >>someone to trespass?

No, trespass is not a crime per se. It is a civil offence (in tort, specifically) and you could sue for damages but it is not a criminal matter of itself. You have to aggravate the offence with threats, damage, breach of the peace (basically 'refusing to leave') or something like that before it becomes a criminal/poilce matter.

Eryk

Posted by: mistermopar

Maybe the owner is lating their dog out ,and they think it is doing its dump in their own yard.
Maybe they do not even know their dog is dumping in someone else's yard.It is still not right.
Maybe set up a cam and catch the dog doing it.If you know who the dog belongs to,mention to them you seen their dog dumping in your yard and you did not enjoy cleaning it up,and could they see to it that they watch their dog more carfully.

Just a thought.

Randy

Posted by: Texas Proud

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eryk

>>I know that the laws of England is a bit strange.... (as an example, you >>can not defend yourself with a weapon even if someone breaks into your >>house!!!)..

Incorrect. You can use any degree of 'reasonable force' to defend yourself if you are under attack - what you can't do is blow someone away "just in case" they might have been about to attack you. The crucial point of difference being that it cannot be "defence" unless you have already been "attacked" - or have compelling grounds to conclude that an attack was imminent. 'Weapons' only factor into the calculation of 'reasonableness' ...guns, explosives, bottles of acid, poisons are all perfectly legal to use if it can be judged reasonable under the circumstances.

>>BUT, why can you not film your own garden??? Is it not a crime for >>someone to trespass?

No, trespass is not a crime per se. It is a civil offence (in tort, specifically) and you could sue for damages but it is not a criminal matter of itself. You have to aggravate the offence with threats, damage, breach of the peace (basically 'refusing to leave') or something like that before it becomes a criminal/poilce matter.

Eryk

Eryk... a good update... but I loved to get my coworkers worked up by telling them about Texas law... but first, if someone breaks into my house I think they are attacking me...and if they are blown away, so much the better (but, I do not have a gun as I do not think it is right)...

BUT, in Texas, you can use deadly force to PROTECT PROPERTY... if someone is breaking into your car at night, you can kill them and not be charged with a crime. Noted, it does not happen that often, but it does a few times a year.

As for trespass, it is a crime here. Usually they will only charge you if there is a complaint from the property owner, but it is not a civil matter, but a criminal matter.

And finally, you are on CCTV at a lot of places in London anyhow... but, maybe the offence is not happening in London...

Posted by: Chrismc

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eryk

>>

No, trespass is not a crime per se. It is a civil offence (in tort, specifically) and you could sue for damages but it is not a criminal matter of itself. You have to aggravate the offence with threats, damage, breach of the peace (basically 'refusing to leave') or something like that before it becomes a criminal/poilce matter.

Eryk

Correct it comes under the Law of Tort and therefore not Criminal as it stands. If it is not a criminal offence but a civil matter, the Police would hardly take any notice they cannot be bothered.

Now if the dog was doing his mess in the back of a car and the car was doing 31mph in a 30mph zone you would have as many police after you as you could handle he he.... But the dog would still get away with it, it would be you who got cautioned!!

Posted by: zaniac

Thanks for your posts guys!

There is no CCTV in our part of the town. We'll just buy a bigger dog to scare it and the owner away just as it's about to do it's business

Posted by: martin3030

Quote:

Originally Posted by zaniac

Thanks for your posts guys!

There is no CCTV in our part of the town. We'll just buy a bigger dog to scare it and the owner away just as it's about to do it's business

Or put a big photo of cleric Hamza in the window............U wont see the dog again !!!

Posted by: zaniac

Talking about Hamza. I can't believe he will only be expected to serve 18 months of a 6 year jail sentance. If you are given 6 years for a crime of his sort then you should serve 6 years, not a fraction of it.

Also a sniper on the roof could be an idea, perhaps a little extreme (just like Hamza himself)

Posted by: martin3030

Thats the rules in this country unfortunately.
The time he has already been in custody comes off the sentence (spent time )

Then he qualifies for remission with good behaviour of course.
I dont think he will behave any differently on the inside and is very likely to forfeit the remission.
Even if he does get out early .............a much worse scenario awaits him.
The wrath of the American courts who are not as soft as us !!!

