Jump to content

Recommended Posts

On Friday morning I discovered a large dog poop on the pavement directly outside my house on Dovercourt Road. Fortunately I recently installed a CCTV system and have photos of the dog "in action" and its owner - conveniently staring at his mobile.


Do you know them?


People like this should be named and shamed - and fined by the council.

There is little in place to enforce the crime of not picking up after your dog, unfortunately. Perhaps unless you see them in the act and you say something - but even then you're relying on their level of responsibility and caring... which I would imagine is lacking in the first place.

I found a cat relieving itself in my back garden last week. Despite numerous attempts to track down the owner I have failed. I think the time has come for me to take a leaf out of the OP's book and invest in a camera. The swine could return and damage my budding daff's at any moment and I am completely helpless.


Louisa.

Despite people mocking the OP for using his/her cctv for this purpose, I support this post 100percent. I live on beauval road, and the amount of dog mess on the pavement on Beauval, Dovercourt and parts of Woodward road is disgraceful. Walking with family/children/buggies can sometimes feel like negotiating a minefield on these roads. I would assume it's unlikely to be residents of these roads either, I guess these roads seem like quiet 'cut throughs' if you're walking from the village/park to lordship lane, and people hope that no one will notice them letting their dog dump on the pavement.


I will confront someone's if I see them letting it happen without cleaning up, in the absence of that I fully support cctv, drones, neighbourhood watch or whatever means nessary to get people to stop letting their dog mess outside my front door. I can't fathom how people can just be so lazy and inconsiderate. There are bins at both ends of beauval road, so there really is no excuse.

TheCat must be very young to not realise how selfish and and inconsiderate some dog owners, and most cat owners are. To wilfully own a pet that devastates wildlife on a grand scale and wrecks other peoples' enjoyment of their own garden is the height of laziness and inconsideration- I personally don't know how they sleep at night while Tiddles is out on the prowl.....

"Beauval, Dovercourt and parts of Woodward road [...] seem like quiet 'cut throughs' if you're walking from the village/park to lordship lane"


The other ends to Lordship Lane of these "cut throughs" have to be Dulwich Park Court Lane Gate and Calton Avenue (West end).


Interesting route-maps could be drawn.

uncleglen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> TheCat must be very young to not realise how

> selfish and and inconsiderate some dog owners, and

> most cat owners are. To wilfully own a pet that

> devastates wildlife on a grand scale and wrecks

> other peoples' enjoyment of their own garden is

> the height of laziness and inconsideration- I

> personally don't know how they sleep at night

> while Tiddles is out on the prowl.....


"there is no scientific evidence that predation by cats in gardens is having any impact on bird populations UK-wide." - RSPB


You a vegan, uncleglen? If not then how do you sleep at night thinking about your own slaughter of animals? Do you own a car? Then how do you sleep at night thinking about the contribution you make to pollution which kills tens of thousands of humans every year?


Absurd, you may cry - no more absurd than your statement.


ETA By the way, studies have shown that without cats rat populations could quadruple within a year and continue to grow exponentially. Personally I'd sooner have the odd cat cross my garden than have it overrun by rats - and rats are worse predators on birds than cats, as they don't just kill fledglings but also eat eggs.

Yes, I do have a lot of things better to do. I also have a lot of better things to do than cleaning up dog excrement that is right at the end of my pathway.


As to calling the police, you are probably aware that this is a council matter and liable to fine of up to ?1,000. If the council started to issue such fines then people might be more responsible.


Growlybear Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Do you seriously have nothing better to do than

> post pictures of a dog relieving itself on the

> pavement? Why not go the whole hog and ring the

> Police?

>

> You would only find threads like this on the East

> Dulwich Forum!

I have no idea. I am doing a public service?showing someone clearly committing an offence which is punishable with a fine of up to ?1,000, and more importantly is deeply anti-social. Hopefully if more people posted similar pictures then some dog owners might become more responsible.


Growlybear Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> On a more serious note, are there not issues about

> publishing photographs of someone on a public

> forum without their knowledge or consent under

> circumstances such as this?

