Going far too far!

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by Acrylic-bob

Oh well, after a bit of digging it turns out that the motion that set this ridiculous performance in motion was presented to the council by none other than the follicly challenged Cllr. Moss.

It was the next item on the agenda after the Kashmiri business. Apparently you can now be fined £1,000 for allowing your pooch to sully the sacred streets and parks of our fair borough. And more, your neighbours are now being encouraged to inform on you.

Isn't that how the STASI started in East Germany?

The collectivist agenda proceeds apace.

Well maybe when Councillor Moss next logs on here for a shufty, he might like to enter his password in that little box on the top right hand corner of his screen and tell us the reasoning behind this extravagance, extravagance to was so ready to condemn while in opposition I ain't holding my breath

[Acrylic-bob]

Originally Posted by Less

Firstly, let me state that I am all for pet owners of any kind to act responsibly, after all, it IS your animal, you have no right to let it crap just anywhere.

I quite agree with you on that point Less. There can be few things more inconvenient and annoying than a shoeful of Doggy doos. Just in the same way that there can be few things more calculated to annoy than finding your garden turned into a toilet by the neighbourhood cats or the footpath blocked with steaming piles of horse turds.

I have no problem with cleaning up after Acrylic-Biff, it is a minor inconvenience more than amply compensated for by the fun and companionship he offers me. But surely, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander too. Why are only dog owners the targets here?

[Acrylic-bob]

Could it possibly be that, like smokers, we are easy targets.

[Less]

Originally Posted by Acrylic-bob

Could it possibly be that, like smokers, we are easy targets.

Yes.

There are bigger nuts the Council paid for, sledge hammer could be cracking than this.

[Acrylic-bob]

And while we are at it, now that you mention it, How many sledge hammers did the council shell out for, and how much did they cost?

[Margaret Pilkington]

was it more than the nuts?

[MargaretR]

I notice that all who have posted here have assumed that what was reported is true.
You have been shown a photo of the 'gear'.

There is nothing to prevent such equipment being hired for a photoshoot.

What matters is the public perception that the equipment has been bought and will be used.

That is the deterrant to offending.
Whether or not the council has that gear won't be known until it has been used to catch an offender.

[Less]

Originally Posted by MargaretR

I notice that all who have posted here have assumed that what was reported is true.
You have been shown a photo of the 'gear'.

There is nothing to prevent such equipment being hired for a photoshoot.

What matters is the public perception that the equipment has been bought and will be used.

That is the deterrant to offending.
Whether or not the council has that gear won't be known until it has been used to catch an offender.

The above is the start of yet another conspiracy theory straight from the droppings of the farmers prize bull.

When, my dear fantasist, (term of affection), are you going to start looking at the real world rather than your doomsday for amateurs web pages?

[Boeing Guy]

Margaret, you have a point luv (see Terms of Endearment). Its a bit like the TV detector vans, I never thought of that.

Although if they have bought the gear, the Nikon looks more like the D7000 which is around
£1000.00 plus a darn big lens which must have cost a good few hundred.

[Less]

Originally Posted by Boeing Guy

Margaret, you have a point luv (see Terms of Endearment). Its a bit like the TV detector vans, I never thought of that.

She hasn't got a point, the detector vans were always a big con, anyone with just a smattering of understanding of electronics could have told you the so called coils on top of the van would have been useless for detecting anything except a low bridge by driving under it!
Do you see them around now? Do you see adverts on the beeb claiming they can even detect tellys in flats?

No, you don't and the reason for that is because it is illegal to use such false claims.
The same goes for the council, if they have claimed they have these over-priced articles with the intention of using them, then they had better have them & use them, or else what they claim is false and illegal.

[MargaretR]

...please note - governments, both local and National, never do anything illegal

[Margaret Pilkington]

Well, that is, not unless they get caught doing something illegal.

[MargaretR]

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

Well, that is, not unless they get caught doing something illegal.

They make the laws and can make them 'retrospective'.

[Less]

Originally Posted by MargaretR

...please note - governments, both local and National, never do anything illegal

Of course, we have had you say in many a post that you never lie, (lier, lier, pants on fire,(term of accusation)), so everything you post MUST be the truth, how foolish of me.

Note to self, get in touch with HBC and demand that as a council tax ower, I too should be allowed the irritation of hearing strange and unexplained noises within the area, they would make a change from the wierd bullshine Mags, (term of endearment), floods accyweb with.

I wonder, if dog owners have to pick up their crap, can she not be made to pick up the trail of it she leaves all over AccyWeb?

[Eric]

Great thread .... I just love a good laugh to go along with my first pot of coffee.