When a prisoner is released early here on licence he is expected to be well behaved and refrain from the activities that got him/her there in the first place.

This week one of the Cartoon protesters in London who was dressed as a suicide bomber was hastily returned to prison after it was considered a breach.
Finally our government is waking up to the fact that these radicals who incite violence and murder on our streets and cities DO have a lot to answer for.

On newsnight last night one of the Muslim informants was absolutely convinced that if Hamze had been taken off the streets when it was brought to the attention of the authorities,then its possible the London Bombings and he even said 9/11 could have been prevented.
The documentary of the Finsbury park Mosque in London was chilling viewing.
3 of the London bombers were visitors there,as was the Shoe bomber and the Al Quada planner thought to have devised the masterplan for 9/11.

Posted by: clever1

Same old story, the Great British Public will pick up the bill.
Now were paying for him to stay in Jail, and another Ł300 a week for his family to live in a great big house.

When will we ever get some polititions with a bit of backbone to say enough is enough.

John

Posted by: martin3030

actually maybe better to spend money keeping him there in £££s than the alternative cost of human lives no one can put a price on.

Posted by: bobjf

didn,t england just lock him up.
just warn owner if his dog does it again you will report him to council & make him aware of fine
ofcourse a shark hook is always good ay john lol.
in jest people

Posted by: deccie

Quote:

Originally Posted by clever1

Same old story, the Great British Public will pick up the bill.
Now were paying for him to stay in Jail, and another Ł300 a week for his family to live in a great big house.

When will we ever get some polititions with a bit of backbone to say enough is enough.

John

Like the "backbone" the police showed to shoot a South American guy?

Posted by: clever1

Quote:

Originally Posted by deccie

Like the "backbone" the police showed to shoot a South American guy?

I didn't agree with that either Deccie, and yes I believe there was a big cover up to this.

John

Posted by: clever1

I'm talking about the Government having the backbone to deport people like Hamza, and not letting them sponge off tax paying people while condemning them in morning prayers in a mosque.

Like the one that dressed up as a suicide bomber, if he wants that, deport him to Palestine, I certainly don't want him here.

John

Posted by: deccie

Quote:

Originally Posted by clever1

I'm talking about the Government having the backbone to deport people like Hamza, and not letting them sponge off tax paying people while condemning them in morning prayers in a mosque.

Like the one that dressed up as a suicide bomber, if he wants that, deport him to Palestine, I certainly don't want him here.

John

I know John, there are people who are just scum and want to use violence to futher their own ends.

The problems are though that the lines as to who qualifies for that attention tend to get more restrictive over time. Look at how much regulation governs your own life now! I mean, fancy Bush spying on Quaker groups! In the long term the path we aregoing down will mean anyone who is seen as "different" will qualify for special attention. )-:

The other issue is that with extreme action someone else pays the ultimate price for the mistakes, and if that someone else is an innocent it could well be you or someone you love. Our own ASIO has made some absolute clunkers over the years. I imagine Mi5, Mi6 and the Cia are no different.

I don't pretend to have the answers to this but one thing I would like to see more emphasis on is to try to make these extremists less tolerated by their own community. That means a lot of work but it's the only way I see forward in the long run.

Posted by: bobjf

john & deccie i am supprised.
you actually think governments give a rats what ordinary people think.
there been hideing there bull forever.
look at little johnny howard, biggest lying polly we have had for years but he is very good at it or simply says no 1 told him about it.
like the truth to come out 1 day about lady diana, reckon it just might bring the royals down

Posted by: deccie

Hi Bob,
Yes, I actually do think that _some_ politicians care.
Few and far between, but some. I think a good example would have been Tim Fisher - I don't agree with his politics but I think he's a decent chap.

Again, while I don't agree with his politics I think someone like Bob Brown is actively trying to change the country in away he fervently believes in.

I also don't think Howard lies - he just answers questions with a very narrow focus or evades them. It's the lawyer in him. That's not lying. It's just not telling the whole truth or being "candid".

