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

[Angelina]

I bet we see a reduction in fouling dog owners.

We know the authorities do not have resources to keep our children safe, let alone our streets clean.

[Penguin68]

I have noticed, over the few years I have been following this forum, that posts on dogs - either their fouling or their attacks on people and other dogs - are started, or revived, about every 6 weeks. It would seem that, much as many love dogs (and I do as well, though I haven't had care of one for over 50 years) they are uneasy cohabitees in an urban setting.

I very much doubt whether KK has invented the incident he reported out of whole cloth - why would he bother?

And I fully understand the frustration so many have, particularly responsible dog owners, on those few who continue to give them a bad name. There was uncollected dog poo, he did collect and dispose of it as a responsible citizen, and I fully understand his desire to point the finger at the person he believed (alleged in good faith, I would argue) was the transgressor (a transgression not just of social norms, but of the law).

We have accepted pictures of other transgressors and law breakers on this forum. Of course it partly smacks of bullying, and he has presented no evidence other than his word - but I cannot see that this should automatically or necessarily not be believed. Not collecting dog poo, particularly that left in busy shopping streets, (and there are other places too equally heinous, such as in playgrounds and near schools) is disgusting and a disgrace.

If other mechanisms cannot or do not work, public exposure may be a (necessary) last resort.

[intexasatthe moment]

Public exposure in this way still smacks of taking the law into one's own hands .

And I don't agree that if other mechanisms don't work that public exposure is the answer* - it is too open to abuse .

I'm not sure if other mechanisms were tried here ?

It might be difficult and tedious ( collecting evidence and following the law can be ) but there have been succesful prosecutions brought where photographic evidence has resulted in a conviction

https://www.great-yarmouth.gov.uk/article/3499/Public-thanked-as-Great-Yarmouth-Borough-Council-secures-20th-dog-fouling-prosecution-in-under-three-years

https://nappyvalleynet.com/community/viewtopic.php?t=97988

https://www.stroud.gov.uk/news-archive/dog-fouling-costs-owner-1-000-after-stroud-district-council-takes-him-to-court

* I appreciate it was not put as strongly as that

[Angelina]

So the lesson is, take photos...better, clearer, of dog and owner and mess and don't post on public forum, go straight to police. If poss, get cctv

[Frankito]

And analysis paralysis isn?t the answer either....!! Let?s just leave them to it as we don?t want to risk ever offending anyone....

moment Wrote:

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

> Public exposure in this way still smacks of taking

> the law into one's own hands .

>

> And I don't agree that if other mechanisms don't

> work that public exposure is the answer* - it is

> too open to abuse .

>

> I'm not sure if other mechanisms were tried here

> ?

>

> It might be difficult and tedious ( collecting

> evidence and following the law can be ) but there

> have been succesful prosecutions brought where

> photographic evidence has resulted in a conviction

>

> https://www.great-yarmouth.gov.uk/article/3499/Pub

> lic-thanked-as-Great-Yarmouth-Borough-Council-secu

> res-20th-dog-fouling-prosecution-in-under-three-ye

> ars

>

> https://nappyvalleynet.com/community/viewtopic.php

> ?t=97988

>

> https://www.stroud.gov.uk/news-archive/dog-fouling

> -costs-owner-1-000-after-stroud-district-council-t

> akes-him-to-court

>

> * I appreciate it was not put as strongly as that

[Seabag]

Sue Wrote:

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

> Are people suggesting that KidKruger has posted a

> picture of a woman on here who was just a random

> person passing by?

>

> With no good reason for doing it?

>

> Come on ....

Exactly, come on.

[first mate]

It seems part of the justification for posting photos is that dog fouling is a criminal offence and it's nasty...all true. However, other forms of littering are also a criminal offence. Suppose I decide to post up pictures of people I see dumping ciggie butts or empty beer bottles, or chicken bones? What about footballers who publicly urinate on Peckham Rye- another criminal offence- should we post photos of them up? What about spitting in the street? None of these examples to be photographed while caught in the act mind, just saying I saw them do it with a photo to identify and shame them, on a public forum.

