Official complaint submitted to DMBC 13th December 2020:

Service Area: Anti-Social Behaviour; Relating to: Service Delivery; Address: 162 High Street DY9 8LT.

Madam/Sir,

Today, 13th December, is the anniversary of the lowest point in the short history of DMBC, yet no response has been received after various complaints; "Sarah's Stitch-Up" was submitted as an official complaint at DCPlus, on Saturday 13th April 2019; present, as confirmation, were Jenny Caladine, another officer and a security guy (all dog people!).

DCPlus was again visited on 21st December 2019 am; I spoke to Glyn, who would probably declare as female, asked for a response from April's meeting and issued 'Third Anniversary' sheet to be scanned and sent (to ASB about whom I am complaining, apparently) - Glyn has 3 dogs that live with her and are walked in public (and defecate in public) despite having a rear garden available!

The accounts mentioned above are copied at http://www.dwaustin.net/dahome2.html (under 'Dogs off our streets, out of our parks') and are reproduced here, in part:

‘Afternoon J,
Regarding: Sarah’s Stitch-Up.
The second anniversary of the Borough’s nadir is fast approaching – yet the requested apology, for declining to consult my witnesses, is still to appear.
As a reminder of the background to this dispute, this tax-payer’s aspiration is that, whilst opening my curtains of a morning, I do not anticipate the sight of a pile of Sarah's boys' detritus and, whilst opening a window, I do not fear the stench of a pile of Sarah's dogs' excrement.
Whilst progress, some would argue, was being made, Julie Davies, a neighbour, entered the scene with a complaint that I had, apparently, shown sufficient affection neither for ‘erself, nor for ‘er dog! Flippin’ ‘eck!  Complicit in this farce are Juliet Davies (no relation, acting directly), Tracey Rowe (acting in a supervisory capacity) and Sarah Norman (acting in a managerial capacity). All female! What are the respective chances, then, J, that one, two or all three of these colleagues have indulged in that familiar tactic of promoting their own, female, gender, by relegating the male? Could this be the simplest case of unfair discrimination on the grounds of gender?
Some associate The Dog with femininity, but how is this possible, J, when the dog is bred and thus not natural? Also difficult to comprehend is just how Sarah and her sidekicks remain in post. If a person employs its gender or sexuality to gain an advantage, that might be termed evolution; but if that person is in a position of authority within a public body (ostensibly delivering public services for which I pay) and uses such tactics (in addition to wasting Police time and, by making false allegations, perverting the course of justice) in order to secure a conviction – that’s corruption, isn’t it, J? 
What gives rise, J, to this remarkable degree of arrogance and conceit? Sarah is the most prominent canophile in this list, so, given that she has messed-up, she has fouled-up, and that no human is free of blemish, could it be said, in an inevitable extension of this metaphor, that the only creature connected to this affair that believes in the perfection of the individual is Sarah’s dog?
To try to end on a moment of mirth, a chap can still occasionally be seen amongst the filth and the squalor, clutching a plastic bag and a resplendent metallic litter-picker, so, J, is it possible that Julie has been overcome by the sight of his stick, flashing on the High Street?
D.

Kevin O’ Keefe, DMBC.
Regarding: Sarah’s Stitch-Up, Third anniversary.
Why should a chap keen on clean streets suffer so much persecution? The Council spreads, or condones, garbage on the streets ‘awaiting collection’ in the same manner that its dogs spread their waste, but often without ‘collection’, across every park and reserve within this potentially delightful Borough – yet why does it react, when suggestions as to the way forward are made, like a bunch of spoiled children?
Here is one example, concerning an allegation of harassment by a prominent local politician: I rang Cllr Elizabeth Walker who agreed to meet-up, but ... how can a chap be accused of harassment after making an appointment? ... campaigning for clean streets, I found myself in a Councillors' surgery ... barring yours truly from future surgeries, inspired, apparently, by the alleged female Councillor at the meeting, on the grounds of harassment! But I've never been known to swear, the meeting was at least two-on-one and one of the Councillors was twice my size! Isn't this another abuse of public monies? Worse, arguably, is the conduct of Officials; complaining that a lonely neighbour had chased a chap down the High Street ... I found myself arrested, a week later, at the insistence of those same, female, Council Officials, on suspicion, again, of harassment! Abuse of position? Abuse of public funds? And why the hate? 

Could I request a response?

DAustin.

Thank you. Your enquiry has been successfully submitted.
Your request number is: SR-000442980.
You should hear from us within 20 days.
[Note the contractions due to space limitations]