J,

Reference 19379 (ASB Team), 8th Jan 2020.

I have just opened a letter sent by ‘Craig Dabin-Williams’, Anti-Social Behaviour Officer, DMBC. I have had no previous dealings with Craig, so, again, it’s disappointing to read an antagonistic despatch from a complete stranger, who has, presumably, just joined the team. From whom have briefings been received, I wonder? I will assume that Craig identifies as male, but, critically, I do not know his position regarding The Dog; if Craig is that renowned Pagan, then does he appreciate, I wonder, that no faith, belief or philosophy that is “close to nature” can embrace The Dog, which is not natural? As an aside, I am reminded of that early morning party back at College in the mid-seventies, at which I played host in order to celebrate the Vernal Equinox; baked beans on toast, with white wine, was the fare on offer!
Regarding the content of the letter, the Council is again demonstrating its unaccountable hostility towards, arguably, its last civilised resident. It is not possible to have a “detrimental effect on the quality of life of [my] neighbours and community”, given the litter-picking, rubbish clearance and lobbying in which I indulge. There may well be one or two spiteful, inadequate characters within my ‘community’ that do not understand the principles by which civilised man operates, but then, that is true of many within the Council, including both Members and Officials. That my behaviour is “unreasonable” is a judgement that Craig makes, surprisingly, given that he may share some of my values, but will be a function of his own value-system – if it is similar to that shared by many of your colleagues, J, then we are indeed in an unsatisfactory position!

In his opening remarks Craig also makes reference to approaching residents in an “aggressive and intimidating manner”. This I reject. No person in this community has ever reacted to me personally that suggests that I am in any way “aggressive and intimidating”, nor is it in my interests to be “aggressive” as such behaviour might precipitate a reaction that I would be keen to avoid. More specifically, regarding residents, I deny “throwing water over them and their dogs”, though both local species might sometimes benefit from a good wash!

I also reject the idea that I have “wasted valuable Council time” by making “unsubstantiated complaints” – it is not in my interests to behave in such a manner – and I do not accept  any conduct of mine represents “harassing Council employees” – many Governmental officials do not welcome any approach from members of the public, despite funding their wages and salaries through taxation, as this increases workload without increasing remuneration.

Taking Craig’s ‘bulleted paragraphs’ in order:

I deny that I have been “abusive or threatening” to any person in the vicinity of my home here on High Street – this is more invention from either a few spiteful neighbours or the Council (or both).

I have not thrown water at any person or its dog. It is possible, given the recent heavy rain, that our notoriously inadequate gutters have leaked; that the washing of my windows, or ledges, may have been carried-out rather ‘zealously’; that a resident of my ‘suite of apartments’ (157-162 High Street DY9 8LT) may be sending a message, without intending to wet dog or owner, that dogs should not be walked in public, should not urinate or defecate under any ‘person’s kitchen window’ (as they may well be preparing a meal at the time) and should not be admitted to any group of buildings (low-rise or high-rise) where there is a ‘common point of access’ (on the grounds that any dog can ‘turn’ (and then scratch or bite), that between one quarter and a third of dogs carry ticks that bear diseases that can be fatal to humans and that between one quarter and one third of dogs carry bacteria that can give rise to Sepsis, also potentially fatal to humans). This allegation may well have been made by Philip Bradley (157 High Street) who has, as recently reported to the ASB department (reference number 10751184, 7th January 2020) indulged in threatening and abusive behaviour including describing yours truly as a “crazy c**t”. Philip is one of Britain’s “social inadequates” who persists in walking his revolting hound under my kitchen window. This is presumably to antagonise as he must know, after years of friendly conversation (before he brought his wretched hound, for any length of time, into the ‘house’) that I do not appreciate this practice and there are other places where his dog can be walked away from my kitchen window (such as by leaving through the ‘front door’ and entering the High Street rather than leaving through the rear door and into Connops Way). It must also be noted here that another repulsive dog that has appeared ‘on the scene’ and is walked, annoyingly and threateningly in front of my outhouse and by my garage on Connops Way (DY9 8UD) belongs to one, or both, of the tenants at 164 High Street, one of which has repeatedly threatened my life and has assaulted my person (in the form of a variety of ‘Liverpool Kiss’ reported to the ASB Department as taking place during ‘Farmer’s Rut’). I must also state here that I have offered £500 for the head of either of these threatening dogs (that is £1000 for both), which, I understand, is not contrary to British law. My correspondence may also reveal that I would be pleased to ‘see the end’ of any person walking any dog, unnecessarily (to exclude assistance dogs) in public, but that is currently, regretfully, unlawful. Whatever, ‘due process’ would be necessary before any capital punishment, allowable by future legislation, can be applied.

