Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I know of someone whose son nearly died after contracting Weil's by playing in the street (via rat urine). Zoonotic infections are a risk that goes hand in hand with living in an environment we share with other living organisms. Fox poo (found all around ED by the way) is also a carrier of Toxcariasis so what are we going to do about that? At least most dogs are wormed. Foxes are not.


There are far greater risks to child health than dog pooh- speeding cars for instance.

First mate, two wrongs don't make a right. The thread is about dog poo and not speeding cars. Dog poo is in theory containable by clamping down on selfish, uncaring dog owners who allow their to crap all over the streets. And these kinds of dog owners are less likely to worm their dogs. The point that I was making was that people do do go blind after catching Toxicariasis after contact with dog poo.

ZT, yes, on very rare occasions a child may go blind after contact with dog pooh or fox pooh, or some other carrier, but it is a relatively rare cause of harm to humans.


My point is that a child is far more likely to die because of a speeding car than dog or fox pooh. The real issue is that dog pooh offends and it is a nuisance and that is why people dislike it. If you want to argue the case that we need to rid the streets of dog pooh because it is a major health hazard then expect a counter argument that points to more pressing health concerns.

There has been a surfeit of dog muck on the streets since as far back as I can remember (1950's) and it has not improved greatly since it became an illegal act not to clean up.


The law is failing the none dog-owning portion of society.


I cannot understand why you always leap to the defence of the offenders either first mate,


though I'm sure you would not condone this lax behaviour in 'proper dog owners' like yourself.

Steve T,


Show me where I have leapt to the defence of, or condoned dog pooh offenders? At no point have I said that I am all in favour of dog pooh or that I support those who leave their pet turds strewn around the streets (cue snigger of other forumites at ludicrous post). I just think that sometimes people try to justify a view with extreme points that don't really serve or support their argument. No rational person would say they "like" dog pooh all over the streets. There again, I feel some people get a little irrational on the subject and conflate a fear/dislike of all dogs with the issue of dog pooh (not looking at anyone in particular, Steve).


There is a solution and that is that we all clear away dog pooh when we see it ( outside our house for instance). If you use a plastic bag it cannot hurt you. Yes, it is unpleasant and yes, you may feel you shouldn't have to but where antisocial behaviour is concerned perhaps this is the only way forward- or we just go round and round, repeating the same arguments and achieving nothing?! For what it is worth, I do try to clear up other dog turds,as and when I bag those belonging to my own,just as I would pick up stuff like glass if I see it lying around- community spirit it's called.

I feel some people get a little irrational on the subject and conflate a fear/dislike of all dogs with the issue of dog pooh (not looking at anyone in particular, Steve).

Wrote first mate.


I do not fear and dislike all dogs, only the ones which offer a threat to me.


I fear and loathe the insecure 'machoman' and his dangerous "pet" who should be outlawed in my opinion.

I have just seen a Southwark council van turn up on our road with the guy painting a sign on the pavement next to the poo bin warning dog owners of fines. This was after he picked up dog mess on the pavement next to the poo bin! Not sure if the irresponsible dog owner will pay too much attention when they walk passed that sign and the poo bin again!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Per Cllr McAsh, as quoted above: “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. " Is anyone au fait with the Clean Air Act 1993, and  particularly with the state of 'Smoke Control' law and practice generally?  I've just been looking  through some of it for the first time and, afaics, the civil penalties mentioned  were introduced into the Clean Air Act, at Schedule 1A, in May 2022.  So it seems that, in this particular,  it's a matter of the enforcement policy trailing well behind the legislation.  I'm not criticising that at all, but am curious.  
    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...