It's the difference between being "strictly correct" and being "honest and open". Howard is defintely the former and not the latter.

I think large majorities like Howard and Peter Beattie in Qld currently have are bad for government. Since getting those large majorities the performance of both governments has gone down the gurgler.

I do beleive in a Sentate restraining a government so they can't make unrestrained changes..

Here's an example of how they evade a question.. Say you ask them "What has the government done to address the shortage of doctors in the hospital system"

The reply you get is something like "We have spent 20 billion dollars on the hospital system since coming to power buckley's years ago".

It tells you nothing. Because that money could have been spent on advertising and public servants for all you know.
So, perfectly correct in terms of the facts but evasive in nature.

Note that I am NOT a Howard supporter and fervently hope he loses the next election but equally I could not support someone of the likes of Mark Latham.

However, to take this back to being relevant to RMP, I would rather have Howard than Putin thanks very much and please no GwB/Cheney/Rumsfeld either!

The one I really don't understand is Tony Blair.

Posted by: bobjf

dec bring back pauline at least she was straight up.
can,t agree with you on howard , he has been sprung telling porkies, someone should tell him & his cronies there is no such thing as a core promise. a promise is a promise & i can,t abide anyone who,s word is bs.
there all bs artists
better example would be 55 mil spent advertiseing ir crap.
bastards shouldn,t be allowed to spend our taxs on advertiseing there own policys.
money could of been spent were it was needed.
i think all pollys have less credability than a used car salesman.
nat was facinated watching question time & at first didn,t beleive it was our gov & not some tv crap.

Posted by: deccie

Yes Bob the money spent on the IR changes was a complete waste.
But it was more than that - it was an "own goal".

All it served to do was put the IR changes in front of people to talk about night after night after night.
Quite stupid.

What I am very suprised about is that no one talked about the fact that the IR changes will only bite when the next recession hits and jobs become scare again.
Of course employers will throw money at you when they can't get good people, but they will also tighten things as much as they can come recession time.
Mark my words, when the next recession hits you are going to see people and familes loose their houses in record numbers. Both because of the size of the mortgage and the IR changes. People are now so sensitive to interest rate hikes that a .25% interest rate increase can send a sizeable number of people to the wall. Imagine what would happen if they hit 10% or higher?

Scary stuff.

As for PH.. I'm not a supporter but I would agree she was doing what she beleives in. She got used by the two David's though. You can't tell me she came up with that "supporter" party structure on her own.

She also didn't offer solutions to some of the problems she talked about so it was all just a bit of belly aching.

I'm a Natasha Stot Despoja person myself..

Posted by: bobjf

hey deccie.
your right about ir,just lookat what happened in nz.
i remember last recession & 1 befor that with frazer.
forget the 10% what about the 17 it got to.
saw many friends lose everything & there relatsionships to boot.
even now if your low on the pecking order average boss will screw you.
young idiots at our new combined screw you factory signed there double time away fo 50 cents an hour extra, fools said older hands
but we don,t work any d/time said they.
did you ask why known penny pincher gave you something for nothing .
there now working regular d/time for time & half,older blokes told boss to get stuffed & refused to sign, at least howard blocked them from making you sign.
mate wasn,t refering to 1 nation though i will admit to voting for them b ut only because couldn,t bring myself to vote for other mongrels.
haven,t had much time for democrats either since they went to bed with the libs.
what abbot did to hanson just proved how scared they were of her, bastard should been locked up for fraud.
idiot pollys didn,t learn from the huge vote hanson pulled & sooner or later someone like her will make them pay for it
personaly can,t wait.

Posted by: deccie

Hi Bob,

That's why I said "Natasha" and not "Democrats" or "Meg Lees".

Natasha is definely NOT a liberal party fan club!

I know I voted against the GST... )-:

Posted by: bobjf

hi dec,wouldn,t be suprised if lee,s went same way as other national,party should of got rid of her after she voted with howard on gst.
especialy after the lying little bugger said no never will the gst be on agenda, people don,t want it .
typical polly get elected,forget about your word, hey you voted us in ,gives us a mandate.