J,

Unfortunately there has been another incident in this case, this time with M Bradley, of 157 High Street, employing a fluid, presumably water.

Philip, also known also as 'Frothy', Bradley, left our common 'suite of apartments' 157-162 High Street DY9 8LT, with his dog, on Saturday 11/4/20 circa 12pm, and entered Connops Way DY9 8UD; I washed down the yard 'after Frothy's revolting hound'; at 3pm, checking my mail, I discovered a letterbox soaked with some fluid - hopefully just water! Though there is no reasonable doubt, could the Council establish that 'Frothy' was responsible? I'd rather not have my correspondence similarly soaked in future! 

Additionally, I must ask, does this latest development, another attack on my premises, and coming soon after the detailed threats to my person, represent criminal damage?

M Bradley may also have been hosting a relative (possibly claimed brother Kevin) on Saturday afternoon, albeit I have only limited evidence for this; if this is contrary to the current rules on social-distancing, can M Bradley at least be reminded of his obligations? On Tuesday 7th April at 7:05pm M Bradley was also seen cycling, possibly to see relatives, in a different household, as he has done historically, though I have no evidence that he wasn't merely 'taking exercise'; this is also, if true, contrary, I understand, to Covid-19 restrictions.

Also regarding the current 'Coronavirus crisis', the British Veterinary Association, as reported by the BBC, have advised that "stay at home is extended to our pets" - shouldn't M Bradley thus employ a dog-tray? Could he, alternatively, return his pet, with a period of quarantine, if appropriate, to its proper owner, apparently with a private garden, in Durham? One of my neighbours has housed cats for years, with no apparent harmful effects on her pets, employing a cat-tray for toileting, with no adverse consequences for neighbours or the neighbourhood. 

Frothy's hound can turn, as can any dog, and take a slice out of the calf of any passing occupant of this 'suite of apartments', and the dog may be bringing any number of diseases, or the viruses and bacteria responsible, into the house, including Lyme disease, Sepsis and, now, Coronavirus. 

It has also been suggested that the dog is seriously overweight, being persistently overfed by its current keeper, M Bradley - can the Council investigate this possible form of animal mistreatment?

I must here also mention M Bradley's historic acts of fly-tipping, some of which I have witnessed, and some of which I have asked the Council to investigate, such as the recent dumping of an 'easy-chair' and complementary sofa in Connops Way (images have been provided); Frothy also has that annoying habit of securing 'is bicycle in the common yard to the rear of apartments 157-162, representing an eyesore and setting a bad example which can lead to further 'clutter' and consequential anti-social behaviour - he also has the habit of storing his bicycle inside the 'suite of apartments', next to the front, High Street, entrance, rendering as difficult the access to a junction-box or terminal housing and also potentially causing problems so close to a fire-exit. Again, this annoying habit, in which Frothy is deliberately 'playing adolescent games' with the authorities, sets a bad example and can lead to increased clutter and anti-social behaviour, especially when adequate storage is available either within 'is flat or 'is shed.

In terms of solutions, shouldn't the Council now act in accordance with its duty of care and responsibilities as landlord? If the Council is reluctant to seize this dog, I must provide a reminder that it is not illegal to have a dog 'humanely put-to-sleep', especially when it represents a threat to neighbours as detailed above - my offer, now of £1000, for this dog's head has been in the 'public domain' for some time. Given that would represent, as M Bradley could obtain another dog, only a temporary solution, I would prefer that Frothy 'imself was 'terminated', but that would require a change to UK law - my justification would  be that Frothy is persistently committing an indecent act, in public, allowing 'is revolting hound to defecate either in Connops Way (underneath my kitchen window, conceded as at least unreasonable by WMP) or on the High Street, a potentially custodial crime, with prison an expensive failure. Any person walking a dog in public is similarly demonstrating an inadequacy either in the development of personal, human, relationships or in the ability to cope with his or her own company. Shoot it!

Again in terms of immediate practical solutions, I would be prepared to fund the carriage or conveyance of Frothy's dog to Durham or, until another 'home' is found, the reasonable purchase of a dog-tray and associated bags of litter.

D.

PS: Many of your colleagues, J, are members, not only of the dog-squad, but also the god-squad; what god would 'ave created Our Frothy and are they prepared for that prominent canophile, Boris Johnson, to claim, given he was discharged from hospital on Easter Day, that 'e's b'n resurrected?