Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Don't be too keen to 'knock' bird poo - it may drop from the heavens, but with it comes wild flower etc. seeds, so it is a positive contribution to our environment, unlike other mammalian contributions (I am not going into flying reptile poo benefits).

Happy Cyclist Wrote:

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

> Due to the input from ubcleglen and zebedee tring,

> the list has been amended.

>

> 1-dragon poo

> 2-dog poo

> 3-cat poo

> 4-bird poo

> 5-human poo

> 6-fox poo



This thread is swiftly tuning into poo itself....EDF Poo must be at the top...


I have to agree with Zebedee Tring, who would have though complaining about dogs sh!tting on the street would be so controversial....

I support Woodstock. I love other people's dogs, but I hate and resent having to clear up their dog crap left on the pavement outside the house. Toosmart1973 - put your phone number on this thread so I can call you up to do the crap clearing.
I'm still looking for the "minefields", I walk my dog every day around here and haven't seen much and she can sniff them out for sure. Most people are picking up, obviously there are some that don't. I think this thread will have a good run! ☺

turtle Wrote:

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

> I'm still looking for the "minefields", I walk my

> dog every day around here and haven't seen much

> and she can sniff them out for sure. Most people

> are picking up, obviously there are some that

> don't. I think this thread will have a good run!

> ☺


I hope you're not poopooing it

Dog duck Wrote:

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

> turtle Wrote:

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

> -----

> > I'm still looking for the "minefields", I walk

> my

> > dog every day around here and haven't seen much

> > and she can sniff them out for sure. Most

> people

> > are picking up, obviously there are some that

> > don't. I think this thread will have a good

> run!

> > ☺

>

> I hope you're not poopooing it



Half and half, I'll let you decide which!

Dog crap on pavements, front gardens or anywhere else is disgusting. Absolutely vial. The OP should not have to clean up the crap from someone else's dog, bucket or water or not. And I am sure people that have not paved over their front garden have not left them, so that it may become a dog toilet. Owners need to clean up after their dogs.

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?


Hear hear!


I don't know why people are being so mean (but it isn't surprising because people seem to like insulting others for no real reason). Why anyone who doesn't have a dog should be clearing up dogs mess (which should be cleared up by the dog owner) is bizarre to me; whether it's 7 seconds or not! and it's nasty!


Dog owners should be responsible!!

turtle Wrote:

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

> I don't think owners who leave dog mess in the

> street are going to volunteer for this type of

> scheme. Think I'll poo poo that one!


The idea, as it says at the end of the article, is that it eliminates the responsible owners so they can start targeting the irresponsible ones...anyway, why not make it compulsory, now microchipping is compulsory, take a DNA sample at the same time? I know there's a town in Spain which made it compulsory and fined anyone whose dog's mierda was found in the street - virtually 100% eradicated it.

Even the "good" dog owners - the one that scoop the poop - aren't always totally good. Some leave the bags of canine cack on top of the special bins, too lazy to lift the lid. This is exactly what happens on Ryedale, Dunstan's Road end.

No excuse for letting a dog shit on the pavement (or street).

Once you've walked it into your house and up your stairs and tried to clean the stinking mess you may be less inclined to think it's 'no big deal'. That holds only if no-one treads in it.

Zebedee's input (above) is worth looking at too.

This wouldn't qualify as "good" though.


Nigello Wrote:

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

> Even the "good" dog owners - the one that scoop

> the poop - aren't always totally good. Some leave

> the bags of canine cack on top of the special

> bins, too lazy to lift the lid. This is exactly

> what happens on Ryedale, Dunstan's Road end.

Mildly interestingly, to me at least, if your CCTV covers people on the street then you could be in breach of the Data Protection Act. Maybe doesn't apply to dogs though.


https://ico.org.uk/for-the-public/cctv


If your camera covers, even partially, any areas beyond the boundaries of your property, such as neighbouring gardens or the street, then it will no longer be exempt from the Data Protection Act (DPA) under the domestic purposes exemption. This does not mean that you are breaching the DPA but it does mean that you might need to take some steps to comply with it.

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...