No. But it is certainly a side benefit if it makes dog owners acted responsibly.


And in case anyone wonders, I am a dog owner myself and always carry a poop bag or two with me. The council very generously makes them available for free from libraries and the like and provides ample poop bins. There is NO EXCUSE.


DMW23 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Is this what you installed CCTV for?

Well I would check the legal position before I posted a photograph of someone without their permission on a public internet forum, particularly if I was accusing them of allowing their pet to commit such an dreadful offence.


woodstock Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I have no idea. I am doing a public

> service?showing someone clearly committing an

> offence which is punishable with a fine of up to

> ?1,000, and more importantly is deeply

> anti-social. Hopefully if more people posted

> similar pictures then some dog owners might become

> more responsible.

>

> Growlybear Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > On a more serious note, are there not issues

> about

> > publishing photographs of someone on a public

> > forum without their knowledge or consent under

> > circumstances such as this?

edhistory Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "Beauval, Dovercourt and parts of Woodward road

> [...] seem like quiet 'cut throughs' if you're

> walking from the village/park to lordship lane"

>

> The other ends to Lordship Lane of these "cut

> throughs" have to be Dulwich Park Court Lane Gate

> and Calton Avenue (West end).

>

> Interesting route-maps could be drawn.


Great idea, could you include the minefields!

Growlybear: People are free to use their photographs of people taken in public places as they wish - including for commercial gain. He was on a pavement on a public road. Therefore there is no invasion of privacy.

The photograph is not subject to the Data Protection Act, since there's no identifying information accompanying the image.

You could claim that posting a photograph was potentially libellous in England and Wales if it damages someone's reputation "in the estimation of right thinking members of society". However there is a valid defence of the truth against such a charge. I have the complete video of the offence being committed and therefore posting the images is not libellous.

And yes, in?the great scheme of things it is not?a major offence, to let a dog excrete on a pavement.?However next time you are wiping?your shoe and cleaning your carpet, let alone hear of a child going blind from toxocariasis caused by?dog excrement, all because of the unthinking behaviour of someone, I wonder whether you will be so unconcerned...


Growlybear Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Well I would check the legal position before I

> posted a photograph of someone without their

> permission on a public internet forum,

> particularly if I was accusing them of allowing

> their pet to commit such an dreadful offence.

>

> woodstock Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I have no idea. I am doing a public

> > service?showing someone clearly committing an

> > offence which is punishable with a fine of up

> to

> > ?1,000, and more importantly is deeply

> > anti-social. Hopefully if more people posted

> > similar pictures then some dog owners might

> become

> > more responsible.

> >

> > Growlybear Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > On a more serious note, are there not issues

> > about

> > > publishing photographs of someone on a public

> > > forum without their knowledge or consent

> under

> > > circumstances such as this?

Depends on what you mean by issues. It's illegal to take pictures without permission, where an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy. A public pavement is probably excluded from any expectations of privacy under most circumstances.


Growlybear Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> On a more serious note, are there not issues about

> publishing photographs of someone on a public

> forum without their knowledge or consent under

> circumstances such as this?

I also fully support the action and hope to see more of this naming and shaming. It's a massive problem in East dulwich and I and also fed up with a persistent offender allowing their dog to mess outside the front of my house.


Woodstock - well done and I hope you catch the guy and he gets the fine. It is antisocial behaviour and needs to be taggled with more cctv as most of the time it happens very early in the morning or late at night when people know they won't be seen.

