Scott Carter, Team Manager, DMBC ASB Department Dear Scott, I remain very disappointed as to the manner in which your outfit is operating. 1) Firstly, I must point-out that I have had no response concerning Sarah's Stitch-up, about which a complaint was lodged at Stage Two (after no response at Stage One) - an automatic acknowledgement was received on 2nd March 2022, reference SR-000703315; in this, I allege that staff, in their haste and keenness to condemn and victimise a civilised man, are perverting the course of justice. 2) It now seems that a couple of your boys, presumably with nothing better to do, have also agreed to give me a chasing! I was summoned to a meeting at Harbour Buildings on the third of this month, but couldn't give a guarantee of attendance, mainly because my work occasionally involves a late call-out but also because I was seeking representation for the encounter. It wasn't until 1330, half-an-hour before the meeting that I found-out, at the offices of Waldrons Solicitors (also part of the Waterfront development), that suitable, affordable, representation was not available; walking across the Number One Canal to Harbour Buildings, I discovered the meeting had been cancelled! 3) I agreed to re-arrange the meeting at the new venue of my home address - but still not happy that it was very likely, again, to be two-on-one; sure enough, two potential bully-boys showed at my door, last Thursday (10th November); they claimed that they were present to discuss my complaint (which was consistent with at least one written communique) so, given their reluctance to discuss the matter on my doorstep, were admitted. Very soon, I was presented with a document that included a list of complaints about their earnest host! Doesn't this represent an act of deception? 4) Having reflected on the Warning Notice, it could be considered, in fact, to represent a vindication of my approach to improving my neighbourhood - if the 'silly list' is the best your boys can manage then, either my busy work within this community has not involved any serious mistakes or your boys are rather lacking imagination! 5) I will not bore you with the detail here, but, essentially, I'm accused of anti-social behaviour when the threats to my life are being ignored! True, my principal antagonist (P Bradley, 157 High Street) has been warned, apparently, but it seems that his acts of fly-tipping are disregarded and his involvement, with another neighbour, in making those very unpleasant threats to life, has been inverted to an allegation against yours that I'm making "false and malicious allegations"! 6) So what's all this about? Some of the accusations regarding ASB include "shouting", being "aggressive" and a manner that might be considered "harassing" - I suspect that your boys actually mean that I disagree with some of my neighbours' points of view! It is not in my interests to indulge in any behaviour that might induce a violent response - not at all, thank you; I am a civilised man who enjoys a comfortable apartment with piped gas, mains electricity, water, sanitation and even two fine neighbours (beyond my walls and floors) - but also, within the same building, a dog! There's the problem - within ASB 19914, two of the three antagonists are distinctly pro-dog (including the keeper) and the third supports the stance of the other two; and both of your alleged bully-boys may well be dog-owners themselves! Lorenzo refuses to declare and Adam Reeve is at least 'very reluctant' to do so, but has previously mounted a staunch defence of The Dog during a telephone conversation (circa 1430, 3rd November). So, to conclude, we must be straight, frank and professional in our attempts to move the Borough in a forward direction - it is proper for those involved in pursuing matters of fairness and correctness to declare a personal hobby that has a bearing on any neighbourly dispute; Bradley's dog is toileted, several times a day, either on the High Street or in other public places - he has no private garden in which his revolting hound can perform! My view is that the Council should not allow this practice (other less offensive pets are available) and that Bradley's noxious habit represents indecent behaviour - Lorenzo and Adam Reeve may both enjoy private grounds. How about ASB arranging some mediation? DAustin 162 High Street Lye Village Stourbridge Civilised Man PS: Do you, yourself declare as pro-dog? PPS: On the third, my visit to Brierley Hill required a 'check on the conveniences' at a bar in the Waterfront - some hound barked, loudly, in my direction on my exit and whilst I was making my way across the floor of the premises to the door; my complaint to the proprietor returned a comment that dogs were preferable to humans! Does that dog employ a toilet-bowl? PPPS: Using the canal to access my vehicle after the visit to Harbour Buildings, again on the third, the same dog, I suspect, was encountered on the towpath, not too distant from deposited faeces - charming! And what dog is interested in industrial archaeology?