Lorenzo, M Bradley - 157 High Street - Incident of 3rd October - telephone call of 18th October: 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