If you have evidence you take it through the proper channels, if you don't I am not sure the above is the way to go.

Again, I personally believe KK. I think use of phrases like 'I don't recall' go some way to a tacit admission by the dog owner that it probably did happen. If this person was seen allowing their dog to foul and not clean up on a regular basis I would suggest there is an opportunity to gather evidence and take it to the council. However, it could also be that the dog owner genuinely did not notice, or had left the house that day without a poo bag, and this may be the first time she fell short of her responsibilities...we all make mistakes. If the latter, being publicly shamed by a photo seems especially harsh.

[Sue]

first mate Wrote:

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

> It seems part of the justification for posting

> photos is that dog fouling is a criminal offence

> and it's nasty...all true. However, other forms of

> littering are also a criminal offence. Suppose I

> decide to post up pictures of people I see dumping

> ciggie butts or empty beer bottles, or chicken

> bones? What about footballers who publicly urinate

> on Peckham Rye- another criminal offence-

These things do not get on your shoes or buggy wheels and then into your house, get on children, or cause blindness in children.

[first mate]

Agreed, but look at the environmental impact and cost of other types of litter- cigarette butts and plastics for starters- these are not 'harmless'. Granted, the immediate personal cost may not be so great but they still have a negative impact. Broken glass is another and there is loads of it around.

I understand the considerable rage and disgust experienced after stepping in dog poop and it is massively inconvenient to have to clean it off- not to mention the dangers to health for children and pregnant women, I doubt anyone is disputing that. But I still don't agree that posting up photos of alleged perpetrators, without clear cut evidence, is the way to go. if you have all that then the person can be properly reported. If online photo shaming becomes more prevalent it would be open to abuse. It is a modern version of the stocks and I could not support that.

[binkylilyput]

We regularly see cctv pics posted of apparently dodgy people coming to people?s front doors.

KK actually saw this person leave the poo with his owns eyes. Obviously a pity he didn?t manage to get the actual act but that would be impossible.

Tough for the lady to to have this made public. Anyone would feel ashamed by this. So next time, pick up the poo.

Shame avoided.

Plus the longer this thread goes on, the more potential poo leavers might see it and think twice about it.

[FreyaMikaelson]

I just find it ironic that the dog fouler calls herself a "reliable" and "experienced" cleaner, dog walker and pet sitter.

[Sephiroth]

The ?rights and wrongs? of publishing photos of criminals seems to be deflecting from someone who is completely out of order (multiple meanings. Feel free to choose your preference)

If I was walking my dog and accidentally or otherwise allowed them to do what the OP describes, and I was pictured on here I can absolutely be sure that I would be contrite. I wouldn?t want my picture ON here but I would hold my hands UP, apologise and then request the pictures be removed

Pictures on here? Not great but then again cameras are everywhere

Stop your public fouling (be it dogs or your own litter) and don?t get so CAPITAL LETTER BADLY SPELLED SHOUTY WEIRD

This isn?t hard

[tiddles]

I have been reading this with interest. Then it struck me. Bit slow I know - but the dog was on a lead.

As a dog owner you know if your dog has done a poo or not.

Yes there is an argument about publishing photos or not - but the accused has done nothing but protest in capitals about harassment and not ?recalling? the incident.

I am dog owner and I know damn well if my dog does a poo or not - esp on lead

[FreyaMikaelson]

Clearly she doesn't like to take responsibility for her actions, so any offers of services by this woman should be taken with caution.

[Asset]

I've seen several posts on here where people have put pictures up. For example the woman with the 2 white staffie dogs that were attacking other dogs, teenagers misbehaving in the street, security cam pictures of people at doors.

None of these have caused such a debate as this one and I wonder why that is? Is it just because the 'perpetrator' has come on (rather shoutily) to decry the behaviour.

I personally think it is a little dubious to post pictures of people on a public forum without their consent but I don't think it's illegal.

I also think that people who leave their dog's poo on the street should be called out on it.

[JohnL]

People can post photos IMHO but if the person in the photos asks for them to be removed they should be (again IMHO).

The guys in many of the photo's on here have no idea they're there - not sure if that's right but it's how it is.