Regarding the suggestion that I must not ‘remove or relocate items’ that do not belong to me; this is the most bizarre suggestion I’ve so far met – the Council itself must concede that itself indulges in the occasional litter-pick. Very odd.

Not take photographs of residents? I’m scanning my brain for any occasion when I have photographed a resident – cannot retrieve any such memory! I doubt whether my ‘phone or computer carries any such image. This may well be a reference to my appearance at the ‘landing windows’ where I might be clutching my ‘phone when those hateful characters wander past with their hateful hounds. This is both reasonable and lawful behaviour – why should I have to leave my ‘phone in my apartment if I want to survey the potentially gorgeous surrounds of my ‘back yard’ (that’s Connops Way with its delightful cherry tree, magnificent maples, splendid silver birches, its birds its squirrels and its foxes, and, yes, the occasional loathsome dog). I am reminded of ‘Sarah’s Stitch-Up’ when my ‘phone was scoured for pictures of that ‘spherical dog-person’ Julie Davies (with, predictably, no success); here we go again, J?

I do not see how a person can be genuinely, and seriously, offended by an offer of monies for ‘services rendered’. Again, I have offered £500 for either of my neighbours’ dogs’ heads. I am hoping that one of the skilled ‘Halal’ butchers in this community can help-out here; in such an abattoir, sheep, say, must be executed, by the slitting of throats, by the hundred, or thousand each day – seeing to my neighbours’ dogs would be a matter of routine. Perhaps a good shot, a member of a gun club, maybe, could also help-out – a dog must not be caused any pain, but it can be put-down. I have not the skills, nor the weaponry. Inducements to Council employees? I may have offered ‘a few bob’ to some of your colleagues, J, to try and persuade them to perform in a manner to which they are supposed to conform, any road. I’ve tried to persuade, for example, the bin-crews to avoid driving across the turf in the potentially-delightful Connops Way, with some recent success, by the offer of a tenner. I’ve also tried to persuade the caretaker to pick my front lawn on High Street, with a fiver, but I don’t think he likes the traffic! Any suggestions, here, J?

I do not wish to ‘approach people walking their dogs’. No thank you! When I’m about in the High Street, which isn’t very often these days since 164 moved in with ‘is reekin’ wife and stinkin’ dog, I do hold-up a coin that might, perhaps, be found in my pocket; this is readily accepted, by some, for dog-bags.

Must not approach a Council employee or enter a Council building? But I’ve never touched or abused any Council employee and such denial of public services to a tax-payer, citizen and resident is an abuse of Craig’s position, isn’t it, J?

We’ve covered the issue of faeces through the post on previous occasions. The last time I looked this was ‘within the rules’ providing the faeces is ‘securely packed’ and I claim to be an appropriate institution. I claimed, if I recall correctly, to be conducting sociological research into what makes Blighty such a dive; The Dog is a public manifestation of the solipsism that currently infects the nation – dot gov dot UK. Yuk!

Vexatious complaints to the Council? The central problem with your outfit, J, is that it is an arm of government and thus considers itself above and beyond criticism – but simply walking the streets, the parks and the ‘so-called’ nature reserves, must convince you that this potentially-delightful Borough is, with Blighty as a whole, a corrupt and filthy dog-run, mustn’t it, J?

D.