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

    • Absolute mugs. That's what they take you for.  
    • Trossachs definitely have one! 
    • A A day-school for girls and a boarding school for boys (even with, by the late '90s, a tiny cadre of girls) are very different places.  Though there are some similarities. I think all schools, for instance, have similar "rules", much as they all nail up notices about "potential" and "achievement" and keeping to the left on the stairs. The private schools go a little further, banging on about "serving the public", as they have since they were set up (either to supply the colonies with District Commissioners, Brigadiers and Missionaries, or the provinces with railway engineers), so they've got the language and rituals down nicely. Which, i suppose, is what visitors and day-pupils expect, and are expected, to see. A boarding school, outside the cloistered hours of lesson-times, once the day-pupils and teaching staff have been sent packing, the gates and chapel safely locked and the brochures put away, becomes a much less ambassadorial place. That's largely because they're filled with several hundred bored, tired, self-supervised adolescents condemned to spend the night together in the flickering, dripping bowels of its ancient buildings, most of which were designed only to impress from the outside, the comfort of their occupants being secondary to the glory of whatever piratical benefactor had, in a last-ditch attempt to sway the judgement of their god, chucked a little of their ill-gotten at the alleged improvement of the better class of urchin. Those adolescents may, to the curious eyes of the outer world, seem privileged but, in that moment, they cannot access any outer world (at least pre-1996 or thereabouts). Their whole existence, for months at a time, takes place in uniformity behind those gates where money, should they have any to hand, cannot purchase better food or warmer clothing. In that peculiar world, there is no difference between the seventh son of a murderous sheikh, the darling child of a ball-bearing magnate, the umpteenth Viscount Smethwick, or the offspring of some hapless Foreign Office drone who's got themselves posted to Minsk. They are egalitarian, in that sense, but that's as far as it goes. In any place where rank and priviilege mean nothing, other measures will evolve, which is why even the best-intentioned of committees will, from time to time, spawn its cliques and launch heated disputes over archaic matters that, in any other context, would have long been forgotten. The same is true of the boarding school which, over the dismal centuries, has developed a certain culture all its own, with a language indended to pass all understanding and attitiudes and practices to match. This is unsurprising as every new intake will, being young and disoriented, eagerly mimic their seniors, and so also learn those words and attitudes and practices which, miserably or otherwise, will more accurately reflect the weight of history than the Guardian's style-guide and, to contemporary eyes and ears, seem outlandish, beastly and deplorably wicked. Which, of course, it all is. But however much we might regret it, and urge headteachers to get up on Sundays and preach about how we should all be tolerant, not kill anyone unnecessarily, and take pity on the oiks, it won't make the blindest bit of difference. William Golding may, according to psychologists, have overstated his case but I doubt that many 20th Century boarders would agree with them. Instead, they might look to Shakespeare, who cheerfully exploits differences of sex and race and belief and ability to arm his bullies, murderers, fraudsters and tyrants and remains celebrated to this day,  Admittedly, this is mostly opinion, borne only of my own regrettable experience and, because I had that experience and heard those words (though, being naive and small-townish, i didn't understand them till much later) and saw and suffered a heap of brutishness*, that might make my opinion both unfair and biased.  If so, then I can only say it's the least that those institutions deserve. Sure, the schools themselves don't willingly foster that culture, which is wholly contrary to everything in the brochures, but there's not much they can do about it without posting staff permanently in corridors and dormitories and washrooms, which would, I'd suggest, create a whole other set of problems, not least financial. So, like any other business, they take care of the money and keep aloof from the rest. That, to my mind, is the problem. They've turned something into a business that really shouldn't be a business. Education is one thing, raising a child is another, and limited-liability corporations, however charitable, tend not to make the best parents. And so, in retrospect, I'm inclined not to blame the students either (though, for years after, I eagerly read the my Old School magazine, my heart doing a little dance at every black-edged announcement of a yachting tragedy, avalanche or coup). They get chucked into this swamp where they have to learn to fend for themselves and so many, naturally, will behave like predators in an attempt to fit in. Not all, certainly. Some will keep their heads down and hope not to be noticed while others, if they have a particular talent, might find that it protects them. But that leaves more than enough to keep the toxic culture alive, and it is no surprise at all that when they emerge they appear damaged to the outside world. For that's exactly what they are. They might, and sometimes do, improve once returned to the normal stream of life if given time and support, and that's good. But the damage lasts, all the same, and isn't a reason to vote for them. * Not, if it helps to disappoint any lawyers, at Dulwich, though there's nothing in the allegations that I didn't instantly recognise, 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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