Jump to content

Dog Fouler on Lordship Lane - noon 23/10/19


KidKruger

Recommended Posts

Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

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

> well, at least everyone knows that now there is a

> personal risk of being named and shamed so it may

> be a motivation to pick up your dog's poo.



or that there's risk that an anonymous person hiding behind a keyboard will post a picture of someone that you don't and make allegations that you've got no idea whether they're true on not


I don't think that it's appropriate

Link to comment
Share on other sites

?kid krugger As you have exposed my picture which has distress me and without any proof of wrong doing just a allegation, I will seek advice for harresment and wrong doing on your part. you will be hearing from me soon?


This is bullshit.

The person in the photograph, I saw her dog shit against the tree outside the card shop while she waited for it to finish then she crossed Lordship Lane to the health shop then walked along to the betting shop which is around the time that I photographed her, at this time she stuck her head in the door of the betting shop.

I don?t need any proof because I saw her dog shit on the street and this is not a court.

After taking her photograph I went back and picked up her dog?s shit and put it in the bin for her.

What I?d appreciate at this time is a THANK YOU, not a challenge, because I was there CLEANING UP AFTER HER.

Feel free to try and find evidence of a history of my telling lies previously.

Of course I considered carefully my OP, and I?m 100% confidence in the accuracy of what I posted.

The appropriate response here is not to question my character, but to hold your hand up and admit irresponsible anti-social behaviour, apologise, then confirm you will stop it.

It?s simply not OK to line the high st in dogshit, stop trying to distract.

Jeeez, I?m not even going to charge for the doggy bag !

It happened.

You did it.

You know you did it.

I know you did it.

Stop lying.

And sort your behaviour out.

(If you are the person in the photo).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can understand some peoples concerns about posting photos on a public forum, but the behaviour has to stop and short of putting somebody in the stocks and throwing rotten fruit at them it isn?t going to be fixed.

If admin think there is a case for taking the photos down, fine that?s up to them.

But if I see this again I will do exactly the same.

It is not okay.

I?ve approached people before having seen their dogs foul public spaces, and they just get defensive, aggressive, and come out with some shit excuse (pun intended).

Too many people in this neighbourhood are fouling the streets and parks and those I see I will publicise if I can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's why u put my picture up, to make people follow me, you have acted inappropriate and unkind, aS I SAID, I HAVE NO RECOLLECTION OF THIS, SO YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO JUST PUT MY PICTURE UP WITHOUT ANY PHOTOGRAPHIC PROOF OF WROMG DOING! END OFF! ALSO YOU SAY IN ONE OF YOUR POST. IVE BEEN DOING IT FOR YEARS! SO NOW IT DOES FEEL PERSONAL. U SEEM VERY ANGRY IN ALL YOU POSTS.

I

I

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I support KK in raising the issue and I don't believe for one minute that (he/ she) would have posted this without good reason. Perhaps the best thing would have been to ask the shop for CCTV as well.


It's a vile habit and I've witnessed people just walk away too. It's an offence and if a post like this makes people stop and think, then good.


Perhaps the best thing is to be obvious about taking photos. And maybe get the camera out sooner.


People post photos and videos on the forum frequently, of people who's behaviour is suspect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

    • Ah the sending asylum seekers to Rwanda argument.  Well let's see how effective that is. I've made suggestions of what to do.
    • But you don't think the same protection should be afforded to those on the anti-LTN side...? Given the witch hunt some are be conducting to unearth which local residents are involved (see numerous examples on this forum), given the vandalism of the anti-LTN signs and interference with cars, labelling of anyone who opposes as some sort of petrol-head facist and given even Anna Goodman's tearing down of an anti-LTN poster you still think you only want anonimyity for those on one side of the argument? Does that not seem slightly hypocritical...it's why your first post on this issue entertained so many of us - it seemed ever so one-sided and summed up the challenges anyone who opposes the measures has to fight?
    • Hello again, Rubie, my cat, is still missing. He has been gone since 18th April.  Rubie is black and white, with black ears, a splendid white moustache, white front paws, and mostly white back legs.  Please check your sheds etc as he may be trapped, he’s a curious little thing.  I would really appreciate any help and suggestions. Thank you.
    • There is no equivalence between One Dulwich purporting to be a local organisation speaking for local people, and actually properly constituted organisations such as The Dulwich Society. A 3 -second google search reveals the openly published names of the trustees of Dulwich Society, so I can make my own mind up as to whether these individuals are coming at local issues with a particular slant. I can read minutes of their meetings online, and whilst I might not agree with their every position, I can have confidence that they are an open and fundamentally democratic institution. There is absolutely nothing similar in terms of publicly accountable information to be found about One Dulwich - no idea of who is behind it, who pays for it ( it is clearly expensive), and on what basis they make their decisions.  Given the Police involvement in the intimidation of people with a public pro-LTN view ( for which there is no equivalence in terms of severity of any incident for those with an anti-LTN point of view), I can fully understand why, for Dulwich Society's traffic sub- committee only, they want a bit of online anonymity. I also find it slightly disturbing that when The Dulwich Society current leadership asked the 'grouping' pushing for changes within it for a meeting to discuss their concerns, they refused it. Given the recent experiences of organisations such as The National Trust, the question can be asked - is something similar going on here?   
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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