Re: Complaint of Anti-Social Behaviour - Letter Dated 18th October - Ref 19914 Lorenzo, I have just received an 'advisory letter' relating to ASB 19914. Firstly, since your call of yesterday, that largely concerned the nasty incident of 3rd October, it has occurred to me that the alleged act of fly-tipping that took place a short while before the 'nasty incident', comes with evidence that was sent through to the Council, but that you, yourself, might not have seen; accordingly, I have attached two related images, taken on the 1st and 3rd, before and after the dumping. This is the important, text sent with the email to DCPlus on the third, entitled, "Fly-tipped wood and sticks - Connops Way DY9 8UD": ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Plus, Please find attached two images regarding recent dumping in Connops Way. 1) One shows, admittedly in the dark, various items propped against the wall to apartment 157, High Street DY9 8LT (residence of M Bradley), close to Bradley's outhouse, on the evening of Saturday 1st October. 2) The second shows the same articles dumped at the top of Connops Way DY9 8UD (close to the fence separating the Way from Love Lane walkway) and found this morning (3rd October). 3) I have retained the items (two 'Health-Service-issue' walking aids and short lengths of timber) with a third image available. Of course, I took the first photograph as I suspected they may be items awaiting the quiet of later in the evening prior to dumping - this is a repetition of previous fly-tipping, with M Bradley of 157 (and one of my antagonists in ASB 19914) as the principal suspect; though there is a little conjecture here, Bradley is the only 'realistic' suspect, with at least 99% certainty. Please pursue this matter with appropriate enquiries, if only to deter future dumping. PS: Bradley was seen on a rare litter-pick of Connops Way on the Sunday, as if to declare to the neighbourhood, "look it can't be me", yet he has put-up with the same take-away polystyrene carton (until Sunday) in front of his own front door on the High Street for weeks! Is this the manifest operation of the brain of a doggie? DA ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please note that this alleged fly-tipping has been discussed with the local Housing Manager, Phil Bertie, during his recent visit, with M Bertie shown the images. Secondly, regarding the letter received today, I must make a few points regarding its contents. A) I am offended by your team's suggestion that I have a detrimental effect on my community, but not surprised - ASB have a history of victimising the civilised man! B) You claim that the allegations (of threats to kill etc) during the 'nasty incident' of the third "cannot be substantiated" - but have ASB interviewed the third party in this affair (also the subject of ASB 16524), the ex-tenant of 164 High Street? Bradley is an accomplice. C) Regarding your call of yesterday (18th) I have reviewed my subsequent emailed message (copied below) and stand-by my remarks; you remain of the opinion, according to today's letter, that "you have involved yourself in a matter that did not concern you"; but this is ridiculous - of course I'm concerned if I hear a 'clattering in the yard' and, as the attached evidence strongly suggests, Bradley remains a 'persistent fly-tipper'. Do investigate the latest act and please also recall that the Council's own guidelines suggest that issues between residents (and others within the community, such as traders) might be resolved by some form of contact or 'negotiation' before calling on Borough services. D) I am not "provoking the neighbour" to "get a reaction"; this is again ridiculous - I have spent the last few years trying to avoid the character, so as not to precipitate more criminal acts. Indeed, it is reprehensible that the Council have made no significant attempt to solve this problem that has 'substantially trashed' my quality of life. E) You also claim that I am trying to provoke a reaction so that, "you can then call the Police/Council to report a further incident"; this is a shameful allegation on the part of ASB - my work for this community must suggest that I am one of the few that takes neighbourly relations seriously; please consider withdrawing these remarks. F) Regarding conversations that might take place 'out of windows', I concede that it can be at least irritating when these take place from the street to residents' properties, or vice versa; but these are usually carried out by drunks and druggies - it is sometimes necessary to communicate in a similar manner if there is some urgency, when a change to outdoor clothing cannot be justified and given that an opportunity may be lost if time is wasted in changing or descending to the street. Emergencies require a range of communication techniques. G) The reference to aggressive manners and 'nuisance' behaviour is again unfortunate, if not insulting - just who is to set a good example 'round these parts? The Council is keen to incriminate anybody who attempts to raise standards and even make constructive suggestions as to the way forward - criticism is distinctly 'unwelcome', even though the Borough remains largely a litter-strewn dive (often marred by the Council's own junk) and an unsavoury dog-run. Room for improvement! David 'Bill' Austin, 162 High Street. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Message of yesterday: M Bradley - 157 High Street - Incident of 3rd October - telephone call of 18th October Lorenzo, This short note is in response to this morning's call regarding the latest, nasty, incident involving M Bradley (3rd October). I must remark that I am very disappointed that it appears little interest is taken in Bradley's abuse, threats, assaults and persistent dumping of rubbish - and that's in addition to the indecent practice of toileting his dog in public (when other, less offensive, pets are available). I understand that I am warned of the possibility of the issue of a Community Protection Notice - quite absurd when I am one of the few that actively endeavours to move my neighbourhood in a forward direction. A few thoughts here, admittedly including some repetition and comments, made during our telephone conversation are: 1) I need to monitor my neighbour's behaviour and I thanked Bradley for not dumping rubbish in Connops Way - I did not comment on his possible abuse of the communal bin which is for regular domestic waste. 2) It is reasonable to monitor my neighbour's activities, especially given his history of fly-tipping and anti-social behaviour. 3) It is also reasonable to make my neighbour aware of the fact that his activities are being monitored, which itself may also reduce the incidents of fly-tipping; note that this is merely an extension of Neighbourhood Watch (of which I am still a member) and these activities of Bradley are taking place in public! 4) Simply by looking out of the window, Bradley may not be aware of my surveillance; put another way, it must be reasonable to observe my neighbour's public activities, making him aware. 5) Apparently, Bradley does not have a right to privacy whilst in a public place - again making someone aware of my presence is more than reasonable - better than covert spying. 6) Note also from legislation.gov.uk: Subsection (1) [F4or (1A)] does not apply to a course of conduct if the person who pursued it shows: (a)that it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime, (b)that it was pursued under any enactment or rule of law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any enactment, or (c)that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable. I must also note here that you have again refused to answer questions as to whether you are pro-dog or indeed a dog-owner; how can we ensure that bias does not enter these proceedings? Etc, David Austin ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Original message (3rd October) Lorenzo, Thank you for your call of earlier today - but there's just been another incident! There had been some 'protracted clattering' in the yard, sounding very much as if Bradley was 'recycling' some junk - I went to the window on the landing for a closer look and it appeared that Bradley had just finished placing some items in the communal bin; I thanked him for not fly-tipping more junk at the top of Connops Way, which he has done several times over the years (possibly as recently as this weekend). A few minutes later, at 1515, he appeared with an associate in Connops Way with his friend (now resident across High Street and one-time tenant of 164 High Street) shouting my name; I walked to the window when the friend advised me that "If you don't leave this man alone, I'll put you in the ground" and "Your car's an eyesore - in two minutes that car will no longer be there". This threatening behaviour (including a suggestion of possible criminal damage) was reported to the Police (log 2607) but isn't Bradley now an associate, conspiring with 'ex-164' to at least cause considerable alarm and distress? Is threatening a life now acceptable in these parts, especially if it's the life of a civilised man? DAustin 162 High Street DY9 8LT