Ref: 20 008 062 – LGO Parks and Trees
Telephone: 0330 403 4067 
Email: R.Heath@coinweb.lgo.org.uk

Dear Robert,

I’m surprised there is no mention of the next step in this process; accepting that the LGO cannot provide extensive legal advice ‘on the taxpayer’, would the ‘next step’ be a judicial review, presumably at my cost?

I cannot accept your decision.

Regarding Christmas trees, you argue that the LGO cannot proceed “because the issue is one of expenditure which affects ‘all or most’ of the people in its area”. This I don’t understand; the LGO can consider matters involving Council expenditure, can it not? As to whether expenditure on Christmas trees affects ‘all or most’ people, any form of Council expenditure must affect all people (that is one person, two people up to all people) in the Borough as it is a public body and supported through public funds, mustn’t it? In terms of “injustice” the LGO must consider “whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint”; you are also unsure “why you link the Council’s decisions to put up Christmas trees to allegations of racism made against you” – a Muslim, say, may consider the erection of a Christmas Tree, using public monies, in the ‘Village’ (that is just off the High Street) as a display of bias towards one religion, Christianity, and might have contributed towards the accusations of racism that are made towards me when ‘out and about’. Technically, there is no such thing as race (as we all have the same African origin) but many of the Muslims I meet do sometimes accuse me of racism when discussing community matters, presumably because my appearance is ‘of a lighter hue’ (though no person is thoroughly black or thoroughly white); the presence of a Christmas tree may reinforce the dominance of one segment of the community, at the expense of another, with some Muslims associating yours truly with the tree. The Christmas tree will tend to divide rather than unite, but if you are a Christian, you may not agree and you should declare as appropriate.

Regarding dogs in parks, again, I consider that the current position has “an adverse impact on the person making the complaint” and thus represents, particularly as I contribute to a park’s upkeep, an injustice. We might reach the consensus that a park is a ‘managed greenspace for public recreation’; but if dogs are present, which is likely to include dogs off-lead, there is no possibility of civilised man enjoying, say, a relaxing stroll to take in the natural world. Dogs, that are not products of natural selection, tend to urinate at any time and may well defecate during their exercise, an unpleasant experience for civilised man to witness and also unnecessary – other pets are available such as budgerigars, hamsters and house-cats that have almost no adverse impact on the community. It is not possible to enjoy my only local extensive greenspace, Wollescote Park, or any other park in this hateful dog-run, as intended. Again, as with the local dog-folk, who are fiercely defensive of their revolting pets’ habits, your opinion may be influenced by your own habits in this regard – are you cynophillic?

David Austin
mail@dwaustin.net

Further message received 1st Feb 21 regarding review of decision. Note that one criterion is: "You have new and relevant information that was not previously available and which affects the decision we made." All information, of which DA is aware, has been disclosed.